Politically incorrect is a politically correct way of saying things that...shouldn't be there.

[Timmy]

Freedom of speech and of the press is pretty much absolute, the ownership and possession of arms is open to discussion (see Scalia's comments in Heller).

No it's not. Scalia was wrong on that issue. "Shall not be infringed" is not subject to interpretation.

You forgot "well regulated " .

Let me ask you. Were our founding fathers required to show state issued photo Id to vote ?

The bogus liberal understanding of "well regulated" has been explained ad nauseum in this forum.

So has your bogus "shall not be infringed ". You ain't the only one who can cherry
Pick Lines.

So how should "shall not be infringed" be defined?

This should be good.

Well since your such a strict constitutionalist the 2nd only applies to milita members .

 

[bripat9643]

No it's not. Scalia was wrong on that issue. "Shall not be infringed" is not subject to interpretation.

You forgot "well regulated " .

Let me ask you. Were our founding fathers required to show state issued photo Id to vote ?

The bogus liberal understanding of "well regulated" has been explained ad nauseum in this forum.

So has your bogus "shall not be infringed ". You ain't the only one who can cherry
Pick Lines.

So how should "shall not be infringed" be defined?

This should be good.

Well since your such a strict constitutionalist the 2nd only applies to milita members .

Where does it say that?

 

[Auld Phart]

No it's not. Scalia was wrong on that issue. "Shall not be infringed" is not subject to interpretation.

You forgot "well regulated " .

Let me ask you. Were our founding fathers required to show state issued photo Id to vote ?

The bogus liberal understanding of "well regulated" has been explained ad nauseum in this forum.

So has your bogus "shall not be infringed ". You ain't the only one who can cherry
Pick Lines.

So how should "shall not be infringed" be defined?

This should be good.

Well since your such a strict constitutionalist the 2nd only applies to milita members .

 

[Timmy]

You forgot "well regulated " .

Let me ask you. Were our founding fathers required to show state issued photo Id to vote ?

The bogus liberal understanding of "well regulated" has been explained ad nauseum in this forum.

So has your bogus "shall not be infringed ". You ain't the only one who can cherry
Pick Lines.

So how should "shall not be infringed" be defined?

This should be good.

Well since your such a strict constitutionalist the 2nd only applies to milita members .

Where does it say that?

Have you read the 2nd.

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.

 

[Rustic]

The bogus liberal understanding of "well regulated" has been explained ad nauseum in this forum.

So has your bogus "shall not be infringed ". You ain't the only one who can cherry
Pick Lines.

So how should "shall not be infringed" be defined?

This should be good.

Well since your such a strict constitutionalist the 2nd only applies to milita members .

Where does it say that?

Have you read the 2nd.

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.

It doesn't mean regulated by the federal government... dumbass
Lol

 

[Dale Smith]

Indeed, applying 21st Century viewpoints to earlier centuries is pretty crazy.

I've often wondered why you crazy Progressives apply modern views of slavery to smear the Founding Fathers.

But not really. I don't wonder why at all.

Of course you don't wonder, being willfully ignorant (and I'm being kind) you lack curiosity.

I wonder why 2nd A. supporters apply modern arms as equally protected with the guns available in the 18th Century?

I wonder why 2nd A. supporters apply modern arms as equally protected with the guns available in the 18th Century?

The press has evolved as much or more than firearms. Is Freedom of the Press limited to newspapers and Town Criers?

Freedom of speech and of the press is pretty much absolute, the ownership and possession of arms is open to discussion (see Scalia's comments in Heller).

No it's not. Scalia was wrong on that issue. "Shall not be infringed" is not subject to interpretation.

You forgot "well regulated " .

Let me ask you. Were our founding fathers required to show state issued photo Id to vote ?

Indeed, applying 21st Century viewpoints to earlier centuries is pretty crazy.

I've often wondered why you crazy Progressives apply modern views of slavery to smear the Founding Fathers.

But not really. I don't wonder why at all.

Of course you don't wonder, being willfully ignorant (and I'm being kind) you lack curiosity.

I wonder why 2nd A. supporters apply modern arms as equally protected with the guns available in the 18th Century?

I wonder why 2nd A. supporters apply modern arms as equally protected with the guns available in the 18th Century?

The press has evolved as much or more than firearms. Is Freedom of the Press limited to newspapers and Town Criers?

Freedom of speech and of the press is pretty much absolute, the ownership and possession of arms is open to discussion (see Scalia's comments in Heller).

No it's not. Scalia was wrong on that issue. "Shall not be infringed" is not subject to interpretation.

You forgot "well regulated " .

Let me ask you. Were our founding fathers required to show state issued photo Id to vote ?

Why should I have an ID/license to drive? Why should I have a license to fish? Why does one need a license to cut hair? I could go on and on but the gist of the matter is that under the UCC/admiralty system of commerce (that we are actually under) is designed to fleece the masses and control them. We have all been basically "press-ganged via our all CAPS corporate fictional name that was created with the birth certificate (that was monetized). So it only makes sense that the voting for the next CEO of USA.INC requires that those wishing to cast a ballot are a U.S citizen/"employee" of USA.INC.

As far as "well regulated" goes? That means the citizens and not the military that serves at the leisure of the CEO of USA.INC. If the military is actually beholding to the ones that sign their paychecks, they are certainly not the keepers of "liberty"...now are they?

 

[Dale Smith]

So has your bogus "shall not be infringed ". You ain't the only one who can cherry
Pick Lines.

So how should "shall not be infringed" be defined?

This should be good.

Well since your such a strict constitutionalist the 2nd only applies to milita members .

Where does it say that?

Have you read the 2nd.

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.

It doesn't mean regulated by the federal government... dumbass
Lol

Exactly, that's akin to having a well regulated fox to guard the hen house.

 

[Auld Phart]

The bogus liberal understanding of "well regulated" has been explained ad nauseum in this forum.

So has your bogus "shall not be infringed ". You ain't the only one who can cherry
Pick Lines.

So how should "shall not be infringed" be defined?

This should be good.

Well since your such a strict constitutionalist the 2nd only applies to milita members .

Where does it say that?

Have you read the 2nd.

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.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Get the word people changed to militia, and you have a point.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No it's not. Scalia was wrong on that issue. "Shall not be infringed" is not subject to interpretation.

You forgot "well regulated " .

Let me ask you. Were our founding fathers required to show state issued photo Id to vote ?

The bogus liberal understanding of "well regulated" has been explained ad nauseum in this forum.

So has your bogus "shall not be infringed ". You ain't the only one who can cherry
Pick Lines.

So how should "shall not be infringed" be defined?

This should be good.

Well since your such a strict constitutionalist the 2nd only applies to milita members .

That concept first appeared in the early 20th Century. It was not considered prior to that.

The SCOTUS finally had reason to rule on the subject, though it did incompletely and with some error.

Nevertheless, the individual right has been clearly re-pronounced, and you will never, ever sublimate it to politics again.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Have you read the 2nd.

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.

Have you read the 2nd? I'm being serious. Have you?

Break it down and tell me what you believe it says.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Of course you don't wonder, being willfully ignorant (and I'm being kind) you lack curiosity.

I wonder why 2nd A. supporters apply modern arms as equally protected with the guns available in the 18th Century?

I wonder why 2nd A. supporters apply modern arms as equally protected with the guns available in the 18th Century?

The press has evolved as much or more than firearms. Is Freedom of the Press limited to newspapers and Town Criers?

Freedom of speech and of the press is pretty much absolute, the ownership and possession of arms is open to discussion (see Scalia's comments in Heller).

Not the point.

If you want to take firearms back to 1776 models, why not take Freedom of the Press back to what they had at that time

Is it your opinion that every citizen has the right to own contemporary military arms (i.e. weapons)?

Yes or No.

You don't have a fucking clue what a military weapon is. Dip shit LOL

Not now, but once upon a time I was a projectile man in a 5" gun mount.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Freedom of speech and of the press is pretty much absolute, the ownership and possession of arms is open to discussion (see Scalia's comments in Heller).

Not the point.

If you want to take firearms back to 1776 models, why not take Freedom of the Press back to what they had at that time

Is it your opinion that every citizen has the right to own contemporary military arms (i.e. weapons)?

Yes or No.

Rifles, hand guns.

yes

contemporary?

Such as?

Such as land mines, large caliper automatic weapons, small caliper automatic weapons, anti personnel grenades, Surface to air missiles.

Why not? Your beloved corporate "gubermint" sells and provides them to rogue elements that they finance to fight proxy wars on their behalf.....don't you know that??

I'm sorry, the party you have tried to reach is not receiving lunatics today. Please take your meds and try again later.

 

[Dale Smith]

Not the point.

If you want to take firearms back to 1776 models, why not take Freedom of the Press back to what they had at that time

Is it your opinion that every citizen has the right to own contemporary military arms (i.e. weapons)?

Yes or No.

Rifles, hand guns.

yes

contemporary?

Such as?

Such as land mines, large caliper automatic weapons, small caliper automatic weapons, anti personnel grenades, Surface to air missiles.

Why not? Your beloved corporate "gubermint" sells and provides them to rogue elements that they finance to fight proxy wars on their behalf.....don't you know that??

I'm sorry, the party you have tried to reach is not receiving lunatics today. Please take your meds and try again later.

I know more than you....fact.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Republican strategist Mike Murphy just made this statement on Meet The Press a few moments ago, and I think it's a brilliant insight. Donald Trump and the drumpfodder have latched on to this idea of being "politically incorrect" and have turned it on its head into their own version of PC. But at the end of the day, all they're doing is being equally PC, just under an alternate color. This is yet another example of the patent absurdity of the Trump mentality.

Anyone who watched the UK General Election last year would have seen Nigel Farage's UKIP (Trump like Farage, they're similar, no policies and lots of charisma sort of politics, ie, they're selling themselves and not their product) go from being staunchly pro-non-PC to then dropping it as soon as non-PC was used against them. Ironically it was a kid making an app that did it.

 

[Dale Smith]

Republican strategist Mike Murphy just made this statement on Meet The Press a few moments ago, and I think it's a brilliant insight. Donald Trump and the drumpfodder have latched on to this idea of being "politically incorrect" and have turned it on its head into their own version of PC. But at the end of the day, all they're doing is being equally PC, just under an alternate color. This is yet another example of the patent absurdity of the Trump mentality.

Anyone who watched the UK General Election last year would have seen Nigel Farage's UKIP (Trump like Farage, they're similar, no policies and lots of charisma sort of politics, ie, they're selling themselves and not their product) go from being staunchly pro-non-PC to then dropping it as soon as non-PC was used against them. Ironically it was a kid making an app that did it.

Are you saying that Farage was wrong for steering the UK out of the E.U?????? Seriously???? And PLEASE explain to me why you think Hitlery is a better choice......she is the same ol same ol.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Republican strategist Mike Murphy just made this statement on Meet The Press a few moments ago, and I think it's a brilliant insight. Donald Trump and the drumpfodder have latched on to this idea of being "politically incorrect" and have turned it on its head into their own version of PC. But at the end of the day, all they're doing is being equally PC, just under an alternate color. This is yet another example of the patent absurdity of the Trump mentality.

Anyone who watched the UK General Election last year would have seen Nigel Farage's UKIP (Trump like Farage, they're similar, no policies and lots of charisma sort of politics, ie, they're selling themselves and not their product) go from being staunchly pro-non-PC to then dropping it as soon as non-PC was used against them. Ironically it was a kid making an app that did it.

Are you saying that Farage was wrong for steering the UK out of the E.U?????? Seriously???? And PLEASE explain to me why you think Hitlery is a better choice......she is the same ol same ol.

Yes, I think Farage was wrong for steering the UK out of the EU. Especially as he had no plan, and no one else had a plan for what happened if they voted to leave.

The UK hasn't left yet, the pound is low, at $1.29 right now, it was at $1.39 at its LOWEST point and $1.54 at its highest point in the last year.

Confidence in the economy is low, and the UK only got out of the previous recession and back on its feet recently.

Unemployment will begin to rise.

In order to have a good trading deal with the EU (which makes up 50% of it's trade) the UK might have to join the Schengen Agreement, but that for the leave people is unacceptable so the UK will be stuck with a bad deal.

As for "independence" as they were trying to claim they would get, that's rubbish. They complain about immigration, but mostly about non-EU immigration, i.e. Muslims from Pakistan, for example, and that was the BRITISH GOVERNMENT's fault, not the EU government. As for the Polish etc, well the Germans put a block on them for a few years, so they all went to the UK. The BRITISH GOVERNMENT's fault again.

Most of the issues they were talking about had nothing to do with the EU.

That's not to say there weren't reasons for leaving. However the biggest problem is the UK didn't bother trying to change the EU from within. Now the EU will do as it wishes and the British will have to conform on many things or risk losing loads of money.

So it's a choice between being a little brother, or being poor.

Many of the Brexit people simply don't understand the reality. Farage was criticized by those even in his own party for not being organized or stuff like that. He was just charismatic. He'd sell himself.

I think if there were a vote based on the FACTS (because both sides seemed not to bother with them) and based on what people know today, they'd vote to stay.

 

[SwimExpert]

Are you saying that Farage was wrong for steering the UK out of the E.U?????? Seriously???? And PLEASE explain to me why you think Hitlery is a better choice......she is the same ol same ol.

Sounds like you're quite comfortable voting for Clinton.