Ted Cruz: 2nd Amendment Is 'Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny'

[kaz]

disagree with them and they start to assign arguments and values to people

From the guy who keeps calling tea partiers racists...



What a douche

You are what you are. Why are teapers to pussified to embrace their hate?

I think you're a dick, but I don't hate you gay boy

 

[Nutz]

Talk to me when you learn about TRUE conservatism.

Gotcha, "TRUE" conservatives are authoritarian leftist dependency whores. Words aren't your thing, are they Karl?

You have no clue. You teapers are funny..you call anyone who doesn't subscribe to your hate narrative a lefty.

Yes, small government is hate. I would give you my money, but I hate you. The standard you set for yourself is quite lofty, isn't it?

Teapers aren't about small government...when was the last time you heard a teaper talk about smaller government. Seems to me the teapers are fixated on hating gays, blacks, muslims, and anyone who dares disagree with their hate narrative.

 

[kaz]

You're right- the TP is not about hate- lol- and only 50% are PROUDLY racist...

I would respect them more if they embraced their hate instead of playing the denial game!

 

[Nutz]

YOU don't have the foggiest notion of the MEANING of "true" conservatism, asshole.

Sure I do...regretfully, your hate ilk don't understand hate and race are not conservative values.

He's not the one in this discussion having a problem grasping that

Take a gander around this hate site. Look at what your teaper ilk spews...then get back to me. Again, anyone dumb enough to be a teaper is willfully ignorant to the truth.

So you are a conservative, and you're insulting me by calling me a conservative. Wow, if your warm up routine is this good, I can't wait for the main show

I didn't call you a conservative. I called you a teaper.

Lookout! A ******* is near you!

 

[kaz]

Talk to me when you learn about TRUE conservatism.

Gotcha, "TRUE" conservatives are authoritarian leftist dependency whores. Words aren't your thing, are they Karl?

You have no clue. You teapers are funny..you call anyone who doesn't subscribe to your hate narrative a lefty.

Yes, small government is hate. I would give you my money, but I hate you. The standard you set for yourself is quite lofty, isn't it?

Teapers aren't about small government...when was the last time you heard a teaper talk about smaller government. Seems to me the teapers are fixated on hating gays, blacks, muslims, and anyone who dares disagree with their hate narrative.

Smaller government is all tea partiers talk about. Here's an inside tip, the liberal media sucks, Mr. TRUE Conservative

 

[Nutz]

disagree with them and they start to assign arguments and values to people

From the guy who keeps calling tea partiers racists...



What a douche

You are what you are. Why are teapers to pussified to embrace their hate?

I think you're a dick, but I don't hate you gay boy

Ah, the teaper hate is coming out. Calling me a *** only verifies the teaper hate narrative.

 

[kaz]

Lookout! A ******* is near you!

You still don't see the real racist in this discussion, do you Adolph?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You're right- the TP is not about hate- lol- and only 50% are PROUDLY racist...

Franco-tug. You are far from an authority on anybody being right or wrong. Douche bags like you are as pathetic as nutz is. You are led around by the nose like a ******* puppet. If Soros commands, you jump! And you don't even realize what a tool you are.

I have read a couple of things said or done by a couple of alleged Tea Party-ers which were racist. I have also noted that one of the highly cherished icons of the liberal Democrat Parody (Robert Sheets Byrd) was a grand poobah or whatever they call it of the KKK.

According to what passes for "logic," therefore, in your pinhead, the entire liberal Democrat Parody must be completely and devotedly racist. You cock biter.

Now, go **** yourself with a rust rasp up your ass you bug ******.

 

[kaz]

disagree with them and they start to assign arguments and values to people

From the guy who keeps calling tea partiers racists...



What a douche

You are what you are. Why are teapers to pussified to embrace their hate?

I think you're a dick, but I don't hate you gay boy

Ah, the teaper hate is coming out. Calling me a *** only verifies the teaper hate narrative.

I call you a *** because of your emotional outbursts, gay boy

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You believe photos establishment leftists post with pictures of racists with captions about the tea party. We know tea partiers. Obviously you know better, would a leftist propagandist lie? Obviously not

I believe what I hear your teaper ilk spew on this forum. I believe what hear racist teapers say n real life. Tea Party is a hate group that wants to start a race war. I look forward to that day.

You must be a lemming too that doesn't understand what the group you support is really up to.

Blah blah, you don't know what you're talking about. You're just a dependency whore saying what your masters tell you to so they give you more free government cheese

Typical teaper cvnt...disagree with them and they start to assign arguments and values to people. Idiots don't have a single original thought...other than saying..."I am not a teaper, I am a libertarian...teapers just define me".

Talk to me when you learn about TRUE conservatism.

YOU don't have the foggiest notion of the MEANING of "true" conservatism, asshole.

Don't talk at all. You only confirm what a useless blood clot you are.

Sure I do...regretfully, your hate ilk don't understand hate and race are not conservative values.

There is nothing racist or hate filled about the Tea Party no matter how often you make that dishonest claim, you hack *****.

Unlike you, you pin-dick bug ******, I actually AM a conservative and I don't place stock in racist attitudes or hatred. (well, there are some individuals I detest, but not on the basis of race or sexual orientation etc).

Don't try to understand. You don't have the equipment for rational thought.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I don't spend a lot of time worrying about who (Shrillary) the liberal Democrat Parody will nominate (Shrillary) as their next Presidential nominee (Shrillary).

I don't believe in cross party primaries (and the empire State doesn't allow that shit anyway).

So, I resign myself to the fact that the odds on favorite liberal Democrat Parody candidate for President (Shrillary) will win that Party's nod as nominee, and THEN I'll concern myself with doing what I can to highlight her massive (thighs) inadequacies for the job.

Yet lots of the liberal Democrat Parody hacks here at USMB spend massive amounts of time discussing the various GOP candidates' qualifications for (and objections to the prospect of their winning the nod as) GOP nominee. Hm.

So, was it good for you, l'il welcher?

How we got from the 2nd amendment (which is the topic of this thread, btw....) and your secret love affair with Hillary is a magnum mysterium.

First off, as you knew before you just lied, I never welshed. Period. That's ok, credibility aint yer strong suit anyway.

We got to the topic of Shrillary, for those weak minded sots such as you who cannot follow the line from A to B, by wondering why some dolt liberal Democrat loyalist hacks give a rat's ass about the assertion of GOP candidate Cruz in the first place. It's not like you would ever vote for him one way or the other.

The 2d Amendment is NOT the topic of this thread, either. The TOPIC is the Cruz contention that the 2d Amendment had a purpose of serving as an ultimate check against tyrannical government. It started off as an attack on a GOP candidate for allegedly saying something sinister and stupid.

It was neither. It was, instead, a correct historical and factual contention about one of Amendments in our Bill of Rights.

I wonder if Shrillary would dispute its accuracy (assuming she were capable of addressing a Constitutional question in the first place)?

That was a cool-assed rant.

Now, regardless of the many nasty things that people say about welchers like you, I am always glad to see you here, and I mean that quite sincerely.

Since we are on Calgary Cruz's interpretation of the 2nd amendment, please point me to the text within said amendment that gives people the right to shoot the gubbermint.

So many Righties lie out their asses and evade and oh my, lions and tigers and bears, but I am totally confident that you are going to be honest and actually debate something like an adult.

Thanks!

And again, simpleton hack bitches like you love to start off with that dishonest claim of welshing in the vain hope that it might deflect. It doesn't. It simply reveals your disdain for honesty.

And when you ask me to point to the TEXT with the 2d amendment that gives anybody the "right" to shoot the gubmint, you are either being deliberately obtuse or you might actually be establishing just how ignorant or stupid you are. Which is it?

Show me the text within any Amendment that you have a "right" to privacy.

While you're at it, show me the text within the 4th amendment that says that cops are obligated to READ your "right to remain silent, etc" to you BEFORE they are allowed to question you after an arrest.

I ask, because it APPEARS to be your ignorant belief that unless it is in the TEXT a right does not exist.

Go.

Now you are evading.

There is only one reason given within the text of the 2nd amendment for the right to bear arms. Do you know what it is?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I believe what I hear your teaper ilk spew on this forum. I believe what hear racist teapers say n real life. Tea Party is a hate group that wants to start a race war. I look forward to that day.

You must be a lemming too that doesn't understand what the group you support is really up to.

Blah blah, you don't know what you're talking about. You're just a dependency whore saying what your masters tell you to so they give you more free government cheese

Typical teaper cvnt...disagree with them and they start to assign arguments and values to people. Idiots don't have a single original thought...other than saying..."I am not a teaper, I am a libertarian...teapers just define me".

Talk to me when you learn about TRUE conservatism.

YOU don't have the foggiest notion of the MEANING of "true" conservatism, asshole.

Don't talk at all. You only confirm what a useless blood clot you are.

Sure I do...regretfully, your hate ilk don't understand hate and race are not conservative values.

There is nothing racist or hate filled about the Tea Party no matter how often you make that dishonest claim, you hack *****.

Unlike you, you pin-dick bug ******, I actually AM a conservative and I don't place stock in racist attitudes or hatred. (well, there are some individuals I detest, but not on the basis of race or sexual orientation etc).

Don't try to understand. You don't have the equipment for rational thought.

Rough day, what? Long day in Teepottie-Land?

 

[Nutz]

Lookout! A ******* is near you!

You still don't see the real racist in this discussion, do you Adolph?

I love wetbacks. Especially the skinny ones with big tits.

 

[kaz]

I don't spend a lot of time worrying about who (Shrillary) the liberal Democrat Parody will nominate (Shrillary) as their next Presidential nominee (Shrillary).

I don't believe in cross party primaries (and the empire State doesn't allow that shit anyway).

So, I resign myself to the fact that the odds on favorite liberal Democrat Parody candidate for President (Shrillary) will win that Party's nod as nominee, and THEN I'll concern myself with doing what I can to highlight her massive (thighs) inadequacies for the job.

Yet lots of the liberal Democrat Parody hacks here at USMB spend massive amounts of time discussing the various GOP candidates' qualifications for (and objections to the prospect of their winning the nod as) GOP nominee. Hm.

So, was it good for you, l'il welcher?

How we got from the 2nd amendment (which is the topic of this thread, btw....) and your secret love affair with Hillary is a magnum mysterium.

First off, as you knew before you just lied, I never welshed. Period. That's ok, credibility aint yer strong suit anyway.

We got to the topic of Shrillary, for those weak minded sots such as you who cannot follow the line from A to B, by wondering why some dolt liberal Democrat loyalist hacks give a rat's ass about the assertion of GOP candidate Cruz in the first place. It's not like you would ever vote for him one way or the other.

The 2d Amendment is NOT the topic of this thread, either. The TOPIC is the Cruz contention that the 2d Amendment had a purpose of serving as an ultimate check against tyrannical government. It started off as an attack on a GOP candidate for allegedly saying something sinister and stupid.

It was neither. It was, instead, a correct historical and factual contention about one of Amendments in our Bill of Rights.

I wonder if Shrillary would dispute its accuracy (assuming she were capable of addressing a Constitutional question in the first place)?

That was a cool-assed rant.

Now, regardless of the many nasty things that people say about welchers like you, I am always glad to see you here, and I mean that quite sincerely.

Since we are on Calgary Cruz's interpretation of the 2nd amendment, please point me to the text within said amendment that gives people the right to shoot the gubbermint.

So many Righties lie out their asses and evade and oh my, lions and tigers and bears, but I am totally confident that you are going to be honest and actually debate something like an adult.

Thanks!

And again, simpleton hack bitches like you love to start off with that dishonest claim of welshing in the vain hope that it might deflect. It doesn't. It simply reveals your disdain for honesty.

And when you ask me to point to the TEXT with the 2d amendment that gives anybody the "right" to shoot the gubmint, you are either being deliberately obtuse or you might actually be establishing just how ignorant or stupid you are. Which is it?

Show me the text within any Amendment that you have a "right" to privacy.

While you're at it, show me the text within the 4th amendment that says that cops are obligated to READ your "right to remain silent, etc" to you BEFORE they are allowed to question you after an arrest.

I ask, because it APPEARS to be your ignorant belief that unless it is in the TEXT a right does not exist.

Go.

Now you are evading.

There is only one reason given within the text of the 2nd amendment for the right to bear arms. Do you know what it is?

Are you going to a variation of the militia being the National Guard? In the bill of rights they put in a power of government? They wanted to be sure that government could keep it's guns so they made that clear in the Bill of Rights?

And it says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." What about that confuses you?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The Tea Party has an ARMY? Really Sally?

You must be TERRIBLY concerned about the SALVATION Army, too.

You imbecile.

A low info teaper that knows absolutely nothing about the hate group he supports. How ******* pathetic. have prvided a number of links on a number of occasions...you should try a google search to truly learn about the teaper goals of a race war, revolution, and n1gger killing.
******* pathetic thatyou staunchly support a group and don't have a fuckng clue about them. Pathetic. Low info lemming....Sally.

You are the epitome of low information.

The Tea Party comes in many forms. It is NOT (contrary to what your masters tell you, you pathetic little sheep) one organized official entity.

One big Tea Party group CALLS itself the Tea Party Army. My point, you brainless dufus, is that the Salvation Army also calls ITSELF an "Army," too, but that doesn't make them a bunch of armed warriors, you tragic brain dead nit wit.

Damn. You are an ignorant clueless rancid ****. Go play in traffic.

Sure, the tea party is one group. You can be an idiot and lemming and believe it is not...but they speak with a single voice. They have their own army (armed with camps and training). But you are too low info to realize that...comparing terrorists to the salvation army. What a buffoon.

Do some research...google tea party army. Read some of your teaper literature, blogs, and twitter feeds...you will see the tea party is nothing more that a hate group with hopes of starting an armed conflict and race war..

******* pathetic. Clueless. Lemming. TEAPERS!

You are a complete ******* moron and you are flatly wrong. Or maybe you are simply a liar, but since you are so stupid, I will ascribe your incorrect claims to your massive woeful ignorance instead.

The TEA PARTY is not one group. They are a variety of different groups sharing (generally) the same basic views about the proper LIMITATIONS on Government authority.

And you are also dutifully lapping up bullshit propaganda about it being a HATE GROUP. It flatly is not. Again, you are probably too stupid to understand how easily you were intentionally misled. But you are a victim. They took advantage of your tragically low IQ.

Go sit in a corner, you pathetic asshole. Contemplate the dust motes.

Teapers are so funny...they know nothing about their group...the teaper army, the teaper hate, and the teaper plans for a race war. You should research what you support.

Actually, the one who should do the research is you, you idiot. You are simply lapping up the spoon fed bullshit being offered to you by the morons on the far left.

You don't question it because you don't have the ability to discern the difference between the tings you are told and reality.

You truly are just that dumb. It's sad. If you had any actual handle on the meaning of true conservative political philosophy (you don't), even a flaming moron like you might be able to glean the fact that actual Tea Party principles embrace TRUE conservatism. But you don't have the slightest clue on the respective meanings of conservatism or Tea Party.

You are a joke.

 

[Nutz]

A low info teaper that knows absolutely nothing about the hate group he supports. How ******* pathetic. have prvided a number of links on a number of occasions...you should try a google search to truly learn about the teaper goals of a race war, revolution, and n1gger killing.
******* pathetic thatyou staunchly support a group and don't have a fuckng clue about them. Pathetic. Low info lemming....Sally.

You are the epitome of low information.

The Tea Party comes in many forms. It is NOT (contrary to what your masters tell you, you pathetic little sheep) one organized official entity.

One big Tea Party group CALLS itself the Tea Party Army. My point, you brainless dufus, is that the Salvation Army also calls ITSELF an "Army," too, but that doesn't make them a bunch of armed warriors, you tragic brain dead nit wit.

Damn. You are an ignorant clueless rancid ****. Go play in traffic.

Sure, the tea party is one group. You can be an idiot and lemming and believe it is not...but they speak with a single voice. They have their own army (armed with camps and training). But you are too low info to realize that...comparing terrorists to the salvation army. What a buffoon.

Do some research...google tea party army. Read some of your teaper literature, blogs, and twitter feeds...you will see the tea party is nothing more that a hate group with hopes of starting an armed conflict and race war..

******* pathetic. Clueless. Lemming. TEAPERS!

You are a complete ******* moron and you are flatly wrong. Or maybe you are simply a liar, but since you are so stupid, I will ascribe your incorrect claims to your massive woeful ignorance instead.

The TEA PARTY is not one group. They are a variety of different groups sharing (generally) the same basic views about the proper LIMITATIONS on Government authority.

And you are also dutifully lapping up bullshit propaganda about it being a HATE GROUP. It flatly is not. Again, you are probably too stupid to understand how easily you were intentionally misled. But you are a victim. They took advantage of your tragically low IQ.

Go sit in a corner, you pathetic asshole. Contemplate the dust motes.

Teapers are so funny...they know nothing about their group...the teaper army, the teaper hate, and the teaper plans for a race war. You should research what you support.

Actually, the one who should do the research is you, you idiot. You are simply lapping up the spoon fed bullshit being offered to you by the morons on the far left.

You don't question it because you don't have the ability to discern the difference between the tings you are told and reality.

You truly are just that dumb. It's sad. If you had any actual handle on the meaning of true conservative political philosophy (you don't), even a flaming moron like you might be able to glean the fact that actual Tea Party principles embrace TRUE conservatism. But you don't have the slightest clue on the respective meanings of conservatism or Tea Party.

You are a joke.

I have independently researched the tea party...been to a rally which was nothing more than a recruitment effort for a couple of different white supremacist groups. On paper, yest Tea Party principles look good...so does the KKK charter...but in the end...they don't practice what they preach. Teapers are racist hypocrites who have offered nothing to America other than hate and vitriol and violence. Hell...these asshole terrorists threaten to use women as human shields in a standoff with LEO.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I don't spend a lot of time worrying about who (Shrillary) the liberal Democrat Parody will nominate (Shrillary) as their next Presidential nominee (Shrillary).

I don't believe in cross party primaries (and the empire State doesn't allow that shit anyway).

So, I resign myself to the fact that the odds on favorite liberal Democrat Parody candidate for President (Shrillary) will win that Party's nod as nominee, and THEN I'll concern myself with doing what I can to highlight her massive (thighs) inadequacies for the job.

Yet lots of the liberal Democrat Parody hacks here at USMB spend massive amounts of time discussing the various GOP candidates' qualifications for (and objections to the prospect of their winning the nod as) GOP nominee. Hm.

So, was it good for you, l'il welcher?

How we got from the 2nd amendment (which is the topic of this thread, btw....) and your secret love affair with Hillary is a magnum mysterium.

First off, as you knew before you just lied, I never welshed. Period. That's ok, credibility aint yer strong suit anyway.

We got to the topic of Shrillary, for those weak minded sots such as you who cannot follow the line from A to B, by wondering why some dolt liberal Democrat loyalist hacks give a rat's ass about the assertion of GOP candidate Cruz in the first place. It's not like you would ever vote for him one way or the other.

The 2d Amendment is NOT the topic of this thread, either. The TOPIC is the Cruz contention that the 2d Amendment had a purpose of serving as an ultimate check against tyrannical government. It started off as an attack on a GOP candidate for allegedly saying something sinister and stupid.

It was neither. It was, instead, a correct historical and factual contention about one of Amendments in our Bill of Rights.

I wonder if Shrillary would dispute its accuracy (assuming she were capable of addressing a Constitutional question in the first place)?

That was a cool-assed rant.

Now, regardless of the many nasty things that people say about welchers like you, I am always glad to see you here, and I mean that quite sincerely.

Since we are on Calgary Cruz's interpretation of the 2nd amendment, please point me to the text within said amendment that gives people the right to shoot the gubbermint.

So many Righties lie out their asses and evade and oh my, lions and tigers and bears, but I am totally confident that you are going to be honest and actually debate something like an adult.

Thanks!

And again, simpleton hack bitches like you love to start off with that dishonest claim of welshing in the vain hope that it might deflect. It doesn't. It simply reveals your disdain for honesty.

And when you ask me to point to the TEXT with the 2d amendment that gives anybody the "right" to shoot the gubmint, you are either being deliberately obtuse or you might actually be establishing just how ignorant or stupid you are. Which is it?

Show me the text within any Amendment that you have a "right" to privacy.

While you're at it, show me the text within the 4th amendment that says that cops are obligated to READ your "right to remain silent, etc" to you BEFORE they are allowed to question you after an arrest.

I ask, because it APPEARS to be your ignorant belief that unless it is in the TEXT a right does not exist.

Go.

Now you are evading.

There is only one reason given within the text of the 2nd amendment for the right to bear arms. Do you know what it is?

No. I'm NOT evading at all. I am pointing out with concrete examples HOW AND WHY your "question" is utterly meaningless.

And I also see that your reference to "militia" is misguided.

I can see these things because, unlike you, I have actually studied these matters and understand them. You plainly don't.

I would recommend that you set aside a couple of hours to REALLY study the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald. Solid history lessons and legal insight into the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment is at your fingertips.

Here: I'll even give you a quick assist: McDonald v. Chicago 561 U.S. 2010 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Or two: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Happy reading.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, was it good for you, l'il welcher?

How we got from the 2nd amendment (which is the topic of this thread, btw....) and your secret love affair with Hillary is a magnum mysterium.

First off, as you knew before you just lied, I never welshed. Period. That's ok, credibility aint yer strong suit anyway.

We got to the topic of Shrillary, for those weak minded sots such as you who cannot follow the line from A to B, by wondering why some dolt liberal Democrat loyalist hacks give a rat's ass about the assertion of GOP candidate Cruz in the first place. It's not like you would ever vote for him one way or the other.

The 2d Amendment is NOT the topic of this thread, either. The TOPIC is the Cruz contention that the 2d Amendment had a purpose of serving as an ultimate check against tyrannical government. It started off as an attack on a GOP candidate for allegedly saying something sinister and stupid.

It was neither. It was, instead, a correct historical and factual contention about one of Amendments in our Bill of Rights.

I wonder if Shrillary would dispute its accuracy (assuming she were capable of addressing a Constitutional question in the first place)?

That was a cool-assed rant.

Now, regardless of the many nasty things that people say about welchers like you, I am always glad to see you here, and I mean that quite sincerely.

Since we are on Calgary Cruz's interpretation of the 2nd amendment, please point me to the text within said amendment that gives people the right to shoot the gubbermint.

So many Righties lie out their asses and evade and oh my, lions and tigers and bears, but I am totally confident that you are going to be honest and actually debate something like an adult.

Thanks!

And again, simpleton hack bitches like you love to start off with that dishonest claim of welshing in the vain hope that it might deflect. It doesn't. It simply reveals your disdain for honesty.

And when you ask me to point to the TEXT with the 2d amendment that gives anybody the "right" to shoot the gubmint, you are either being deliberately obtuse or you might actually be establishing just how ignorant or stupid you are. Which is it?

Show me the text within any Amendment that you have a "right" to privacy.

While you're at it, show me the text within the 4th amendment that says that cops are obligated to READ your "right to remain silent, etc" to you BEFORE they are allowed to question you after an arrest.

I ask, because it APPEARS to be your ignorant belief that unless it is in the TEXT a right does not exist.

Go.

Now you are evading.

There is only one reason given within the text of the 2nd amendment for the right to bear arms. Do you know what it is?

No. I'm NOT evading at all. I am pointing out with concrete examples HOW AND WHY your "question" is utterly meaningless.

And I also see that your reference to "militia" is misguided.

I can see these things because, unlike you, I have actually studied these matters and understand them. You plainly don't.

I would recommend that you set aside a couple of hours to REALLY study the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald. Solid history lessons and legal insight into the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment is at your fingertips.

Here: I'll even give you a quick assist: McDonald v. Chicago 561 U.S. 2010 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Or two: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Happy reading.

Wait, are you a strict constitutionalist, or not?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Blah blah, you don't know what you're talking about. You're just a dependency whore saying what your masters tell you to so they give you more free government cheese

Typical teaper cvnt...disagree with them and they start to assign arguments and values to people. Idiots don't have a single original thought...other than saying..."I am not a teaper, I am a libertarian...teapers just define me".

Talk to me when you learn about TRUE conservatism.

YOU don't have the foggiest notion of the MEANING of "true" conservatism, asshole.

Don't talk at all. You only confirm what a useless blood clot you are.

Sure I do...regretfully, your hate ilk don't understand hate and race are not conservative values.

There is nothing racist or hate filled about the Tea Party no matter how often you make that dishonest claim, you hack *****.

Unlike you, you pin-dick bug ******, I actually AM a conservative and I don't place stock in racist attitudes or hatred. (well, there are some individuals I detest, but not on the basis of race or sexual orientation etc).

Don't try to understand. You don't have the equipment for rational thought.

Rough day, what? Long day in Teepottie-Land?

Not at all. Dispatching brain dead bug fuckers like Nutz isn't difficult at all.

I give you a slight bit more credit even though you make things more difficult by being dishonest and deliberately obtuse.

I leave pottie land to you, however.

Nutz has an excuse for being wrong all day about the Tea Party. He's an imbecile who is easily mislead and too ******* stupid to know that it is still happening to him.

You have far less of an excuse. This leads me to believe that you might just be willfully dishonest. See? That makes it kind of sad to chat with you.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

First off, as you knew before you just lied, I never welshed. Period. That's ok, credibility aint yer strong suit anyway.

We got to the topic of Shrillary, for those weak minded sots such as you who cannot follow the line from A to B, by wondering why some dolt liberal Democrat loyalist hacks give a rat's ass about the assertion of GOP candidate Cruz in the first place. It's not like you would ever vote for him one way or the other.

The 2d Amendment is NOT the topic of this thread, either. The TOPIC is the Cruz contention that the 2d Amendment had a purpose of serving as an ultimate check against tyrannical government. It started off as an attack on a GOP candidate for allegedly saying something sinister and stupid.

It was neither. It was, instead, a correct historical and factual contention about one of Amendments in our Bill of Rights.

I wonder if Shrillary would dispute its accuracy (assuming she were capable of addressing a Constitutional question in the first place)?

That was a cool-assed rant.

Now, regardless of the many nasty things that people say about welchers like you, I am always glad to see you here, and I mean that quite sincerely.

Since we are on Calgary Cruz's interpretation of the 2nd amendment, please point me to the text within said amendment that gives people the right to shoot the gubbermint.

So many Righties lie out their asses and evade and oh my, lions and tigers and bears, but I am totally confident that you are going to be honest and actually debate something like an adult.

Thanks!

And again, simpleton hack bitches like you love to start off with that dishonest claim of welshing in the vain hope that it might deflect. It doesn't. It simply reveals your disdain for honesty.

And when you ask me to point to the TEXT with the 2d amendment that gives anybody the "right" to shoot the gubmint, you are either being deliberately obtuse or you might actually be establishing just how ignorant or stupid you are. Which is it?

Show me the text within any Amendment that you have a "right" to privacy.

While you're at it, show me the text within the 4th amendment that says that cops are obligated to READ your "right to remain silent, etc" to you BEFORE they are allowed to question you after an arrest.

I ask, because it APPEARS to be your ignorant belief that unless it is in the TEXT a right does not exist.

Go.

Now you are evading.

There is only one reason given within the text of the 2nd amendment for the right to bear arms. Do you know what it is?

No. I'm NOT evading at all. I am pointing out with concrete examples HOW AND WHY your "question" is utterly meaningless.

And I also see that your reference to "militia" is misguided.

I can see these things because, unlike you, I have actually studied these matters and understand them. You plainly don't.

I would recommend that you set aside a couple of hours to REALLY study the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald. Solid history lessons and legal insight into the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment is at your fingertips.

Here: I'll even give you a quick assist: McDonald v. Chicago 561 U.S. 2010 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Or two: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Happy reading.

Wait, are you a strict constitutionalist, or not?

That question might serve a purpose in a rational discussion, but since you appear not to grasp the meaning of the various terms involved, it seems silly to digress like that.

Get back to your homework assignment.

While you're at it try to contemplate if one is able to properly or adequately grasp the import of the words used in the Constitution outside of their meaning at the time the constitutional provisions were drafted.