;

Author Topic: Fun with the Second Amendment  (Read 7637 times)

Rocket

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • Cosmonauts
  • *
  • Posts: 12146
  • Don't call me a lawyer; I'll call my own!
  • Awards Fucked a lesbian You're Great...No, YOU'RE Great! old cold, dead hands Something Wonderful Prepper The Gentry For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Libertarian TNE Veteran Goon or Ex-Goon Sasstronaut Wounded in the line of posting. Motorcyclist
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2018, 01:35:35 PM »
0
1) Sip: children are people and they are covered by the Constitution. Should they be allowed to buy guns?

2) I wonder how many of those downwithisrael hashtag is going to link to Stormfront.
Ah, but therein is the rub! "A well-regulated militia" actually applies here! The militia is comprised of men over 18. Therefore it's not unconstitutional to not allow children firearms.
WTF are you talking about? Who said that? The militia was meant to overthrow the oppressive government. Hence it's necessity for a free state. A militia in that situation will be every able-bodied male.

Please refer to the law that state's that the militia is comprised of men who are 19 and older..

Quote from:  10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


:colbert:
So follow this:

Sip - there should be no restrictions on guns because of the Constitution
Rocket -yea, but children have Constitutional rights, can they buy guns?
Aran -the 2A says we have guns for a militia, which means people over 18 (which means 19 and up)
Rocket -there is no law that says only 19 and up, it's about able bodied men
BW - 10 U.S.C. § 246 says able bodied men 17 and up


Right?

While this was not really the original argument, to me a 17 year old is a child. Should a 17 year old be allowed to buy any kind of gun?
Yes, that is me in court with my enormous penis.


Slacktivist

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 2553
  • Awards Drinkin' and Postin' United Statesian Goon or Ex-Goon Scrooge
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #26 on: February 27, 2018, 01:43:46 PM »
+7
That's some pedantic shit when much younger kids can hunt and handle guns safely if taught properly and in another year all those 17 year olds will be adults.

Rocket

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • Cosmonauts
  • *
  • Posts: 12146
  • Don't call me a lawyer; I'll call my own!
  • Awards Fucked a lesbian You're Great...No, YOU'RE Great! old cold, dead hands Something Wonderful Prepper The Gentry For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Libertarian TNE Veteran Goon or Ex-Goon Sasstronaut Wounded in the line of posting. Motorcyclist
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #27 on: February 27, 2018, 01:50:33 PM »
+1
That's some pedantic shit when much younger kids can hunt and handle guns safely if taught properly and in another year all those 17 year olds will be adults.
Not really pedantic. The question is, do you want 17 year old Trayvon Martin to be able to drive to Walmart and buy a 5.56? If the answer is yes, just say yes. As far as 17 is one year from 18, so what? You have to have a line. If you make it 17, I'm going to say that 16 is only one year away from 17. If you say, ok, 16 then, I'm going to say 15 is only one year from 16. That "one year away" argument does not obtain.
Yes, that is me in court with my enormous penis.


asip

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 1376
  • Awards Wounded in the line of posting. United Statesian Motorcyclist Deplorables You Shall Not Pass!
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2018, 03:20:25 PM »
0
I do. If a 12 year old has cash to buy a gun and kill himself/others than let the person that sold it to him be liable. Maybe just amend the constitution saying that rights only apply to 18 or above or whatever. Younger than that? You are represented by your parents and their rights are afforded to you by proxy.

I don't think juveniles should be charged as adults under any circumstances either. A 17 year old that turns 18 the next day could massacre a preschool and I would still say charge him as a juvie. Shit I'm even questionable on setting adult age below 25.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2018, 03:24:40 PM by the sip »

Backpfeifengesicht

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • *
  • Posts: 7188
  • Awards You're Great...No, YOU'RE Great! Deplorables Anonymous Methodist For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Better dead than red cold, dead hands Texan Goon or Ex-Goon
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2018, 04:06:36 PM »
+16
All Americans should be armed at birth, starting with a 2mm Kolibri pistol. Every year on your birthday you are allowed to trade your firearm in for the next highest caliber. Obviously old people would be very dangerous under this scheme, but that self-corrects too: once a certain advanced age is reached I think you'll find that the elderly are too feeble to effectively move around field guns if they chose to open carry.
Quote from: George Lincoln Rockwell
The Conservatives have a slogan which I think is despicable and defeatist: "It's better to be dead than red." And the Commies and Liberals have a slogan which is even worse, it's treason, they say: "It's better to be red than dead." We say this: "You don't have to be Red and you don't have to be Dead. Not dead. Not Red. Dead Reds"


Procrustes

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 4482
  • Awards Quieres comprar naranjas?
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2018, 05:55:57 PM »
+9
I think we’d be much better off if we went back to real, concrete, and effective laws like “any nigger possessing a firearm will be executed by firing squad within 72 hours of arrest/guilty verdict with no appeals”

I really think places like Chicago would be nearly habitable after several hundred thousand executions.

Obese-N-Wiggered

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 3783
  • King of Clownworld, woop woop!
  • Awards Sasstronaut Fucked a lesbian United Statesian Goon or Ex-Goon Better dead than red cold, dead hands Boy Scout old
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2018, 09:05:51 PM »
+5
All Americans should be armed at birth, starting with a 2mm Kolibri pistol. Every year on your birthday you are allowed to trade your firearm in for the next highest caliber. Obviously old people would be very dangerous under this scheme, but that self-corrects too: once a certain advanced age is reached I think you'll find that the elderly are too feeble to effectively move around field guns if they chose to open carry.

"Damn kids. Keep the hell off my lawn!"


Grandpa, no!

a torrent of piss

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • Grand Inquisitors
  • *
  • Posts: 6939
  • Pineapple and Ham
  • Awards You're Great...No, YOU'RE Great!
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2018, 09:52:02 PM »
+1
It was legal to own a ship with cannons as a private citizen when the declaration was first made official.


Give me my Starship, it's still a ship.

Hitlorr The Obniggerator

  • Enemy Of The State
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #33 on: February 27, 2018, 10:14:47 PM »
0
All Americans should be armed at birth, starting with a 2mm Kolibri pistol. Every year on your birthday you are allowed to trade your firearm in for the next highest caliber. Obviously old people would be very dangerous under this scheme, but that self-corrects too: once a certain advanced age is reached I think you'll find that the elderly are too feeble to effectively move around field guns if they chose to open carry.

what caliber would a Davy Crockett count as and how old would I need to be to carry one?

The Watcher

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 3318
  • Awards Wounded in the line of posting. Goon or Ex-Goon
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2018, 06:50:54 AM »
+1
All Americans should be armed at birth, starting with a 2mm Kolibri pistol. Every year on your birthday you are allowed to trade your firearm in for the next highest caliber. Obviously old people would be very dangerous under this scheme, but that self-corrects too: once a certain advanced age is reached I think you'll find that the elderly are too feeble to effectively move around field guns if they chose to open carry.

what caliber would a Davy Crockett count as and how old would I need to be to carry one?

Probably at the age where you are senile enough to accidentally fire it while trying to start the toaster or something.
His name was Harry Anderson

Rocket

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • Cosmonauts
  • *
  • Posts: 12146
  • Don't call me a lawyer; I'll call my own!
  • Awards Fucked a lesbian You're Great...No, YOU'RE Great! old cold, dead hands Something Wonderful Prepper The Gentry For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Libertarian TNE Veteran Goon or Ex-Goon Sasstronaut Wounded in the line of posting. Motorcyclist
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2018, 10:10:29 AM »
+4
Somebody said toaster?
Yes, that is me in court with my enormous penis.


Handyman

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 1787
  • Awards Goon or Ex-Goon Deplorables Wounded in the line of posting. United Statesian The Gentry old Better dead than red
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2018, 01:02:26 PM »
+3
I haven't weighed in on this, so here goes...

I think that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is huge.  Do you think that the 2nd Amendment guarantees your rights to wield arms against the government, or do you think that the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to use deadly force to defend your life, liberty, and property in general?  Those interpretations have much different implications.

If it is the former, then that implies that there should be no regulation of weapons, whatsoever.  You should be allowed to have neighborhood militias to organize in the event that Emperor Barack II sends the tanks into your city.  You should be able to own machine guns and rocket launchers to keep the government honest.  99% of the country thinks that this is a loony idea.  But, I would argue that this is the legitimate purpose that the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.  But Americans are simply unable to comprehend this possiblity.  On a smaller scale, people can comprehend something like the Branch Davidians shooting back at the ATF when they tried to raid their compound.  But even in that event, I can't see the government ever losing that confrontation.  Regardless, if this is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and I do think that it is the original intent even though society has changed drastically since then, then it means that there should be virtually no regulation of weapons and Saint Trayvon should be able to by an Uzi as soon as he turns 18, if not sooner.  A big problem with this interpretation is that there were no tanks, machine guns, grenades, fighter/bombers, or rocket launchers in 1780.  There weren't even semi-automatic fifles.  The founding fathers obviously were wise enough to realize that the world would change.  I'm not sure though that they could envision a day when a large amount of kililng power could be concentrated into the hands of one citizen.  Either way, there is no way of winning this argument in the public arena.  I hate to say this, but I can see the shitlib side of this. 

If your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the latter, then means something different.  Concealed carry should be acceptable, but you don't need a large clip to defend yourself against Tyrone breaking into your house to steal your TV.  Nor do you need an assault rifle.  Nor do you need multiple weapons.  In the overwhelming majority of cases, simply brandishing your weapon would do the trick.  One or two shots would likely be enough.  Therefore, it is not infringing upon your rights to regulate what types of weapons you can buy and how many you can own.  Nor is it infringing upon your rights for there to be a gun registry and for the government to regulate the sale and ownership of guns, just like they regulate the sale and ownership of vehicles.  When a shitlib says "but you don't need an A-15" or "you don't need to own six guns", then it is this specific interpretation of the right that they are addressing.  This likely was not the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, but I would argue that it is the more relevant and more critical meaning in <currentyear>.  You are much more likely to have to defend yourself from random cultural enrichment than you are to ever partake in an armed uprising against the government.  I can't see that ever really changing.

So, that's it.  Is the 2nd Amendment our last defense against tyranny or is it what allows Mr. Zimmerman to defend himself against the local "diversity"?

Rocket

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • Cosmonauts
  • *
  • Posts: 12146
  • Don't call me a lawyer; I'll call my own!
  • Awards Fucked a lesbian You're Great...No, YOU'RE Great! old cold, dead hands Something Wonderful Prepper The Gentry For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Libertarian TNE Veteran Goon or Ex-Goon Sasstronaut Wounded in the line of posting. Motorcyclist
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2018, 01:33:35 PM »
+5
I haven't weighed in on this, so here goes...

I think that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is huge.  Do you think that the 2nd Amendment guarantees your rights to wield arms against the government, or do you think that the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to use deadly force to defend your life, liberty, and property in general?  Those interpretations have much different implications.

If it is the former, then that implies that there should be no regulation of weapons, whatsoever.  You should be allowed to have neighborhood militias to organize in the event that Emperor Barack II sends the tanks into your city.  You should be able to own machine guns and rocket launchers to keep the government honest.  99% of the country thinks that this is a loony idea.  But, I would argue that this is the legitimate purpose that the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.  But Americans are simply unable to comprehend this possiblity.  On a smaller scale, people can comprehend something like the Branch Davidians shooting back at the ATF when they tried to raid their compound.  But even in that event, I can't see the government ever losing that confrontation.  Regardless, if this is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and I do think that it is the original intent even though society has changed drastically since then, then it means that there should be virtually no regulation of weapons and Saint Trayvon should be able to by an Uzi as soon as he turns 18, if not sooner.  A big problem with this interpretation is that there were no tanks, machine guns, grenades, fighter/bombers, or rocket launchers in 1780.  There weren't even semi-automatic fifles.  The founding fathers obviously were wise enough to realize that the world would change.  I'm not sure though that they could envision a day when a large amount of kililng power could be concentrated into the hands of one citizen.  Either way, there is no way of winning this argument in the public arena.  I hate to say this, but I can see the shitlib side of this. 

If your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the latter, then means something different.  Concealed carry should be acceptable, but you don't need a large clip to defend yourself against Tyrone breaking into your house to steal your TV.  Nor do you need an assault rifle.  Nor do you need multiple weapons.  In the overwhelming majority of cases, simply brandishing your weapon would do the trick.  One or two shots would likely be enough.  Therefore, it is not infringing upon your rights to regulate what types of weapons you can buy and how many you can own.  Nor is it infringing upon your rights for there to be a gun registry and for the government to regulate the sale and ownership of guns, just like they regulate the sale and ownership of vehicles.  When a shitlib says "but you don't need an A-15" or "you don't need to own six guns", then it is this specific interpretation of the right that they are addressing.  This likely was not the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, but I would argue that it is the more relevant and more critical meaning in <currentyear>.  You are much more likely to have to defend yourself from random cultural enrichment than you are to ever partake in an armed uprising against the government.  I can't see that ever really changing.

So, that's it.  Is the 2nd Amendment our last defense against tyranny or is it what allows Mr. Zimmerman to defend himself against the local "diversity"?
There are things you don't understand about firearms, but that was obvious when you called a magazine a clip and more obvious since you're probably thinking I'm being pedantic and "who cares what you call it." There were definitely guns that were as good as semi-automatic when the Constitution was written. The Pepperbox comes to mind. And yes, private citizens owned cannon. Here's a decent thread on the topic: https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-most-advanced-arms-available-in-1791-the-year-that-the-Second-Amendment-was-passed
Of course the framers of the Constitution knew that weapons would develop. Lewis and Clark had a rifle that fired 22 fucking .46 caliber balls in under 30 seconds. And it was silent.

As for your second theory, there is no regulation on car ownership. You can own as many as you like. But there is no Constitutional right to own cars. How does a gun registry and limitation on ownership not infringe on my right? Who says what I need? It's not the Bill of Needs.
Yes, that is me in court with my enormous penis.


Handyman

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 1787
  • Awards Goon or Ex-Goon Deplorables Wounded in the line of posting. United Statesian The Gentry old Better dead than red
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2018, 01:52:13 PM »
+1
Yes, you are being pedantic.  The point being made there is that the "personal defense against criminals" argument does not require you to be able to fire off a large amount of shots in succession without pausing to reload.  Nor does it require a high caliber of weapon and/or something with a long range.  According to the pro gun rights material that I have read, you don't even have to fire your weapon period -- just brandishing it is often enough.  This explains the apparent contradiction betweeen guns being a useful deterrent to crime and the surprisingly small number of criminals who are killed in self defense.  This is critical to acknoledge if you are trying to make the argument that the 2nd Amendment is supposed to protect you from carjackers and home invasions.  And yes, the word "need" does apply here, because the concept of rights involves what the government cannot do to infringe upon your rights.  In this case, your right is defined as what you need to protect yourself.  If a government regulation does not materially affect your ability to protect yourself, then it does not infringe upon your rights. 

Rocket

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • Cosmonauts
  • *
  • Posts: 12146
  • Don't call me a lawyer; I'll call my own!
  • Awards Fucked a lesbian You're Great...No, YOU'RE Great! old cold, dead hands Something Wonderful Prepper The Gentry For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Libertarian TNE Veteran Goon or Ex-Goon Sasstronaut Wounded in the line of posting. Motorcyclist
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2018, 02:56:33 PM »
+3
:wrong:
Yes, that is me in court with my enormous penis.


Mad at the Internet

  • Cishet White Male
  • Alconauts
  • *
  • Posts: 1044
  • wuts halperning?
  • Awards Texan Deplorables Seaman (lol) Killed in the Line of Posting United Statesian For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Sasstronaut TNE Veteran Goon or Ex-Goon Something Wonderful
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2018, 05:29:34 PM »
+1
Why does any discussion of the Second Amendment always seem to leave out the "militia" part?

http://constitutionus.com/?t=Amendment%202%20-%20Bearing%20Arms#x2

10 U.S. Code §246 specifies the militia as being "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

It further defines classes of militia:
"(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

I take it everyone else (all able-bodied male citizens 17 years and up) is the unorganized militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246


asip

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 1376
  • Awards Wounded in the line of posting. United Statesian Motorcyclist Deplorables You Shall Not Pass!
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2018, 07:08:32 PM »
+4
The 2nd half allows for the 1st.

adolf spacey

  • Domestic Threat
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
  • $10 Richer
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2018, 08:04:22 PM »
+14
The fact that this is even up for discussion is evidence of how gay this forum has become. The fact that Rocket is the one who started this thread is evidence of what a cucked philosemite Rocket is. Then again he’s a boomer who believes being a lawyer is an admirable profession so it goes without saying.

Shall not be infringed.
The fact that I never gave Lowtax my money is a personal point of pride for me.

           

The Soys Of Summer

  • Unperson
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2018, 09:37:14 PM »
+9
I'm still trying to wrap my head around millennial dog moms wanting to ban guns to ensure the safety of "children" they don't want to have in the first place.

Other people have pointed it out, there's nothing inherently more dangerous about an AR-15 than any other firearm. It's a media boogeyman and any language which can be used to ban it can also be used against any other firearm.




jabba

  • Enemy Of The State
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #44 on: February 28, 2018, 11:06:31 PM »
+5
There are plenty of reasons why an armed citizenry provides a legitimate check on the government, even if it's understood that an all out war between the military and the people would probably result ultimately in a victory for the military. It's a powerful deterrent, which can and almost certainly has influenced the actions of people who otherwise would have sought to coalesce power in American government via abuses of force over the last 200 years.

Rocket

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • Cosmonauts
  • *
  • Posts: 12146
  • Don't call me a lawyer; I'll call my own!
  • Awards Fucked a lesbian You're Great...No, YOU'RE Great! old cold, dead hands Something Wonderful Prepper The Gentry For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Libertarian TNE Veteran Goon or Ex-Goon Sasstronaut Wounded in the line of posting. Motorcyclist
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2018, 11:07:11 PM »
+3
The fact that this is even up for discussion is evidence of how gay this forum has become. The fact that Rocket is the one who started this thread is evidence of what a cucked philosemite Rocket is. Then again he’s a boomer who believes being a lawyer is an admirable profession so it goes without saying.

Shall not be infringed.
Ow my feelings! Your important opinion has hurt them!
Yes, that is me in court with my enormous penis.


Procrustes

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 4482
  • Awards Quieres comprar naranjas?
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2018, 11:34:00 PM »
+7
I’m pretty sure if I were to have questions about what protections the second amendment provides from an overactive government and pearl clutching pussies I would read Scalias opinion in DC V HELLER but then again I’m an educated person with money.

By all means the rest of you should call each other names and continue wallowing in abject ignorance and most likely poverty.

Bitter Weirdo

  • Cishet White Male
  • Space Racists
  • *
  • Posts: 4000
  • Shitposts by an idiot, full of sound and fury
  • Awards Deplorables Goon or Ex-Goon cold, dead hands Californian old
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #47 on: March 01, 2018, 01:15:09 AM »
+6
I haven't weighed in on this, so here goes...

I think that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is huge.  Do you think that the 2nd Amendment guarantees your rights to wield arms against the government, or do you think that the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to use deadly force to defend your life, liberty, and property in general?  Those interpretations have much different implications.

Both of these are legitimate, and not mutually exclusive.

Quote

If it is the former, then that implies that there should be no regulation of weapons, whatsoever.  You should be allowed to have neighborhood militias to organize in the event that Emperor Barack II sends the tanks into your city.  You should be able to own machine guns and rocket launchers to keep the government honest.  99% of the country thinks that this is a loony idea.  But, I would argue that this is the legitimate purpose that the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.  But Americans are simply unable to comprehend this possiblity.  On a smaller scale, people can comprehend something like the Branch Davidians shooting back at the ATF when they tried to raid their compound.  But even in that event, I can't see the government ever losing that confrontation.  Regardless, if this is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and I do think that it is the original intent even though society has changed drastically since then, then it means that there should be virtually no regulation of weapons and Saint Trayvon should be able to by an Uzi as soon as he turns 18, if not sooner.  A big problem with this interpretation is that there were no tanks, machine guns, grenades, fighter/bombers, or rocket launchers in 1780.  There weren't even semi-automatic fifles.  The founding fathers obviously were wise enough to realize that the world would change.  I'm not sure though that they could envision a day when a large amount of kililng power could be concentrated into the hands of one citizen.  Either way, there is no way of winning this argument in the public arena.  I hate to say this, but I can see the shitlib side of this. 


Yeah I don't think the founding fathers could imagine our modern electronic communications conveniences, does that mean that the 1st Amendment only applies to printed broadsheets?  :tuss:

Also, Cold Dead Hands, etc.

Virtue Signalman First Class

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 3809
  • Awards  Lahinguväljal näeme, raisk! Better dead than red old Classicist Drinkin' and Postin'
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #48 on: March 01, 2018, 04:39:26 AM »
+12


 :tuss:
But I do often point out that I write both science fiction and fantasy. It’s just that the science fiction is usually titled ‘technical proposal’ and the fantasy is titled ‘budget proposal.’

- Jordin Kare

adolf spacey

  • Domestic Threat
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
  • $10 Richer
    • Awards
Re: Fun with the Second Amendment
« Reply #49 on: March 01, 2018, 12:40:41 PM »
+8
The fact that this is even up for discussion is evidence of how gay this forum has become. The fact that Rocket is the one who started this thread is evidence of what a cucked philosemite Rocket is. Then again he’s a boomer who believes being a lawyer is an admirable profession so it goes without saying.

Shall not be infringed.
Ow my feelings! Your important opinion has hurt them!

Hard to have your feelings hurt when you have no sense of pride or shame.

The fact that I never gave Lowtax my money is a personal point of pride for me.