- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- This is why you don't ban automatic weapons
This is why you don't ban automatic weaponsFollow
The obvious solution is to not enter any riots unless you're wearing one of these.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Jophed,
Actually I'm using real examples to prove my points. Do you think that guy who had his head smashed in would have liked to have had an automatic weapon?
All rioters should be shot. Let's just get that out there right now.
Actually I'm using real examples to prove my points. Do you think that guy who had his head smashed in would have liked to have had an automatic weapon?
All rioters should be shot. Let's just get that out there right now.
Rioters riot when they are displeased with their governments and how the government has failed them. You should be joining those riots instead of condemning them, sticking it to the Man, because the government is infringing on your rights.
Except of course that these particular rioters were black and stuff... you know.
Jophiel wrote:
The obvious solution is to not enter any riots unless you're wearing one of these.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Yeah, I know you're trolling but you bring up a good point: please remember that any rules you impose on others can be imposed on you and your buddies just as easily.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Varus wrote:
As far as I can tell all rioters in the US are black.
probably not
link
Quote:
The New York Draft Riots (July 13 to July 16, 1863; known at the time as Draft Week[2]), were violent disturbances in New York City that were the culmination of discontent with new laws passed by Congress to draft men to fight in the ongoing American Civil War. The riots were the largest civil insurrection in American history apart from the Civil War itself.[3] President Abraham Lincoln sent several regiments of militia and volunteer troops to control the city. Although not the majority, many of those arrested had Irish names, according to the lists compiled by Adrian Cook in his "Armies of the Streets." The protestors were overwhelmingly working class men, resentful because they believed the draft unfairly affected them while sparing wealthier men who could pay to exclude themselves from its reach.
Initially intended to express anger at the draft, the protests turned ugly and degraded into "a virtual racial pogrom, with uncounted numbers of blacks murdered on the streets". The conditions in the city were such that Major General John E. Wool stated on July 16, "Martial law ought to be proclaimed, but I have not a sufficient force to enforce it."[4] The military suppressed the mob using artillery and fixed bayonets, but not before numerous buildings were ransacked or destroyed, including many homes and an orphanage for black children.
Initially intended to express anger at the draft, the protests turned ugly and degraded into "a virtual racial pogrom, with uncounted numbers of blacks murdered on the streets". The conditions in the city were such that Major General John E. Wool stated on July 16, "Martial law ought to be proclaimed, but I have not a sufficient force to enforce it."[4] The military suppressed the mob using artillery and fixed bayonets, but not before numerous buildings were ransacked or destroyed, including many homes and an orphanage for black children.
edited to quote varus
Edited, Jul 15th 2009 12:52pm by Blusician
publiusvarus wrote:
Blusic,
LMAO...did you really just site something from 1863? Ok you got me all rioters in the last 100 years are black.
LMAO...did you really just site something from 1863? Ok you got me all rioters in the last 100 years are black.
I guess you should be happy that black rioters don't kill nearly as many people as white rioters! Whew!
Eh, lots of people have "rioted" since then. Of course you'd be all for shooting all of them, too, so the point is moot for this argument.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Varus wrote:
LMAO...did you really just site something from 1863? Ok you got me all rioters in the last 100 years are black.
My bad, I disputed what you SAID versus what you MEANT. Next time I'll remember to put on my magic-psychic-badjuju-wonder-hat so I can tell the difference.
Anyone catch Sotomayers non-response to the question of whether she believes a person has a right to defend themselves?
She actually joked about going home to get a gun. WTF! Doesn't she know the difference between self-defense and going home to get a gun?
She actually joked about going home to get a gun. WTF! Doesn't she know the difference between self-defense and going home to get a gun?
publiusvarus wrote:
Anyone catch Sotomayers non-response to the question of whether she believes a person has a right to defend themselves?
She actually joked about going home to get a gun. WTF! Doesn't she know the difference between self-defense and going home to get a gun?
She actually joked about going home to get a gun. WTF! Doesn't she know the difference between self-defense and going home to get a gun?
I know! Who goes home to get a gun!? They should be packing an AK on their person in case they're jumped by 50 black kids, amirite?
Locked,
You sound like Sotomayer. Ignore an important question and makes jokes hoping nobody will notice you've completely ignored the question.
You sound like Sotomayer. Ignore an important question and makes jokes hoping nobody will notice you've completely ignored the question.
publiusvarus wrote:
Locked,
You sound like Sotomayer. Ignore an important question and makes jokes hoping nobody will notice you've completely ignored the question.
You sound like Sotomayer. Ignore an important question and makes jokes hoping nobody will notice you've completely ignored the question.
¡Yo puedo hablar en español tambÃen!
publiusvarus wrote:
Anyone catch Sotomayers non-response
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophed,
Yes I know. I bet Bork didn't feel that way.
Yes I know. I bet Bork didn't feel that way.
publiusvarus wrote:
Locked,
You sound like Sotomayer. Ignore an important question and makes jokes hoping nobody will notice you've completely ignored the question.
You sound like Sotomayer. Ignore an important question and makes jokes hoping nobody will notice you've completely ignored the question.
And, so sorry, let's try doing this better:
Quote:
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma pushed Sotomayor to express her opinions on whether certain abortions would be legal and whether a person has a fundamental right to possess firearms and a right to self-defense. Each time, Sotomayor said she would need to know the specifics of a particular case, such as applicable state statutes and other facts.
Sensing Coburn 's frustration over her responses, she offered an explanation.
"What we do is different than the conversations citizens have about what they want the law to do," Sotomayor said on the third day of her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing.
Judges look at the facts of a case and apply the law based on those facts, she said.
"It's not that we make a broad policy choice and say this is what we want," she continued.
Sensing Coburn 's frustration over her responses, she offered an explanation.
"What we do is different than the conversations citizens have about what they want the law to do," Sotomayor said on the third day of her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing.
Judges look at the facts of a case and apply the law based on those facts, she said.
"It's not that we make a broad policy choice and say this is what we want," she continued.
Quotes obviously taken out of any sort of context, but it seems to me like she's not avoiding the question so much as saying "I decided based on a case by case basis; I'm not setting up policy. I'd look at the individual case and decide." Not a bad answer.
Quote:
''This was almost like being a terrorist act,'' Marshall said. ''And we allow this to go on in our neighborhoods?''
Yes, it's almost like hundreds of people dying in a collapsing tower... that best describes it..... so close
publiusvarus wrote:
Jophed,
Yes I know. I bet Bork didn't feel that way.
Yes I know. I bet Bork didn't feel that way.
Sucks to be Bork, I guess.
Non-answers are the stock & trade of confirmation hearings. Didn't you pay any attention during the hearings for Roberts & Alito? "Well, I can't answer that because someday I might have to judge a case about abortion/gun control/whatever..."
The only difference is that Sotomayor got some lulz out of her non-answer.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Sessions has just about dropped his drawers the better to show his *** during these hearings. It's really too bad he doesn't have the self-awareness to be mortified.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
publiusvarus wrote:
Typical liberal response.
We're a stoic lot.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I care about truth, justice and redistribution of wealth.
I'm just that awesome.
I'm just that awesome.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Recent Visitors: 556
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (556)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- This is why you don't ban automatic weapons
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC