El Paso Shooter - Guess Who He Supports
- Thread starter Y.A.G Si Ye Nots
- Start date
These? We are talking about one. Nice try to twist words...And yes, online radicalization is THE issue in the El Paso shooting....as is Trump inciting scumbags to violence.
Then hypothetically wish in one hand and shit in the other...if you want to discuss your ideas of solutions you better be ready to discuss the workability of those solutions.
If I am convicted of a felony I will gladly hand over my weapons, as I have forfeited my right to own them. That's on me. I am not willfully giving up my rights for no damn reason. That's on the idiot that comes knocking on my door.
Furthermore, the car I drive is a negotiable item. And, that was fixed and worked out.
Me giving up my guns is non negotiable. I am with Raoul, and I firmly believe there are thousands upon thousands of us(liberals and conservatives) that are not giving that up. I will not be a subject to a King or authoritative figure nor do I want my future generations to be. End of Story.
Me giving up my guns is non negotiable. I am with Raoul, and I firmly believe there are thousands upon thousands of us(liberals and conservatives) that are not giving that up. I will not be a subject to a King or authoritative figure nor do I want my future generations to be. End of Story.
Yeah, just a nut when the shooter is wearing your team colors, but you're all gun-ho blaming Trump when the shooter happens to be a Trump supporter.
btw, are you suggesting the other mass killers weren't nuts? Some over the years have been high IQ folks, but in my opinion, you have to be a certified nut to plan out, and then follow through with killing a bunch of people you don't even know.
I think anyone that just blindly kills dozens of people for no reason is a nut. But being a nut does not mean one does not have certain motivations. The Dayton guy? There is a report he was not allowed into a bar, so he went to the car and got his gun. That's certainly not ideological, that's just a nut and an asshole. The dude shot his sister, WTF.
I have a different theory on why he shot up the place, including his sister. Did you check out the makeup of the people that were killed? I think she was hanging with some brothers, and he flipped out, and shot her for being a N-Lover, and then started shooting the sisters and brothers that were with her. Just my personal take, and I'm likely wrong, but was the first thing I thought up when they held that press conference around 4 yesterday, when they listed out all the victims.
well, then that exempts him from being a liberal because liberals can't be racist. you sure he wasn't jewish?
That would shoot the socialist Democrat theory all to hell.....you can't have both.
It would be odd for someone who claimed to be a Social Democrat to be racist against blacks.
Shit, I can name a few bus loads full, just from the damn holler I'm from. you ever been to Clay County? I remember our freshman basketball team playing up there for the very first time. We strolled into the gym for warmups with half the team being bruthas, and you could tell most of the local fans had never seen a real life brother before. Rocked our damn bus on the way home, and then voted for Jimmy Carter the next day.
Oh? Well, if that were the case, you would have had no reason to post this:
"I have been doing a lot of reading about online radicalization, Keeper is correct that there is a similarity in these white supremacy nuts and radical Muslims. Other nations are cracking down on this online activity, making hate speech illegal; I am not willing to go down that road."
My solution isn't taking away all guns. It was a hypothetical after you and your fellow martyr claimed what you would do, which we both know you wouldn't, under the circumstances posed to you.
This is what is great. You claim that you have a right to own guns because of the Constitution. Then, you agree that later courts can decide limits on what guns, if any, you can own base on having been convicted of a felony. The Constitution makes no exceptions to the right of gun ownership and surely doesn't eliminate that right based on a felony conviction.
So you're perfectly fine with courts putting limitations on Constitutional rights but not fine with courts putting limitations on Constitutional rights.
So are racists only white? Here’s a former Marshall player that is white that accused a black head coach of racism.
https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2...-court/kobbe-v-bethunecookman-university-inc/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/23462007
Awaiting the personal attack for presenting facts.
https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2...-court/kobbe-v-bethunecookman-university-inc/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/23462007
Awaiting the personal attack for presenting facts.
"I could logically argue today's shooting is a 1A problem."
You don't know me as well as you think you do. But who knew Rosa Parks would tell the bus driver to go get fvcked?
I have a human right to self-defense. I consent to be governed. Part of that consent is an agreement I will follow the law, as long as said laws are not violations of my human rights, and accept what is coming if I fail to uphold my end of the bargain (being a lawful, production citizen).
At the time it was well-understood under Common Law that your rights could be curtailed in response to being a criminal. This would still be well-understood if people had a decent education, and frankly I expect more from someone that scored a million points on the LSAT.
After reading post #55, I have a feeling this thread is about to get very interesting.
What in this thread would lead you to believe that anyone was making that point? Not a single thing in this thread would have you ask that question. Face it - you're one of those who are obsessed with me. Hell, you make comments and like posts about me on the premium board when I can't even read/post there. How often do you think about me?
Are you mad at me because your son's football bio online lists his step-father's name as his dad instead of you? Are you mad at me that your wife left you for a fatass? Are you mad at me that your son posts pictures on his Facebook with his stepdad and not you? Are you mad at me that your children like the presents David gets them more than the ones you get them? Are you mad at me because your dorky ass couldn't contain your emotions and made physical threads towards me?
I'm not the one to blame for that. I'd look in the mirror (well, after taking Prozac, since that reflection would be enough to make anyone depressed) and take responsibility for all of those things happening. They aren't my fault.
Much like your lawsuit, your arguments/comebacks are baseless. Sue and spew like a typical liberal. I’m done with this post and will leave you steaming like the pile of shit that you are. That is all.
Lawsuits that are baseless don't lead to 1.5 years of litigation and settlements worth twice as much as you make in a year, a strong suggestion for the head coach to immediately resign, and the firing of two attorneys by the school.
Wait: I'm the one who is steaming? Ha! You are running from the thread like the coward that you are, because you know you can't control your emotions and are the mad one. That is why you threatened me physically in the past - because you're a hothead who is "steaming."
It's a good thing another man is raising your sons, so that they turn out to be a better man than you are.
the crazy bastard is spot on about the democratic parties intent behind open borders, free health care for illegals, and legalizing them to vote. it all but ensures the dems will win every presidential election moving forward thereafter. it's all about power. it's just a damn shame the dems won't admit their reasoning.
hell, look no farther than top dems rhetoric from years gone by regarding illegal immigration. amazing how they've suddenly had a change of heart after losing this election.
hell, look no farther than top dems rhetoric from years gone by regarding illegal immigration. amazing how they've suddenly had a change of heart after losing this election.
It's evidently not your friend. From your source...."The measure would have had no practical effect even if it had passed. Illegal immigrants — and indeed noncitizens as a whole — are not legally able to participate in federal elections."
idiot, i stated what the dems wanted to happen. you requested a link. i provided the link. nowhere did you ask for a link to current law. again, it's the dems goal. sorry if yore too stupid to realize this. i'm sure you'll oppose it when it eventually happens, right?
you are the most idiotic person i've ever encountered on the interwebs. pure stupidity. nothing more, nothing less. pure stupidity.
drink bleach you multiple religion worshiping jackass.
you truly are an idiot if you don't believe the dems won't eventually push illegals rights to vote through. again, will you oppose it when it happens?
You're an idiot for saying Dems want illegals to have the right to vote. I asked for a link to that effect, and so far you haven't provided one.
Can't you please just admit that you're in favor of illegals having identical rights that American citizens have, as long as none of them live out Wayne? Additionally, can you please admit that you're also in favor of gay marriage, as long as two homos aren't porking one another on the front porch of the house across the street from you?
While I do not support this on a federal level (the states, well it is up to them for state and local elections), I have to ask: do you think aliens have always been denied the vote?
So do kings, and you're a subject to the present one. Lock, stock, and barrel.
So, I have to give him my stuff and worry that he will hurt me or my family? Ok
True, Trump either loses or wins. Either way he is out, now or later. Same way with any POTUS
In this link, it indicates "Last month, New York became the 13th state to grant drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants, securing a victory that liberals and open-borders advocates have fought for since Eliot Spitzer was governor. But Democrats should worry about how the debate unfolded in New York: a majority of state voters opposed the bill, including about 40 percent of surveyed Democrats, mainly because the law will confer real benefits on illegal residents, thus rewarding violators of the law. The question of voter fraud—dismissed as a canard by most on the left—raised alarms when Democrats tried to pass a bill that would have automatically registered all drivers to vote (though it required non-citizens affirmatively to opt out of voter registration). After Republican legislators called attention to the potential consequences, the bill was scuttled. As it is, a state driver’s license is all that is required for voter registration in New York, so the potential for abuse is there.
here's a link that indicates "The measure was approved mostly on a party-line vote, 279-72. Forty-nine Democrats joined Republicans in declaring "that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens."
Most Democrats, however, blasted the GOP for what some described as a "ridiculous," "stupid" and meaningless vote.
while your link to politico indicates the dems didn't vote to allow illegals the right to vote, which is true, it doesn't dispute the fact that dems shot down adding the language from the latter link above. and, if they don't support that language, then it goes without saying they support the opposite.
again, they'll eventually make an attempt to provide illegals the right to vote and when they do, will you oppose it?
