GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Conservatards burning the constitution as soon as they feel threatened.
You mean just like liberal SJWs getting conservative speeches banned (1st amendment), wanting guns banned (2nd amendment) - but I guess bike locks, hatchets, wrenches, knives, clubs and hammers are OK? (While, of course, in the process of wanting to shut down conservative speech, that pesky 1st again)...?
And as soon as a conservative says the same thing, hypocritical liberals bash them for it?
IMHO it's wrong from either side, but don't do it yourself and then blame others for the same.
Do you bitch about the guy passing you at 95mph on the highway as being "dangerous" while dangerously weaving in and out of 65mph traffic at 80mph too?
Unless the government has involved itself in "banning speeches" or "grabbing guns", the amendments to the constitution are not in play.
Yes liberals have been seen acting as fucktards lately. No, that does not mean that we should end Freedom of the Press. Get a grip.
And yeah, I'm always driving at 10 over, but never weaving. The guy doing 90 and weaving is a fucking moron.
Ph64 wrote:
Do you bitch about the guy passing you at 95mph on the highway as being "dangerous" while dangerously weaving in and out of 65mph traffic at 80mph too?
And yeah, I'm always driving at 10 over, but never weaving. The guy doing 90 and weaving is a fucking moron.
So much for reading comprehension - but taking your 10mph over, what I said was *you* going 10mph over *while you* are dangerously weaving in and out of traffic, bitching that the guy passing you at 25mph over as "dangerous". (You slower and weaving complaining the guy merely speeding is being unsafe).
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Conservatards burning the constitution as soon as they feel threatened.
You mean just like liberal SJWs getting conservative speeches banned (1st amendment), wanting guns banned (2nd amendment) - but I guess bike locks, hatchets, wrenches, knives, clubs and hammers are OK? (While, of course, in the process of wanting to shut down conservative speech, that pesky 1st again)...?
And as soon as a conservative says the same thing, hypocritical liberals bash them for it?
IMHO it's wrong from either side, but don't do it yourself and then blame others for the same.
Do you bitch about the guy passing you at 95mph on the highway as being "dangerous" while dangerously weaving in and out of 65mph traffic at 80mph too?
Unless the government has involved itself in "banning speeches" or "grabbing guns", the amendments to the constitution are not in play.
Yes liberals have been seen acting as fucktards lately. No, that does not mean that we should end Freedom of the Press. Get a grip.
And yeah, I'm always driving at 10 over, but never weaving. The guy doing 90 and weaving is a fucking moron.
Freedom of the Press also in the constution so it too is not in play. Your excuses aren't working. You did this to yourselves, rhis is one shooting you can't politicize and take advantage of and it just eats you up inside.
Liberals have been fucktards and thier behavior is catching up with them. No ones rights are being threatened. Get a grip.
Alexander PhiAlipson wrote:Clintonista, Virginia Governor, guy who knows felons vote Democrat, within hours of the shooting, can't help but talk gun-control: We lose ninety-three MILLION Americans a day to gun violence....
3 and a half days and America is a vacant wasteland. This guy's a joke.
Alexander PhiAlipson wrote:Clintonista, Virginia Governor, guy who knows felons vote Democrat, within hours of the shooting, can't help but talk gun-control: We lose ninety-three MILLION Americans a day to gun violence....
3 and a half days and America is a vacant wasteland. This guy's a joke.
He did correct himself to 93 people a day. That's a big number still. 9/11 every 5 weeks or so. Even allowing for suicides that's still a big number. It's more than a year's worth of gun deaths in the UK.
Enjoy your rights America.
If gun control is not the answer( which probably isn't viable due to the insane numbers of guns out there already) what is the answer? Please don't reply ''it's mainly blacks dying'' as if that makes it OK.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Hastur wrote:I guess it's mostly unarmed people dying so the obvious answer is more guns.
Seems logical.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
