pro or con the second amendment?

i vote


  • Total voters
    40
Must be those "Bingos" making a shooting gallery out of Chicago, huh?
If you want me to agree with you that the slaver Founder thugs are no better than gang bangers in Chicago I'll agree with one caveat. The gang bangers in Chicago typically shoot one another. Occasionally they shoot an innocent bystander but most gang banger shootings are gang banger on gang banger. The slaver Founders specifically targeted men, women and children. My caveat is that I wouldn't want people to think Chicago gang bangers were as deplorable as the slaver Founders. They aren't good people but they aren't that trash.
 
:itsok:

You have my sympathies anyway snowflake. I can see how sensitive about it you are.
LOL, you really run around in that empty space in your head, troll. I might remind you that YOU were whining about that terrible 2nd Amendment (that is the topic) before you decided to show your racism and bigotry while hijacking the thread. So just STFU and practice your English, I wouldn't want the "patois" to get in the way. But you seem intent to look for EXCUSES so, carry on.
 
LOL, you really run around in that empty space in your head, troll. I might remind you that YOU were whining about that terrible 2nd Amendment (that is the topic) before you decided to show your racism and bigotry while hijacking the thread. So just STFU and practice your English, I wouldn't want the "patois" to get in the way. But you seem intent to look for EXCUSES so, carry on.
I'm not whining about the second amendment you moron. I'm a gun owner. My first post details my support for the second amendment you illiterate Simp. 😄
 
Then why don't you address the slavers in Africa? I do believe that facts INJURY you LMAO, moron.
Because we weren't talking about the rationale behind laws written by African slavers, we were talking about the laws passed by white ones. 😄 Jesus christ you're defensive. I don't have love for any slavers, African slavers included. The only people who can't get over their love of slavers are deplorable whites.
 
Because we weren't talking about the rationale behind laws written by African slavers, we were talking about the laws passed by white ones. 😄 Jesus christ you're defensive. I don't have love for any slavers, African slavers included. The only people who can't get over their love of slavers are deplorable whites.
And yet Jo biden's crime bill back in the 80's gave life to systematic racism
 
If you want me to agree with you that the slaver Founder thugs are no better than gang bangers in Chicago I'll agree with one caveat. The gang bangers in Chicago typically shoot one another. Occasionally they shoot an innocent bystander but most gang banger shootings are gang banger on gang banger. The slaver Founders specifically targeted men, women and children. My caveat is that I wouldn't want people to think Chicago gang bangers were as deplorable as the slaver Founders. They aren't good people but they aren't that trash.
Moral relativism isn't an argument, Buckwheat.
 
we were talking about the laws passed by white ones.
There's that racism again. Why do you figure that black slavers are better than white slavers. The point isn't the color, moron. The point is slavery. It was wrong, it was also 150 years ago. You weren't a slave, you've never known a slave and you have absolutely no relation to slavery. So dry your little child eyes and run along. I don't have time for bigots.
 
tKuntzman doesn't realize that an AR-15 is simply a souped up ,22 cal. And liberal pukes will never get it through their thick skulls that a shooter can do just as much damage with a single shot rifle as an AR-15. He just does it slower.
It amazes me how the media managed to persuade any person that the AR15 is an assault weapon. Those used by hunters fire one bullet per squeeze.
 
Pro, but I recognize that the American people are too spineless to fight tyranny (see, for example, 2020).
 
Who's talking about the Civil War? Slave owners like George Mason argued on behalf of the second amendment because it was necessary to keep slaves in check and they didn't trust Northern States to vote with them in Congress to raise an army in the event one was needed to put down a slave uprising. I don't care what SCOTUS's opinion was (a differently comprised SCOTUS could have a different opinion in the future), I'm simply explaining history. Those words at the beginning are particular on purpose. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
why did you stop reading there?
 

Forum List

Back
Top