Remember, they are not coming for our guns...

...oh wait

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Anybody going to rip on the little douche who Fox keeps parading out challenging Hogg to a debate who will fold like a card table if Hogg actually accepts? No? Shocking.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

One op-ed by a retired judge doesn't mean they are coming for your guns yet.

Can we just admit that "getting the guns" is a liberal fantasy and stop pretending that isn't their desired end game?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCsGMwHGINI

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

I'm awaiting Justice Scalia's latest take on the issue...

Damn you're aggressive. Now what are you talking about and why should I be ripping on this person?

I'm awaiting Justice Scalia's latest take on the issue...

Since Scalia knew how to read, he never had any problem understanding what the Second Amendment clearly says.

Since Scalia knew how to read, he never had any problem understanding what the Second Amendment clearly says.

The late Justice's take can be found here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Actually no, because a plain text reading includes the phrase "well regulated militia" He knew how to interpret the way you like it.

Damn you're personifying the Pavlov's Dog gif I posted yesterday. Do you have any hobbies?

There is a student from Stoneman who keeps running his mouth on Fox News that he wants to debate Hogg. He's only been on Fox. As soon as things look like they will be moved to a venue other than his little protective bubble he will run.

And you should be ripping on him for wanting to be the kid face of the "we love guns" crowd... oh wait. You agree with him so this kid is ok.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Late? Is his lunch with Heath Ledger running behind?

no, but it shows that the so called "common sense gun control" crowd really isn't after "gun control" but rather wants to grab guns. John Paul Stevens is just honest about it.

And Stevens is a registered republican appointed by Ford. Nice try, Cowboy Joe.

If you understand the way commas work, no interpretation is necessary. But not everyone reads at the same level as Scalia did.

IN THEIR RESPONSE to the NCAA’s motion to dismiss, Livers’s lawyers are arguing that the precedent was mistaken for applying the 13th Amendment exception for unpaid prison labor in a case dealing with non-prisoners.

“Defense Counsel’s insistence that Vanskike be applied here is not only legally frivolous, but also deeply offensive to all Scholarship Athletes – and particularly to African-Americans,” Livers’s rebuttal to the NCAA’s motion says. “Comparing athletes to prisoners is contemptible.”

“Comparing athletes to prisoners is contemptible.”
The NCAA is showing an incorrigible nerve to use this case, Vanskike v. Peters, as one of its justifications for not paying student-athletes.

If you understand a dictionary and read on the topic other than what you want to hear then you know how idiotic statement that is. But not everyone can have thought independent of what their party demands.

Anybody going to rip on the little douche who Fox keeps parading out challenging Hogg to a debate who will fold like a card table if Hogg actually accepts? No? Shocking.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

Actually no, because a plain text reading includes the phrase "well regulated militia" He knew how to interpret the way you like it.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Agreed on Hogg and all the Parkland kids including the token Conservative Kyle whatever his name is.

The bald chick seems the least annoying.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Is it Ben Shapiro?

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Are you talking about the one with the Cuban flag on her jacket?

I couldn't care less about this hog kid

His voting on the court says otherwise. Claiming him to be a Republican is really intellectually dishonest, even for you.

Check out this chart and you'll see his voting on the court was even more liberal than Ginsburg

https://twitter.com/EsotericCD/status/9 ... 6931540992

The phrase has no bearing on the latter part of the sentence. It's not complicated. You can basically just remove the first part of the sentence because the latter part of the sentence stand on its own.

And it's not surprising that you think Hogg would beat someone in an argument. You would declare victory in an argument if someone ripped off your head and shit down your neck.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.