nascar refusing certain gun ads, infuriating the gun industry

[RoryN]

Any citizen willing to give up their Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, is squandering the freedom of their descendants.

 

[BotanyBoy]

How so?

The picture, video and quote you posted don't tell us:

What that meeting or the conversation was about.

If he was proposing/considering ideas or stating a personal ideological position.

Or who he specifically is talking about taking guns from first.


Answer those questions and your meme is a big ol' fail.

 

[butters]

Whoa.

AJ is admitting here through the thread's context that the gun industry is part of what's wrong in the United States.

I'm just gabberflasted! Looks like you're actually getting through to the knotheads, Chippy!

*my work here is (never) done*

and don't you just love how he (bless his heart) calls me by my old username? it's sweet. of course, the reason he does so is to imply i'm having to use a different one rather than acknowledging the name change was at my request to laurel who changed it, along with other people's in that fun few weeks. ironic, coming from the banned one. ha.

good! 5 officers? the man should be prosecuted for wasting police time!

 

[butters]

#groceriesnotguns

awesome

 

[bigsly]

GB assault weapon advocates like to ignore the fact that in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court told us that we have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense, at least within our homes. But the opinion never suggested that this right was unconditional or immune from all regulation. In fact, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said just the opposite. In Heller, he specifically said that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

Scalia wasn't immune from activist judging, as I'm sure you'd agree with on some of his opinions you don't agree with. Which just proves how opinionated EVERY human being can be. But the Supreme Court has no power whatsoever under the Constitution to amend it in any way whatsoever, nor is it constitutionally empowered in any way to make, let alone enact, any law whatsoever, regardless of the opinion of one judge or even the ruling of an unanimous Court.

The 2nd Amendment - which as THE LAW OF THE LAND applies EQUALLY to every individual under its jurisdiction, no matter that individual's position/status in life - intentionally/purposely/specifically DICTATES to the Supreme Court, the Executive branch, and the Congress that NO LAW can LEGALLY be made that INFRINGES on the inalienable right of Americans to keep and bear arms.

So, the first question to be asked of ANY measure proposed on the matter to immediately qualify or disqualify it LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY is whether or not that measure INFRINGES in any way and to any degree on that inalienable right. If the answer is yes in any way, guess what? Just like the very first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court iconically and totally constitutionally ruled:

"...a law repugnant to the Constitution is void..."

Period. End of discussion. It applies EQUALLY TO ALL - NO INDIVIDUAL opinion EXCEPTIONS.

A logical American would think since Robert O'Rourke has now popped the socialists' pussy bubble regarding the socialist true aim of outlawing - BY FORCE, if need be - all guns in America, you other socialist pussies wouldn't still be so disingenuously coy about actually and honestly running on the ONLY LEGAL WAY you can get your socialist, anti-American political way: amending the Constitution so it repeals the 2nd Amendment.

 

[BotanyBoy]

#groceriesnotguns

awesome

Taking a .45 and almost 100 rounds to the grocery store.

 

[butters]

This is the Oath of Allegiance every naturalized U.S. must swear to:



Socialist butters isn't a U.S. citizen, she can't vote. But here she is in this thread proclaiming "if i ever hear a valid, honest, realistic reason for a private citizen of the usa to own these weapons, i'm open to considering it" like her big mouth can possibly cover the wannabe check it mindlessly writes. The cunt actually fantasizes what she thinks/believes has any practical effect on the American subject at hand. No greater example of one blowing useless unicorn farts out their asshole - just for the sake of doing so - is known to man.

If socialist butters ever intends to become a naturalized U.S. citizen, she'll be lying through her teeth - just like she does on this board so much - when she swears to the above quoted oath. She won't "renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity" to her socialist home country, and - as is obvious by her general political postings on this board and in particular her anti-2nd Amendment postings in this thread - neither can she truthfully swear to "support and defend the Constitution" when she's 100% in favor of unconstitutionally infringing on ALL Americans' INALIENABLE right to keep and bear arms ("ALL" except, of course, collective government agents who socialists like butters grant total FORCEFUL, DEADLY power over individuals).

And obviously, there's no need to even discuss the "so help me God" part when a heathen socialist like butters is the topic.

The only thing worse than a domestic enemy to the Constitution is a foreign one. If America had it's shit together, a socialist like butters could never become a U.S. citizen and her visits/stays in the country would be severely limited simply because of her totally anti-Constitution/anti-American, socialist political view points. Trump should put a tariff on people like Harry who import such foreign, socialist trash.

*points and laughs*

you don't know jack about dual citizenship, right? <-rhetorical question

 

[RoryN]

How so?

[generic blather about context, zero concrete evidence pertaining to Trump's quote]

 

[Adre]

So what's your argument for limiting arms to colonial era weapon design only???

I don’t have one because I didn’t suggest that.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

We both know he's got no response.

 

[BotanyBoy]

IGNORE THE IMPORTANT CONTEXT!!!! WHO, WHAT AND WHY DON'T MATTER!!!!

Yes, that's the issue Rory.

And exactly why you'll dodge, dip, dive, duck and dodge ever answering any questions about the context of that quote.

What was that meeting /conversation was about?

Was he was proposing/considering ideas or stating a personal ideological position?

Who he specifically is talking about taking guns from first?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don’t have one because I didn’t suggest that.

Oh well I'm glad you support civilians owning semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15.

You're now a child murdering republican Nazi!!!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Yes, that's the issue Rory.

And exactly why you'll dodge, dip, dive, duck and dodge ever answering any questions about the context of that quote.

What was that meeting /conversation was about?

Was he was proposing/considering ideas or stating a personal ideological position?

Who he specifically is talking about taking guns from first?

You're the one who brought up the context. If you don't know (and let's be honest, you don't) why are you making comments about it?

 

[BotanyBoy]

We both know he's got no response.

It's not my job to be honest for Rory.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It's not my job to be honest for Rory.

You're not honest at all.

 

[RoryN]

What was that meeting /conversation was about?

Was he was proposing/considering ideas or stating a personal ideological position?

Who he specifically is talking about taking guns from first?

I simply provided the quote. You're the one who stated emphatically that the quote was out of context.

Therefore, it's your burden to answer the above questions to justify your position. Or not, and look foolish. Debate 101.

(Sorry; "Debate" refers to a club typically found at the high school or collegiate level.)

 

[Heartless Bastard]

Doesn't matter what anyone here at all says.
This is still a Thread about NASCAR
who will do what they want no matter who gets upset about it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're the one who brought up the context. If you don't know (and let's be honest, you don't) why are you making comments about it?

let's be honest, I do.

That's why all the squirming, from the both of you.

That's why neither of you will so much as attempt to answer the three questions I posted because you know damn well it will take all the 'oomph' out of that dishonest quote.

We both know what's waiting at the end of them takes all the 'oomph' out of that particular quote that Rory was looking for.

 

[Heartless Bastard]

Everyone here can shout talk or whatever
till they are blue in the face.
But Nascar is going to do what ever they fucking want about it. Ta ta

I'm sure they will tell you to suck it up snowflakes

 

[Adre]

Oh well I'm glad you support civilians owning semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15.

You're now a child murdering republican Nazi!!!

Didn’t say that either. But your ascription skills remain legendary.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

let's be honest, I do.

That's why all the squirming, from the both of you.

That's why neither of you will so much as attempt to answer the three questions I posted because you know damn well it will take all the 'oomph' out of that dishonest quote.

We both know what's waiting at the end of them takes all the 'oomph' out of that particular quote that Rory was looking for.

So you now you know, even though like 2 posts ago you said you didn't, but you won't tell us, & Rory and I are the ones who are squirming, even though you're avoiding a direct question.......

Classic BotanyBoy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Therefore, it's your burden to answer the above questions to justify your position.

No it's not.

My position is that it was out of context, it was my burden to prove it was out of context, which I did.

There is no who, why or when.

Answering who alone poops all over your intent for posting the quote.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Didn’t say that either. But your ascription skills remain legendary.

Not ascription you have to pick one or the other champ, can't have it both ways.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No it's not.

My position is that it was out of context, it was my burden to prove it was out of context, which I did.

There is no who, why or when.

Answering who alone poops all over your intent for posting the quote.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So you now you know, even though like 2 posts ago you said you didn't, but you won't tell us, & Rory and I are the ones who are squirming, even though you're avoiding a direct question.......

Classic BotanyBoy.

A direct question I propose....to you.

I said you don't.

I know what that meeting was about.

I know who he was talking about taking guns away from first and doing due process second and why.

I also have a reasonable idea if it was a proposal or a personal ideological position of his or not.

I'm saying neither of you do, and you'll hide and deny any of it because your need to push a dishonest narrative and mischaracterize Trump at every opportunity is far more important to both of you than the truth.