Jump to content

rightturnsonly

Member
  • Content Count

    11,573
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    No Party/Other

Profile Fields

  • Website URL
    dontknowwhatthismeans.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    cis male
  • Location
    northern Wisconsin
  • Interests
    You.

Recent Profile Visitors

8,285 profile views
  1. How does confiscating millions of law-biding people's AR-15's "protect the public welfare"? Seems to me you would be putting the "public welfare" in danger with an attempt to confiscate or coerce away from millions of people, their lawful arms.
  2. You say "not enough is being done", when left is signaling "what more can be done other than criminalize the act of owning an AR-15". The good guy with a gun is insufficient because it should read good guys with guns. Meaning, there are not enough people taking their Second Amendment rights seriously.
  3. I agree. It's just an invitation for government accusers to not bring forth any exculpatory evidence to the court as we are learning from Obama's Spygate.
  4. So Obama didn't watch news, but spied on certain reporters and news outlets anyway? or is he saying he watched the news which caused him to spy on certain reporters and news outlets anyway?
  5. You'd think a judicial oversight committee would be interested to know how it came to be that Russian disinformation came to be before a FISA court. Hell no, not a judicial oversight committee run by corrupt Democrats. The term "corrupt" may be too light, "seditious" seems more apt.
  6. Sure, I'll grant you that, but it isn't the Bad Actors abusing guns who are saying the overwhelming Honorable, Noble, Good Faith gun owners are responsible, there go, we get to take away their guns as well. Making a AR-15 gun owner guilty, simply by owning an AR-15 makes people like you the antagonist in the debate. You will be putting people in harms way simply by trying to take away an innocent person's AR-15, and you will not have my sympathy when YOU get people killed.
  7. There is nothing in the video about the EC. What's the connection?
  8. It's gun confiscation. The government cannot buy "back" what it never sold to you in the first place. Innocent people are fed up with being accused, simply because they own an AR-15, of murders they didn't commit. The only antagonists here, are the gun grabbers.
  9. Well, he is essentially guilty of a thought crime just for having this stuff isn't he? I'm just asking, if the same scenario played out with two different people, one with these thought crimes and one without, what difference should that make to whether the shooting was justified? I emphasized the word same, so don't tell me how it wouldn't be justified by changing the scenario.
  10. Can you cite where the First Amendment indicates that or is this just a convenient argument. Technically, is Heng a politician? She hasn't been elected. It's funny thinking about your little argument. On the one hand someone could burn a picture of AOC, nothing happens to AOC, you're outraged, on the other hand, someone could hold up the pages of AOC's green deal and burn them, something happens to AOC, you're outraged. I think Ann Coulter was correct to say that liberals take the figurative literally and the literal figuratively. She may or may not have said this, but I think they do it on purpose.
  11. AR 15's are like parachutes. Much better to have one and not need it than to not have one and need it. Do I want one and you would deny me from having one for simply wanting one, or did I not want one but because you would deny me from having one for simply wanting it, I now want one? I think I want one now just because...... Can you tell me why, just because you don't exercise your right to have an AR-15, why you should be able to take away another persons right to have an AR-15? Even though I don't own one, the guilt by association bullsh*t by the left of blaming all AR-15 gun owners and the NRA and Second Amendment advocates for the actions of a handful of people is unfair.
  12. So, are we denouncing while affirming one's right to free speech or was Griffin's and by extension Heng's burning of a picture of a politician not free speech? or in your mind is free speech and the expression thereof different for politicians than for non-politicians?
  13. You mean like giving conflicting demands on the suspect? Shouldn't the people that cleared the officer of the officer involved shooting already have discovered if the officer manipulated the scenario or should the investigators homes be searched for racist material as well?
×
×
  • Create New...