ABC News..Brian Ross says Batman shooter has tea party page.

ABC's Brian Ross reported this morning that there is "a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site... talking about him joining the Tea Party last year."

"Now, we don't know if this is the same Jim Holmes," Ross cautioned "but it's Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado."
Aurora shooting: ABC News draws possible Jim Holmes Tea Party connection - POLITICO.com

...

was this an innocent accident?


no it's part a super duper secret plot by the liberal media to GET the tea party.


:cuckoo:
 
Last edited:
The word gets bandied about enough to make it meaningless now. Pity, because it's quite an important word... and should be used wisely... but that would be too much to expect from idiots.

ssohtheirony.png
 
In you opinion, you mean- misreading

SCOTUS

2008 District of Columbia v. Heller
"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."

2010 McDonald v. Chicago
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.


As for "failing" to stop
that is a rather poor attempt to rewrite history

It was a proactive action by the gov't to move arms
across our border, purposely, into the arms of criminals

Yeah, the gov't has the majority of blame there
no matter how much you don't want it to be,,,

Again, five knuckle draggers on the Supreme Court don't make it so.

Scalia dies of a heart attack, Obama appoints another liberal, and the Second Amendment is about militias again. Sorry. You lose.
 
Agree

SCOTUS rulings can always be changed

But again, it is still your opinion
and holds less legal merit than a SCOTUS ruling

was the only point

-------------------------------------------------------------






:eusa_whistle:
Here boy
 
Here, NeoTrotsky, I agree with you: SCOTUS rulings can change. You are so shallow, my friend. Of course they can change.
 
People like Obama and Holder have risen to the top on the backs of sycophants like you. Your agenda has clouded your sense of responsibility and integrity.

Not at all.

I'm a pragmatist.

If you have declared gun ownership as a "right" based on the bad misreading of the second amendment (which was actually about militias, not guns), you can't get all upset that the governmetn failed to stop a few guns from crossing the border when you make it so easy for that to happen.

They say if you repeat the lie often enough people will start to believe it.

You're a propagandist and a liar, Joe.

No lie here. Miller vs. US found that the Second Amendment was about Militias, and Cities, States and the Federal GOvernment had a right to regulate their ownership.

And even Heller wasn't a complete repudiation of Miller.

The fact is, 2000 guns cross the border every day. Unlke the DEA who can bust you at any time for having drugs, the ATF actually has to catch you doing something illegal with the guns in order to arrest you for it.

Which means they actually have to catch you going across the border with the intent to sell to a Mexican National.

The Bush Administration tried a similar investigation that failed. Their tactic was to put GPS trackers in the guns which either failed or were removed. Fast and Furious tried to track the guns with agents on the ground and failed in some cases.
 
NeoTrotsky and his ilk, heavens love them, fill out the definition of internet troll perfectly.

Urban Dictionary: internet trollwww.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=internet%20troll A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=internet troll

You gonna kick him and his ilk out of your republican party, Jokey? Huh? Are ya? :lol::lol::lol: Try not to be an idiot.
 
Tea Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends.

Yes, they are. However, TEA Parties stand for something - unlike your Republican party, or the Democratic Party. Both corrupt to the core. The sooner you are all gone, the better the country will be.
 
NeoTrotsky and his ilk, heavens love them, fill out the definition of internet troll perfectly.

Urban Dictionary: internet trollwww.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=internet%20troll A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues Urban Dictionary: internet troll

You gonna kick him and his ilk out of your republican party, Jokey? Huh? Are ya? :lol::lol::lol: Try not to be an idiot.

Too funny

Indeed it will be hard for him to do that ,,,,
since he is too busy "catching" for the Democrats
and getting "thanks" from them
----------------------------------------------------------------------




:eusa_whistle:
Here boy
 
Last edited:
ABC's Brian Ross reported this morning that there is "a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site... talking about him joining the Tea Party last year."

"Now, we don't know if this is the same Jim Holmes," Ross cautioned "but it's Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado."
Aurora shooting: ABC News draws possible Jim Holmes Tea Party connection - POLITICO.com

...

was this an innocent accident?


no it's part a super duper secret plot by the liberal media to GET the tea party.


:cuckoo:

was this an innocent accident?


no it's part a super duper secret plot by the liberal media to GET the tea party.
 
So he went through a quizzillion checks to put out information they would have to retract within minutes, with egg all over their faces? Really?

Do you people hear yourselves sometimes.

People make mistakes. Like when Fox News identified Tim Foley as a Democrat when he was caught "Bending over the Pages".

It's the Axelrod game. Mapes is of the same school. We accuse. You defend. We make the headline the story be damned. I know how David works.

It's disgusting.

Or they just made a simple mistake.

I think that the MSM really does expect one of you teabaggers to go off on a shooting spree at some point, because a lot of you are unstable.

It just wasn't the case this time, and after they got it wrong with Giffords, they should have been more careful.

How many tea party gun attacks have there been?

Same old BS the left wing nuts spew, it is amusing how you guys will believe shit with no proof. I guess that's why you follow Obama.
 
Tea Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends.

Too bad they run your party now...

So the Republican party isn't your party? What a shocker, oh and by the way neither is it's jakes party. Just thought I'd let you in on that not so little secret.

The GOP is now a solely owned subsideary of the Cult of Jesus H. CHrist and the Latter Day Snakes.

When we get our party back from them, we'll let you know. Probably after the ass-whuppin' they'll take in November.
 
It's the Axelrod game. Mapes is of the same school. We accuse. You defend. We make the headline the story be damned. I know how David works.

It's disgusting.

Or they just made a simple mistake.

I think that the MSM really does expect one of you teabaggers to go off on a shooting spree at some point, because a lot of you are unstable.

It just wasn't the case this time, and after they got it wrong with Giffords, they should have been more careful.

How many tea party gun attacks have there been?

Same old BS the left wing nuts spew, it is amusing how you guys will believe shit with no proof. I guess that's why you follow Obama.

Don't you love the phantom argument? Because that's what it is.

People on the left kill people and the argument, the debate is from a democrat, "well you guys might do it too". No evidence. Just a phantom argument that maybe, just maybe one day a tea party person might might do something.

What madness is this?
 

Forum List

Back
Top