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.
I have no idea what the fuck you are trying to convey there. The second statement isn't even a sentence.Do you really think all thugs are felons? Thugs as in you look at them and call them a thug.Thugs don't carry openly because they're all fucking felons.It should be fun when the open carrying thug encounters the open carrying walmart redneck on the street. What's the accuracy rate of handguns in live shootings? I heard it's less than 50%. Where do the rest of those defensive bullets go? Probably defending someone else out there.NRA-ILA | Federal Appeals Court Confirms Second Amendment Protects Right to Carry in Public
FAIRFAX, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action applauded (NRA-ILA) a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday [July 24, 2018] that confirmed the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
“This is a critical issue for law-abiding gun owners who want to exercise their right to self-defense outside the home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The Second Amendment clearly protects the right to bear arms in public.”
The ruling reversed a decision by a Hawaii district court that upheld Hawaii’s ban on carriage outside the home.
*****************************************************************************************
This court is the three-judge Ninth Circuit, and the decision could be appealed to the full 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court, which is considered the furthest left appeals court in the country.
After that it presumably will be appealed to the Supreme Court at some point, because federal appeals courts have found both ways, for and against more freedom to bear arms.
This Hawaii case turned on the word "bear." The Constitution did not say we are free to "keep" arms, meaning inside the home, perhaps: it said we had the right to "bear" arms, meaning carry.
I have no idea what the fuck you are trying to convey there. The second statement isn't even a sentence.
But yes, a thug is, by definition, a felon.
thug
THəɡ/
noun
I know leftists have turned it into a term of endearment. I don't give a shit. A thug is a criminal.
- 1.
a violent person, especially a criminal.
synonyms: ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum, gangster, villain, criminal;
informaltough, bruiser, hardman, goon, heavy, enforcer, hired gun, hood
"one of Capone's thugs
I have no idea what the fuck you are trying to convey there. The second statement isn't even a sentence.
But yes, a thug is, by definition, a felon.
thug
THəɡ/
noun
I know leftists have turned it into a term of endearment. I don't give a shit. A thug is a criminal.
- 1.
a violent person, especially a criminal.
synonyms: ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum, gangster, villain, criminal;
informaltough, bruiser, hardman, goon, heavy, enforcer, hired gun, hood
"one of Capone's thugs
Yeah...…….I didn't know what that pair of ….statements meant either. "Do you really think all thugs are felons? Thugs as in you look at them and call them a thug." That one.
But it's possible that the poster meant to refer to the one definition your dictionary leaves out. "Thug" is now often used as a euphemism for black males who are probably criminals. Non-PC to call them blacks so people find a safer word. I don't do that. I just say things. It does make for clearer sentences, if I'm lucky.
Who exactly is "the left" and do they belong to both political parties?The hard reality is that no matter how much we'd like to pride the nation on compromise and openness there are certain boundaries that will never be compromised to a point of non-contention in this nation. Issues like abortion, socialism vs communism, and similar "fundamental beliefs" that one side or the other won't "back down" on or whatever you want to call it. It's unfortunate that we can't even agree to look for middle ground anymore, but I suppose that is to be expected; we have already done middle ground and it's just not enough for one side or the other so loggerhead has been achieved.
The disgusting part to me is that the left has by and large decided that rather than continue the quasi live and let live we have had for the past decades, they're going to turn to hatred, violence, and corruption to get their way, and only their way. These radical segments should be ostracized by all sides, but instead they are being welcomed with open arms by the greed and power-lust of their corrupt leaders. It's a pathetic display that I do hope we the people continue to vote out of our tolerant nation because frankly if these types gain power true liberalism, true freedom, is over and I do not think it will ever likely return to the planet.
So when the founders wrote the words "keep and bear" in the second amendment they meant keep and keep?NRA-ILA | Federal Appeals Court Confirms Second Amendment Protects Right to Carry in Public
FAIRFAX, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action applauded (NRA-ILA) a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday [July 24, 2018] that confirmed the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
“This is a critical issue for law-abiding gun owners who want to exercise their right to self-defense outside the home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The Second Amendment clearly protects the right to bear arms in public.”
The ruling reversed a decision by a Hawaii district court that upheld Hawaii’s ban on carriage outside the home.
*****************************************************************************************
This court is the three-judge Ninth Circuit, and the decision could be appealed to the full 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court, which is considered the furthest left appeals court in the country.
After that it presumably will be appealed to the Supreme Court at some point, because federal appeals courts have found both ways, for and against more freedom to bear arms.
This Hawaii case turned on the word "bear." The Constitution did not say we are free to "keep" arms, meaning inside the home, perhaps: it said we had the right to "bear" arms, meaning carry.
The word by itself has two equal meanings. One is to carry. The other is to keep. It appears our founding fathers meant the keep not the carry meaning. We have the right to Keep Arms.
Who exactly is "the left" and do they belong to both political parties?The hard reality is that no matter how much we'd like to pride the nation on compromise and openness there are certain boundaries that will never be compromised to a point of non-contention in this nation. Issues like abortion, socialism vs communism, and similar "fundamental beliefs" that one side or the other won't "back down" on or whatever you want to call it. It's unfortunate that we can't even agree to look for middle ground anymore, but I suppose that is to be expected; we have already done middle ground and it's just not enough for one side or the other so loggerhead has been achieved.
The disgusting part to me is that the left has by and large decided that rather than continue the quasi live and let live we have had for the past decades, they're going to turn to hatred, violence, and corruption to get their way, and only their way. These radical segments should be ostracized by all sides, but instead they are being welcomed with open arms by the greed and power-lust of their corrupt leaders. It's a pathetic display that I do hope we the people continue to vote out of our tolerant nation because frankly if these types gain power true liberalism, true freedom, is over and I do not think it will ever likely return to the planet.
So is this definition fairly accurate?
How can you say not one scrap of evidence and not know heller?Not one scrap of evidence points to the 2A protecting the right to self defense, not even logic.
Heller vs DC
What about Heller vs DC?
I mean, it doesn't take much to articulate oneself, does it?
A wee bit different than a multi million person metropolis with all the fun problems that go along with them. You'd almost need a separate set of rules for urban vs. Suburban vs. Rural areas.Alaska has had open carry forever. It's not at all uncommon to see a gun on the hip, and it's almost expected to see a gun in the truck window. We have a very high carry rate up here; think it was 80% in the city, 95% out of the city.
Our businesses, for the most part, don't lose customers because of it, people on the street don't freak out about it, and really other than folks being a shit ton more friendly, open carry hasn't caused any real problems.
You do need separate rules. That's why a city has the right to enact it's own laws and it's up to the State to allow them to. It can even come down to the County having even a different set of laws. One county over in any one direction, the population falls off to almost nothing. We need tighter gun control while they really don't need much of anything. Meanwhile, the Eastern Slope has the majority of the Population and they need more gun control than we have. What we don't want is for the State to have too tight a reign that it gets in the way in the rural areas and doesn't allow the cities to have what they need. That's the way the system is supposed to work. The problem is, both fringe sides seem to get in the way of allowing it to work that way.
The D's decided this was a wedge issue they could use to get votes. They know that their urban voters don't care about owning guns, many are scared of guns, etc. so they run on a platform to take /MY/ guns away, preventing /ME/ from having what I legit /NEED/ to have.
This is why state's rights are fucking important and the D's need to stop using federal courts to get every damned thing they want /forced/ on the entire nation. (Enviromentalism, SSM, free fucking health care, spying rights, and gun bans to name just a few abuses of power.)
A wee bit different than a multi million person metropolis with all the fun problems that go along with them. You'd almost need a separate set of rules for urban vs. Suburban vs. Rural areas.Alaska has had open carry forever. It's not at all uncommon to see a gun on the hip, and it's almost expected to see a gun in the truck window. We have a very high carry rate up here; think it was 80% in the city, 95% out of the city.
Our businesses, for the most part, don't lose customers because of it, people on the street don't freak out about it, and really other than folks being a shit ton more friendly, open carry hasn't caused any real problems.
You do need separate rules. That's why a city has the right to enact it's own laws and it's up to the State to allow them to. It can even come down to the County having even a different set of laws. One county over in any one direction, the population falls off to almost nothing. We need tighter gun control while they really don't need much of anything. Meanwhile, the Eastern Slope has the majority of the Population and they need more gun control than we have. What we don't want is for the State to have too tight a reign that it gets in the way in the rural areas and doesn't allow the cities to have what they need. That's the way the system is supposed to work. The problem is, both fringe sides seem to get in the way of allowing it to work that way.
The D's decided this was a wedge issue they could use to get votes. They know that their urban voters don't care about owning guns, many are scared of guns, etc. so they run on a platform to take /MY/ guns away, preventing /ME/ from having what I legit /NEED/ to have.
This is why state's rights are fucking important and the D's need to stop using federal courts to get every damned thing they want /forced/ on the entire nation. (Enviromentalism, SSM, free fucking health care, spying rights, and gun bans to name just a few abuses of power.)
I suggest you stop being so partisan. So far, the courts have upheld the right to own handguns in the home. They have upheld the right to get a permit to carry. You have the right to protect your family, home and property. You want a pony too?
[
All the other rights specifically protected by the Bill of Rights all share one purpose, and the right to self defense doesn't fit in there at all.
But hey, every time I've told someone what it means, they've simply ignored the truth.
That's because it's your truth, but not our truth.
I wonder why you think you know truths that have to be imposed on everyone.
How can you say not one scrap of evidence and not know heller?Not one scrap of evidence points to the 2A protecting the right to self defense, not even logic.
Heller vs DC
What about Heller vs DC?
I mean, it doesn't take much to articulate oneself, does it?
A wee bit different than a multi million person metropolis with all the fun problems that go along with them. You'd almost need a separate set of rules for urban vs. Suburban vs. Rural areas.Alaska has had open carry forever. It's not at all uncommon to see a gun on the hip, and it's almost expected to see a gun in the truck window. We have a very high carry rate up here; think it was 80% in the city, 95% out of the city.
Our businesses, for the most part, don't lose customers because of it, people on the street don't freak out about it, and really other than folks being a shit ton more friendly, open carry hasn't caused any real problems.
You do need separate rules. That's why a city has the right to enact it's own laws and it's up to the State to allow them to. It can even come down to the County having even a different set of laws. One county over in any one direction, the population falls off to almost nothing. We need tighter gun control while they really don't need much of anything. Meanwhile, the Eastern Slope has the majority of the Population and they need more gun control than we have. What we don't want is for the State to have too tight a reign that it gets in the way in the rural areas and doesn't allow the cities to have what they need. That's the way the system is supposed to work. The problem is, both fringe sides seem to get in the way of allowing it to work that way.
The D's decided this was a wedge issue they could use to get votes. They know that their urban voters don't care about owning guns, many are scared of guns, etc. so they run on a platform to take /MY/ guns away, preventing /ME/ from having what I legit /NEED/ to have.
This is why state's rights are fucking important and the D's need to stop using federal courts to get every damned thing they want /forced/ on the entire nation. (Enviromentalism, SSM, free fucking health care, spying rights, and gun bans to name just a few abuses of power.)
I suggest you stop being so partisan. So far, the courts have upheld the right to own handguns in the home. They have upheld the right to get a permit to carry. You have the right to protect your family, home and property. You want a pony too?
It is not partisan to expect that my 2nd amendment right, which the founders declared was NOT given to me by the government, not be fucked with.
It is however, quite partisan, to push your idealistic beliefs and fear of guns to the point that you would infringe and take away my rights, and the rights of others, in blatant disregard of the Constitution.
Why do you need a gun?A wee bit different than a multi million person metropolis with all the fun problems that go along with them. You'd almost need a separate set of rules for urban vs. Suburban vs. Rural areas.Alaska has had open carry forever. It's not at all uncommon to see a gun on the hip, and it's almost expected to see a gun in the truck window. We have a very high carry rate up here; think it was 80% in the city, 95% out of the city.
Our businesses, for the most part, don't lose customers because of it, people on the street don't freak out about it, and really other than folks being a shit ton more friendly, open carry hasn't caused any real problems.
You do need separate rules. That's why a city has the right to enact it's own laws and it's up to the State to allow them to. It can even come down to the County having even a different set of laws. One county over in any one direction, the population falls off to almost nothing. We need tighter gun control while they really don't need much of anything. Meanwhile, the Eastern Slope has the majority of the Population and they need more gun control than we have. What we don't want is for the State to have too tight a reign that it gets in the way in the rural areas and doesn't allow the cities to have what they need. That's the way the system is supposed to work. The problem is, both fringe sides seem to get in the way of allowing it to work that way.
The D's decided this was a wedge issue they could use to get votes. They know that their urban voters don't care about owning guns, many are scared of guns, etc. so they run on a platform to take /MY/ guns away, preventing /ME/ from having what I legit /NEED/ to have.
This is why state's rights are fucking important and the D's need to stop using federal courts to get every damned thing they want /forced/ on the entire nation. (Enviromentalism, SSM, free fucking health care, spying rights, and gun bans to name just a few abuses of power.)
Why do you need a gun?A wee bit different than a multi million person metropolis with all the fun problems that go along with them. You'd almost need a separate set of rules for urban vs. Suburban vs. Rural areas.Alaska has had open carry forever. It's not at all uncommon to see a gun on the hip, and it's almost expected to see a gun in the truck window. We have a very high carry rate up here; think it was 80% in the city, 95% out of the city.
Our businesses, for the most part, don't lose customers because of it, people on the street don't freak out about it, and really other than folks being a shit ton more friendly, open carry hasn't caused any real problems.
You do need separate rules. That's why a city has the right to enact it's own laws and it's up to the State to allow them to. It can even come down to the County having even a different set of laws. One county over in any one direction, the population falls off to almost nothing. We need tighter gun control while they really don't need much of anything. Meanwhile, the Eastern Slope has the majority of the Population and they need more gun control than we have. What we don't want is for the State to have too tight a reign that it gets in the way in the rural areas and doesn't allow the cities to have what they need. That's the way the system is supposed to work. The problem is, both fringe sides seem to get in the way of allowing it to work that way.
The D's decided this was a wedge issue they could use to get votes. They know that their urban voters don't care about owning guns, many are scared of guns, etc. so they run on a platform to take /MY/ guns away, preventing /ME/ from having what I legit /NEED/ to have.
This is why state's rights are fucking important and the D's need to stop using federal courts to get every damned thing they want /forced/ on the entire nation. (Enviromentalism, SSM, free fucking health care, spying rights, and gun bans to name just a few abuses of power.)
Yep. And it parallels how the current breakdown of Senate seats does not truely represent the population. You've got 700k person rural states with 2/100ths voting power in the Senate. 700k/320m = ~2/1000ths. So rural ND has an order of magnitude more power over the rest of us than it should and there are a few other states like this. There are also states like California which are vastly under represented in the senate. 40m/320m = ~ 12/100ths. So California is about an order of magnitude under represented.That is why rural America and urban America will never have the same interestsA wee bit different than a multi million person metropolis with all the fun problems that go along with them. You'd almost need a separate set of rules for urban vs. Suburban vs. Rural areas.Alaska has had open carry forever. It's not at all uncommon to see a gun on the hip, and it's almost expected to see a gun in the truck window. We have a very high carry rate up here; think it was 80% in the city, 95% out of the city.
Our businesses, for the most part, don't lose customers because of it, people on the street don't freak out about it, and really other than folks being a shit ton more friendly, open carry hasn't caused any real problems.
Leftists have done no such thing. We merely respond with negative reinforcement to the casual racist claim that anyone who looks like a thug is a thug. When you dislike black people or culture they are all thugs, right?I have no idea what the fuck you are trying to convey there. The second statement isn't even a sentence.Do you really think all thugs are felons? Thugs as in you look at them and call them a thug.Thugs don't carry openly because they're all fucking felons.It should be fun when the open carrying thug encounters the open carrying walmart redneck on the street. What's the accuracy rate of handguns in live shootings? I heard it's less than 50%. Where do the rest of those defensive bullets go? Probably defending someone else out there.NRA-ILA | Federal Appeals Court Confirms Second Amendment Protects Right to Carry in Public
FAIRFAX, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action applauded (NRA-ILA) a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday [July 24, 2018] that confirmed the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
“This is a critical issue for law-abiding gun owners who want to exercise their right to self-defense outside the home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The Second Amendment clearly protects the right to bear arms in public.”
The ruling reversed a decision by a Hawaii district court that upheld Hawaii’s ban on carriage outside the home.
*****************************************************************************************
This court is the three-judge Ninth Circuit, and the decision could be appealed to the full 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court, which is considered the furthest left appeals court in the country.
After that it presumably will be appealed to the Supreme Court at some point, because federal appeals courts have found both ways, for and against more freedom to bear arms.
This Hawaii case turned on the word "bear." The Constitution did not say we are free to "keep" arms, meaning inside the home, perhaps: it said we had the right to "bear" arms, meaning carry.
But yes, a thug is, by definition, a felon.
thug
THəɡ/
noun
I know leftists have turned it into a term of endearment. I don't give a shit. A thug is a criminal.
- 1.
a violent person, especially a criminal.
synonyms: ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum, gangster, villain, criminal;
informaltough, bruiser, hardman, goon, heavy, enforcer, hired gun, hood
"one of Capone's thugs
How can you say not one scrap of evidence and not know heller?Not one scrap of evidence points to the 2A protecting the right to self defense, not even logic.
Heller vs DC
What about Heller vs DC?
I mean, it doesn't take much to articulate oneself, does it?
What?
I know Heller. You just didn't make an argument. You merely said "What about Heller vs DC?"
Well WHAT THE FUCK ABOUT HELLER VS DC ARE YOU ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT?
Fucking hell, how can things be so damn fucking difficult for people to make a fucking argument once in a while? I'm assuming you went to some sort of school.
