Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Indians at the Little Bighorn were better armed than the US soldiers were.
Learn some history.
Who won overall? Sit down
Remain ignorant. It's suits you. It is clearly your calling.
So, your claim is that the injuns won overall?
If I had wanted to say that I would have said that you illiterate fuckwit.
Then, what were you saying? Or, do you even know? She claimed the white man won overall, you called her ignorant.. so, I asked then are you claiming the injuns won? You now say no...
So, is there a third outcome?
The Second Amendment doesn't say there is a right to ammunition - or that "arms" can't be heavily regulated and taxed.
That's like saying you have a right to free speech, but you can't move your lips...
Who won overall? Sit down
Remain ignorant. It's suits you. It is clearly your calling.
So, your claim is that the injuns won overall?
If I had wanted to say that I would have said that you illiterate fuckwit.
Then, what were you saying? Or, do you even know? She claimed the white man won overall, you called her ignorant.. so, I asked then are you claiming the injuns won? You now say no...
So, is there a third outcome?
He's a left loon and felt the need to show his intellect. Major fail
Remain ignorant. It's suits you. It is clearly your calling.
So, your claim is that the injuns won overall?
If I had wanted to say that I would have said that you illiterate fuckwit.
Then, what were you saying? Or, do you even know? She claimed the white man won overall, you called her ignorant.. so, I asked then are you claiming the injuns won? You now say no...
So, is there a third outcome?
He's a left loon and felt the need to show his intellect. Major fail
He's been shot down more than Bud Bundy.
Who won overall? Sit down
Remain ignorant. It's suits you. It is clearly your calling.
So, your claim is that the injuns won overall?
If I had wanted to say that I would have said that you illiterate fuckwit.
Then, what were you saying? Or, do you even know? She claimed the white man won overall, you called her ignorant.. so, I asked then are you claiming the injuns won? You now say no...
So, is there a third outcome?
No she claimed Lakota was mad because the US army had repeating rifles.
The standard issue rifle for the US Army throughout almost all of the 2nd half of the19th century was a single shot breechloading Springfield.
IOW, she's ignorant.
Remain ignorant. It's suits you. It is clearly your calling.
So, your claim is that the injuns won overall?
If I had wanted to say that I would have said that you illiterate fuckwit.
Then, what were you saying? Or, do you even know? She claimed the white man won overall, you called her ignorant.. so, I asked then are you claiming the injuns won? You now say no...
So, is there a third outcome?
No she claimed Lakota was mad because the US army had repeating rifles.
The standard issue rifle for the US Army throughout almost all of the 2nd half of the19th century was a single shot breechloading Springfield.
IOW, she's ignorant.
Perhaps then, you should have said that instead of responding to her statement that the white man won overall. It's a contextual thingy.
Similarly, the 1st amendment does not protect the right to words.California Noticed That The Second Amendment Provides No Right To Ammunition
Except for the fact that there's no sound argument for necessity of the state to know who owns what guns.Gun registration is totally constitutional
Gun control advocates are launching a new regulatory push in California to impose first-in-the-nation instant background checks for ammunition sales, a move that comes as gun violence surfaces as a lightning rod issue in the 2016 presidential race.
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democratic candidate for governor in 2018, joined with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in announcing the initiative last week.
The November 2016 ballot initiative, which already is being slammed by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups, would make changes on several fronts.
It would require owners to turn in "large-capacity" magazines -- those holding 11 rounds or more -- and report when their weapons are stolen. Perhaps the most controversial provision would handle ammo sales like gun sales by requiring "point-of-sale background checks" for ammunition purchases; dealers also would need a license similar to those required to sell firearms.
As New York has backed off a similar initiative, California would be the first state to enact such background checks, if the initiative is successful. Four states -- Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey -- require ammunition purchasers to obtain permits ahead of time, according to the initiative's supporters.
The proposal comes in the wake of high-profile killings nationwide and three in the San Francisco Bay Area that were tied to stolen guns.
"Stuff doesn't just have to happen," Newsom said last week, responding to comments by Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush about a recent mass shooting on an Oregon college campus. "We have the ability to step in with some common sense. We have the ability to protect our families."
But the National Rifle Association said Newsom's effort would chip away at Second Amendment rights.
Top California official pushes ammo background checks
So, since the Second Amendment says nothing about a right to ammunition or large-capacity magazines, it looks like California may be on to something. We shall see...
The Second Amendment only guarantees a right to what was in existence when it was written.
Ammo Licenses are coming. The 'good ole days' of criminals walking in and buying all the ammo they desire, will become a thing of the past. Sorry, but it is where we're headed as a Society.
Except for the fact that there's no sound argument for necessity of the state to know who owns what guns.Gun registration is totally constitutional
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Except for the fact that there's no sound argument for necessity of the state to know who owns what guns.Gun registration is totally constitutional
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
No sound argument ? Guns are incredibly dangerous . Why wouldn't u want to know who's hands they are in?
Thank you for proving my point.No sound argument ? Guns are incredibly dangerous . Why wouldn't u want to know who's hands they are in?Except for the fact that there's no sound argument for necessity of the state to know who owns what guns.Gun registration is totally constitutional
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
^ thats why you people SassyIrishLass are laughed-at in re: economic matters: Brown’s California Overtakes Brazil With Companies Leading WorldCalifornia is a joke, it could fall into the Pacific and the USA would be a better country...take Oregon with it
California is overtaking Brazil as the world’s seventh-largest economy, bolstered by rising employment, home values and personal and corporate income, a year after the most-populous state surpassed Russia and Italy.
Except for the fact that there's no sound argument for necessity of the state to know who owns what guns.Gun registration is totally constitutional
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
No sound argument ? Guns are incredibly dangerous . Why wouldn't u want to know who's hands they are in?
