- Home
- » High Street
- » 74th Annual High Street Quasi Civil Gun Abortion Politics Thread
#1 2013-01-10 09:18:58
Just trying to drag all the various fun discussion to one rally point.
So for those of us who just love guns....civil discourse, I would submit that you will NEVER have a valid conversation about gun control until you address the 2nd Amendment. I do believe it's that simple. If you want to limit or eliminate guns in the civilian population, you first need to decide and act on the 2nd Amendment.
Discuss.
Oh, and RT, as much as I love you and your nearly virgin puckerstar, you can't cry no politics until you start posting stuff to distract us from said politics.
Offline
#2 2013-01-10 09:20:03
Oh, and this:
Offline
#3 2013-01-10 09:44:37
The constitutional aspect is the easiest part.
If you believe in reinterpreting the constitution, you can focus on the "well-regulated militia" part of the amendment. That could be used to ban everything except the national guard.
If you're an originalist like Scalia, then you'll want to recreate what the founders were thinking. Their original intent was to keep the population armed in case the British came back, as they didn't have a standing army for defense. That's why they used the militia language--it was designed for national defense in lieu of a federal army. Their original intent was NOT "we need these people armed so they can kill us if any one of them thinks we're getting out of line." If you want to talk about original intent, you also have to recognize that they weren't thinking about semi-automatic assault rifles; they were thinking about muzzle loading muskets.
Besides, it's already been established that there are limits to the second amendment. We can move those limits around to make them more strict than they are now.
Offline
#4 2013-01-10 10:46:48
#1 - scalia (et. al.) have long ago sold out the idea of blind justice. Scotus only has eyes for corporations.
#2 - The founding fathers were more afraid of corporations and banks than they were guns. At the time, there was a practical need, other than national security, to allow private gun ownership. In those days, America was a wilderness west of philadelphia.
#3- The bullshit about them leaving england because of religious persecution is a lie. They were fleeing the oppressive oligarchy, which used religion as a weapon.
#4 - if we are gonna be originalists, then lets go back and kill every new law that restricts the original intent. The first glaring example will be to kill the federal reserve. The second is to invoke the 4th admendment in an absolute sense, which means killing the patriot and homeland security acts, drug tests, reinstating habeus corpus, etc.... if we did all that, then private gun ownership would again have a utilitarian purpose.
Offline
#5 2013-01-10 10:52:39
BTW, on the kinesiological scale, the original US federal documents are considered to be the most enlightened writings ever. They score even higher than all the religious writings.
That is why they must be killed. Fat, pasty faced elitist cannot operate in an arena that is not pre-tilted in their favor.
Offline
#6 2013-01-10 12:04:48
I am not talking about reinterpreting the constitution. I am saying that if you want to institute gun control of any kind in this country, you will need to repeal the 2nd.
Offline
#7 2013-01-10 12:49:50
XregnaR wrote:
I am not talking about reinterpreting the constitution. I am saying that if you want to institute gun control of any kind in this country, you will need to repeal the 2nd.
There are gun controls already without having to repeal the amendment. The second amendment doesn't grant unfettered access to guns in the same way the first doesn't grant total freedom of speech.
Offline
#8 2013-01-10 13:04:36
Here is an interesting op-ed piece in Pravda. The author is beseeching us to resist confiscation of our guns. He does so by relating how Russia's history would be different if the citizens would have resisted the Reds.
Offline
#9 2013-01-10 13:12:07
Htom Sirveaux wrote:
XregnaR wrote:
I am not talking about reinterpreting the constitution. I am saying that if you want to institute gun control of any kind in this country, you will need to repeal the 2nd.
There are gun controls already without having to repeal the amendment. The second amendment doesn't grant unfettered access to guns in the same way the first doesn't grant total freedom of speech.
If you stand on the idea that the 2nd adm. Is to maintain a citizen militia, then it will be killed. Repressive gov'ts will not allow citizen militias to exist, period. Even the gun kooks know this.
How many of you guys ever thought habeus corpus could be suspended without a congressional vote or even a whimper from scotus? In fact, scotus validated the murder of HC based on lies.
The 2nd adm. will be killed under similar circumstances.
Offline
#11 2013-01-10 13:16:06
Htom Sirveaux wrote:
XregnaR wrote:
I am not talking about reinterpreting the constitution. I am saying that if you want to institute gun control of any kind in this country, you will need to repeal the 2nd.
There are gun controls already without having to repeal the amendment. The second amendment doesn't grant unfettered access to guns in the same way the first doesn't grant total freedom of speech.
Ah, but if one interprets the 2nd Amendment as an avenue for the overthrow of oppressive government, then access to "military grade" (a laughable term) weapons would almost certainly be inherent from that.
One of the biggest points of contention between the NRA and GOA (and to a lesser extent some of the other gun rights groups) is that the NRA actually supported FOPA 1986, which effectively keeps most people from having any way of purchasing an automatic weapon.
To take this in a different direction for a moment...
Prior to the 90s, rampage killings of any kind were few and far between. This is despite the fact that gun ownership has actually gone down since the 80s, not up. The NRAs own data shows that in 1980, 1 in 2 men owned at least one gun, 1 in 10 women. A couple years ago the data showed 1 in 3 men, with no change in the number of women. One thing that did change was the increase in multiple gun ownership amongst those that do own guns.
So....
Why is it that "in the good ol' days", when there was access to exactly the same high capacity firearms as exist today, did we not see rampage killings like this? Seriously. The guns haven't changed, so what has?
I have my thoughts, but am curious about yours.
PS-
My position has evolved over the years to completely support more rigorous background checks for gun purchases.
Offline
#12 2013-01-10 14:20:11
Who the fuck is HC?
It's really difficult to interpret the purpose of the second amendment to be the overthrow of government.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
1) Implicit here is that the government regulates the militia; if the point of that militia is to overthrow government, why is government regulating it?
2) If that amendment was to provide for the overthrow of government, there's no mechanism described for deciding when and how to do that. These were Enlightenment thinkers who loved specificity and systems, so they wouldn't have left a crucial process like that so unclear. To give you an idea of the kind planning and thought that went into the constitution and bill of rights, James Madison prepared for the convention by reading the history of ALL GOVERNMENTS EVER. If they thought the second amendment was for revolting against tyrannical governments, there would be reams of letters talking about which revolts in history were successful and why.
2a) If you're right about the second amendment, then the decision to overthrow government rests with any individual who's decided that government has become a tyranny, right or wrong. That idea would have terrified the founders, who all shared a deep Enlightenment love of rational, ordered society--NOT the kind where a group of people can just take up arms because they don't like obamacare or whatever. In fact, among the founders the term "democracy" was kind of a dirty word. It meant something different and more frightening to them--it wasn't about everybody getting to vote. Instead, picture a room with every single citizen in it, screaming at each other. Back then, "democracy" was almost synonymous with "anarchy," so the idea that an unelected group of citizens had the power to overthrow the government would have been beneath contempt.
3) You have to put the whole bill of rights into context. Some of it is about long-term principles of freedom (freedom of religion, speech, etc.), while other parts dealt with specific circumstances and grievances in the late 18th century. For example the third amendment says "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." That's a specific response to a specific thing the British did that Americans were pissed about. Likewise, the gun thing addressed the specific contemporary need to keep Americans armed because the one thing everybody agreed on was that the British would be coming back soon (they did). "Well regulated militias" were the only form of defense because the early federal government was too weak to organize its own grown-up army. In that sense, the amendment was designed to keep the government IN POWER by keeping the British from overthrowing it.
4) More evidence that the bill of rights was partly written for that particular time: the seventh amendment guarantees the right for lawsuits to be settled by jury "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars." Back then, that was a shit ton of money. I would argue that the second amendment was written in reference to the arms they had then, in much the same way that the seventh was written in reference to what $20 was worth back then.
Offline
#13 2013-01-10 14:23:01
And about the rampage killings, I think that guns like the AR15 and high capacity clips weren't available then.
Keep on focus: this conversation isn't about "guns" and "crime"--it's about mass killings and a specific kind of weapon that makes mass killing real easy.
Offline
#14 2013-01-10 14:49:39
Htom Sirveaux wrote:
1) Implicit here is that the government regulates the militia; if the point of that militia is to overthrow government, why is government regulating it?
2) If that amendment was to provide for the overthrow of government, there's no mechanism described for deciding when and how to do that.
Before you make assumptions about the intentions of the founders regarding the 2nd amendment, I suggest you read their own words. Here is are a couple of examples among many:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster (writing under the nom de plume of "A Citizen of America), An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Constitution (October 17, 1787).
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
Offline
#15 2013-01-10 14:51:22
When did every death of a child start meaning so much? When mass media started insisting every incident is a national tragedy. Dead children are not good; however, it is a world wide phenomenon, not to mention a historical one.
[Edited for grammar.]
Last edited by MSG Tripps (2013-01-10 14:53:50)
Offline
#16 2013-01-10 15:03:09
An interesting quote. Unfortunately, the first paragraph has been utterly superseded hy history and the second seems untrue in the current era. I am less enthralled by the intentions of the founders. They were flawed, caught in their own times just as we are, and much of their reality has long since disappeared. They were not gods.
That said, Ranger is right in suggesting that the only way we could have truly effective gun regulation would be to amend the constitution-- a pipe dream to be sure. Until then, we are left to guess how far the Supremes will take Heller. It is possiblethat they will view a banon assault weapons or semi-automatics just as they did the DC law banning the ownership of handguns that were not disassembled and locked away.
Online
#17 2013-01-10 15:04:50
phreddy wrote:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster (writing under the nom de plume of "A Citizen of America), An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Constitution (October 17, 1787).
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
Neither of these quotes answers the question "if the point of that militia is to overthrow government, why is government regulating it?" Neither provides a mechanism for how an when to overthrow the government. These are just quotes of founders saying good things about guns.
Webster is referring to the British standing army; the American government didn't have one. One of the big gripes was that standing army--the stamp act and other taxes were raised to partially pay for that army. The british wanted troops here because the french were north and the spanish were to the south; americans interpreted that as a standing army to rule them.
Neither of those quotes are about overthrowing American government. Also, Washington mentions guns and rifles, but not private citizens with cannons--why might that be?
Offline
#18 2013-01-10 15:06:04
Fled wrote:
An interesting quote. Unfortunately, the first paragraph has been utterly superseded hy history and the second seems untrue in the current era. I am less enthralled by the intentions of the founders. They were flawed, caught in their own times just as we are, and much of their reality has long since disappeared. They were not gods.
That said, Ranger is right in suggesting that the only way we could have truly effective gun regulation would be to amend the constitution-- a pipe dream to be sure. Until then, we are left to guess how far the Supremes will take Heller. It is possiblethat they will view a banon assault weapons or semi-automatics just as they did the DC law banning the ownership of handguns that were not disassembled and locked away.
I don't understand why gun control would require constitutional amendment. It didn't during the first assault weapons ban, and it shouldn't now.
Offline
#19 2013-01-10 15:33:26
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington
The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams
Offline
#20 2013-01-10 15:46:18
If the founders thought that citizens should rise up against tyranny, why did they put down so many rebellions?
Offline
#21 2013-01-10 15:56:09
Htom Sirveaux wrote:
If the founders thought that citizens should rise up against tyranny, why did they put down so many rebellions?
What rebellions are you referring to, other than the Whiskey Rebellion, which was barely a rebellion and never actually got suppressed?
Offline
#22 2013-01-10 16:09:55
Nice quotes, but what this thread really needs is more video:
And don't be misled by the title of this vid.
Last edited by lechero (2013-01-10 16:11:12)
Offline
#23 2013-01-10 16:19:51
Btw, hc =habeus corpus. And yes, it is dead as a matter of gov't oppression - we can argue that point some other time.
Most criminals and all oppressive regimes see themselves as public benefactors. I liked the point that was made 'when did one death become a national tragedy?'. It's a good point because it illustrates the false flag used to 'protect the citizens from themselves'. The only way the gov't can remove our basic rights is to scare people into agreeing with it.
I defy anyone to name one evil empire that saw themselves as evil. That is why the 2nd adm. is for the purpose of preserving the overriding idea of gov't by the governed.
Let us not forget, at the time, they had just overthrown an oppressive gov't (with guns). The reality of that was still fresh in their minds.
Offline
#24 2013-01-10 16:39:59
XregnaR wrote:
Htom Sirveaux wrote:
If the founders thought that citizens should rise up against tyranny, why did they put down so many rebellions?
What rebellions are you referring to, other than the Whiskey Rebellion, which was barely a rebellion and never actually got suppressed?
Pennsylvania Mutiny, 1783
Shay's Rebellion, 1786
Fries' Rebellion, 1799
Anti-Rent Rebellion, 1839-45
Dorr Rebellion, 1841-42
John Brown
Ku Klux Klan war, 1870
Are you actually arguing that anybody that feels like they're being oppressed can and should start shooting up government representatives? Because that's what Timothy McVeigh did.
Offline
#25 2013-01-10 17:12:42
XregnaR wrote:
Oh, and RT, as much as I love you and your nearly virgin puckerstar, you can't cry no politics until you start posting stuff to distract us from said politics.
I just saw this. Here is my obligatory commentary:
GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! v
Offline
#26 2013-01-10 17:18:04
Bless you, RT. These unruly chilluns was paying no mind.
Offline
#27 2013-01-10 17:27:54
Htom Sirveaux wrote:
XregnaR wrote:
Htom Sirveaux wrote:
If the founders thought that citizens should rise up against tyranny, why did they put down so many rebellions?
What rebellions are you referring to, other than the Whiskey Rebellion, which was barely a rebellion and never actually got suppressed?
Pennsylvania Mutiny, 1783
Shay's Rebellion, 1786
Fries' Rebellion, 1799
Anti-Rent Rebellion, 1839-45
Dorr Rebellion, 1841-42
John Brown
Ku Klux Klan war, 1870
Are you actually arguing that anybody that feels like they're being oppressed can and should start shooting up government representatives? Because that's what Timothy McVeigh did.
The bottom line is this; the principle of "one man one vote" is meaningless unless it can be backed up. The beauty of having everyone armed ensures the majority will always have a say in how it is governed. The rebellions you mention were hardly uprisings of the majority.
Offline
#28 2013-01-10 17:46:14
Roger_That wrote:
XregnaR wrote:
Oh, and RT, as much as I love you and your nearly virgin puckerstar, you can't cry no politics until you start posting stuff to distract us from said politics.
I just saw this. Here is my obligatory commentary:
GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! v
or go to lunch
Last edited by WilberCuntLicker (2013-01-10 17:47:01)
Offline
#29 2013-01-10 17:48:24
WilberCuntLicker wrote:
Roger_That wrote:
XregnaR wrote:
Oh, and RT, as much as I love you and your nearly virgin puckerstar, you can't cry no politics until you start posting stuff to distract us from said politics.
I just saw this. Here is my obligatory commentary:
GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! vor go to lunch
http://25.media.tumblr.com/2d351368513b … o1_500.jpg
Or have your fill of attractive road kill.
Offline
#30 2013-01-10 17:49:45
WilberCuntLicker wrote:
WilberCuntLicker wrote:
Roger_That wrote:
I just saw this. Here is my obligatory commentary:
GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! GO TO DRUDGE! vor go to lunch
http://25.media.tumblr.com/2d351368513b … o1_500.jpgOr have your fill of attractive road kill.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/4e1ebd230d1b … o1_400.jpg
Naaah - I'm just ribbin' ya.
Offline
#31 2013-01-10 17:53:36
WilberCuntLicker wrote:
WilberCuntLicker wrote:
WilberCuntLicker wrote:
or go to lunch
http://25.media.tumblr.com/2d351368513b … o1_500.jpgOr have your fill of attractive road kill.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/4e1ebd230d1b … o1_400.jpgNaaah - I'm just ribbin' ya.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/d69d6746094a … o1_500.jpg
And I'm not sure if this has anything to do with guns, but according to the tumblr I stole this from, this guy "cut himself for Justin Bieber." Maybe you guys can explain that to me.
Offline
#32 2013-01-10 17:55:29
WilberCuntLicker wrote:
WilberCuntLicker wrote:
WilberCuntLicker wrote:
Or have your fill of attractive road kill.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/4e1ebd230d1b … o1_400.jpgNaaah - I'm just ribbin' ya.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/d69d6746094a … o1_500.jpgAnd I'm not sure if this has anything to do with guns, but according to the tumblr I stole this from, this guy "cut himself for Justin Bieber." Maybe you guys can explain that to me.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/60d056b924ad … o1_500.jpg
Mostly I agree with Phreddy. You don't want guns-for-all? Where the hell are your brains?
Offline
#33 2013-01-10 18:03:16
This poor fellow is really, really, magnificently and voluminously tired of the interminable gun bullshit on High-Street. He knows there's no solution. Just empty words, and pointless political posturing. Things will devolve as they will devolve - shut the fuck up and enjoy the ride.
Offline
#35 2013-01-10 18:07:30
MSG Tripps wrote:
WilberCuntLicker wrote:
cheesy
Head cheesey?
Offline
#36 2013-01-10 18:11:47
Apparently that's a spider bite.
Offline
#37 2013-01-10 18:15:53
Apparently that's a shark bite.
Offline
#38 2013-01-10 18:37:23
WilberCuntLicker wrote:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/77962ca455ee … o1_500.gif
This poor fellow is really, really, magnificently and voluminously tired of the interminable gun bullshit on High-Street. He knows there's no solution. Just empty words, and pointless political posturing. Things will devolve as they will devolve - shut the fuck up and enjoy the ride.
translation; 'i'm tired of talking about this, so everyone else should be, too - because, ya know, it's all about me'.
Offline
#39 2013-01-10 18:57:34
Lip shitz wrote:
I'm somebody's sockpuppet!
Offline
#40 2013-01-10 19:03:25
Allah bless America! I can emigrate from this violent hell-hole I live in and still keep my gun!
Offline
#41 2013-01-10 19:07:21
Offline
#42 2013-01-10 20:17:44
Lip shitz wrote:
BTW, on the kinesiological scale, the original US federal documents are considered to be the most enlightened writings ever. They score even higher than all the religious writings.
Just in case anyone was in any doubt that Shitlips
is a sockpuppet. This particular solecism is classic
bait...you know...on the hermaphroditical
-sockpuppet scale. If you sift through its babblings
you will see an uneven-handedness in its style,
diction and cogency that would be difficult to
attribute to drugs and alcohol alone. There is a
squirming, as of an author designing and redesigning
the parameters of a persona. Reply to this mongoloid
if you will, but prepare for eventual embarrassment.
(If it replies that it was attempting to talk about the
biomechanics of handwriting, ask it to produce the
original religious documents that were compared to
the "Federal Documents." And of course - it can't.
With a very few exceptions, there are none.)
Last edited by WilberCuntLicker (2013-01-10 20:41:04)
Offline
#43 2013-01-11 10:09:32
WilberCuntLicker wrote:
Lip shitz wrote:
BTW, on the kinesiological scale, the original US federal documents are considered to be the most enlightened writings ever. They score even higher than all the religious writings.
Just in case anyone was in any doubt that Shitlips
is a sockpuppet. This particular solecism is classic
bait...you know...on the hermaphroditical
-sockpuppet scale. If you sift through its babblings
you will see an uneven-handedness in its style,
diction and cogency that would be difficult to
attribute to drugs and alcohol alone. There is a
squirming, as of an author designing and redesigning
the parameters of a persona. Reply to this mongoloid
if you will, but prepare for eventual embarrassment.
(If it replies that it was attempting to talk about the
biomechanics of handwriting, ask it to produce the
original religious documents that were compared to
the "Federal Documents." And of course - it can't.
With a very few exceptions, there are none.)
https://placester.com/wp-content/upload … puppet.jpg
Wilber, why do you feel the need to infect every discussion or everything that i say with your paranoid obsession?
If you want some amplification or proof on some salient point, ask for it like an adult, and not some loser who knows a few multi-syllable words. I will never respond to your child-like challenges. I'm just here for entertainment and opinion (mine and others).
Btw, 'uneveness of persona' sounds to me like the opposite of 'OCD'. I do have a dynamic persona. That is why i was raised in poverty and am now wealthy and you are a big fat loser, seeking validation on an anonymous blog, from the protective comfort of your mommy's basement.
Now, do you wanna talk about kinesiology and enlightenment or not? I thought the author of this thread wanted to chat about the 2nd adm. and guns and abortions and shit. I found his/her comments to be some of the best discussion i've yet seen on high-street. Too bad you had to fuck that up.
Is there no room for non-adolescent discussion on this site?
Offline
#44 2013-01-11 10:19:56
Wilbur talking to his own puppet has become a bit boring.
Offline
#45 2013-01-11 10:24:05
WilberCuntLicker wrote:
Lip shitz wrote:
BTW, on the kinesiological scale, the original US federal documents are considered to be the most enlightened writings ever. They score even higher than all the religious writings.
Just in case anyone was in any doubt that Shitlips
is a sockpuppet. This particular solecism is classic
bait...you know...on the hermaphroditical
-sockpuppet scale. If you sift through its babblings
you will see an uneven-handedness in its style,
diction and cogency that would be difficult to
attribute to drugs and alcohol alone. There is a
squirming, as of an author designing and redesigning
the parameters of a persona. Reply to this mongoloid
if you will, but prepare for eventual embarrassment.
(If it replies that it was attempting to talk about the
biomechanics of handwriting, ask it to produce the
original religious documents that were compared to
the "Federal Documents." And of course - it can't.
With a very few exceptions, there are none.)
https://placester.com/wp-content/upload … puppet.jpg
Yeah, it's the bouncing all over the place that confuses me.
I was thinking after it's last post on this thread that it may even be Ahpookie but, that seems a stretch. It is a disordered sock, that is for sure.
Offline
#46 2013-01-11 10:28:42
Emmeran wrote:
Wilbur talking to his own puppet has become a bit boring.
You think it's Wilber?
I thought it was for a while but I'm nearly convinced it is not. I think by now Wilber would have outed himself so he could point out all of the fools he made. Like a kid at Christmas type of deal.
Offline
#47 2013-01-11 13:25:02
Wow, WCL. Did my post upset you that much???
Offline
#48 2013-01-11 13:59:21
Since i dont really know the history here, traditionally, wouldn't a sock puppet try to endear itself to the borg?
So, i am getting this from your ridiculous logic; As a non-puppet, i have not much value, but as a sock-puppet, i am very accomplished in my ability to not be like my puppeteer? That about sum it up?
Or a simpler, more logical answer could be that i'm not a sock-puppet. Then you folks of limited intelligence would have nothing to talk about. And wilber, that is NOT a bait statement.
Offline
#49 2013-01-11 13:59:31
Htom Sirveaux wrote:
XregnaR wrote:
Htom Sirveaux wrote:
If the founders thought that citizens should rise up against tyranny, why did they put down so many rebellions?
What rebellions are you referring to, other than the Whiskey Rebellion, which was barely a rebellion and never actually got suppressed?
Pennsylvania Mutiny, 1783 - This was a protest, not a rebellion, and it never got suppressed. In fact it led to the government officials fleeing Philadelphia and the eventual creation of DC.
Shay's Rebellion, 1786 - So yeah, a bit of a rebellion here. And yup, it got suppressed. But not by the government, but rather an ad-hoc militia formed of private citizens. It was also before the main US Constitution was ratified, and is cited as a shaping force in that document and the Bill of Rights.
Fries' Rebellion, 1799 - While a good example of a rebellion suppressed by the Federal government, it kind of loses its value when you see that everyone involved was pardoned by the president, John Adams. One of those founding father dudes.
Anti-Rent Rebellion, 1839-45
Dorr Rebellion, 1841-42
John Brown
Ku Klux Klan war, 1870
Sorry, but there were no "Founding Fathers" involved in any of these.
Are you actually arguing that anybody that feels like they're being oppressed can and should start shooting up government representatives? Because that's what Timothy McVeigh did.
Absolutely not. McVeigh & company were part of a small, radical, separatist, racist group that never had plans beyond terrorist activity. Are you familiar with the concept of 2%? the key premise is that it takes a minimum 2% of a given population to successfully invoke and follow through with revolution. McVeigh & company were so small a fraction of our population as to not even show up on the radar of history in the long run.
Regarding the implicitness of who regulates the militia, I feel you are inferring your own thoughts rather than seeing something implied. Recall at the time that the Federal Government had no standing army, and had to rely on state militias to fight its battles. At the time, militias had only loose ties and governance from state officials, and were as much civilian organizations as anything.
And finally, I still strongly believe that we actually do have revolutions on a regular basis, called elections. Until such time as these are failing us all, I don't see any reason to pursue another kind. My contention in my first post is that if you want to implement true change in the gun control argument, you first have to approach the idea that the 2nd needs to be dealt with. Until then those that are now being called "clingers" will have a valid leg to stand on, and potentially feel they have a right, even a duty, toward armed uprising.
you mentioned that there are impediments to unfettered access to guns now. You do realize that many Gun Rights advocates (myself included) feel that NFA 1934, GCA 1968 & FOPA 1986 are all unconstitutional?
Setting gun laws aside for a moment, I think if you were to review every Federal & State law on the books today, at least 50% would not pass Constitutional muster. The problem is, there is not enough time to contest them all, and in many cases not enough people who care.
Offline
#50 2013-01-11 14:00:13
Roger_That wrote:
Wow, WCL. Did my post upset you that much???
I think WCL is just upset that we aren't focusing all our attention on him right now.
Offline
- Home
- » High Street
- » 74th Annual High Street Quasi Civil Gun Abortion Politics Thread
