by 
I’m sure you’ve all seen the photos of folks walking around with loaded firearms in Arizona. Yeah. When President Obama was in town. And, yes, right outside on the street. Guns & ammo, baby. Welcome to the Wild Wild West.
Activist Who Staged Gun Interview At Obama Event Was Prominent Defender Of ’90s Militia
Ernest Hancock, the online radio host who staged an interview with an assault rifle-wielding associate at the Obama event in Arizona yesterday — and was himself armed with a 9 millimeter pistol — was a vocal supporter and friend of right-wing anti-government militia members who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s.
Source: tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com
More here: videocafe.crooksandliars.com
Awesome. Just glad to be here.
by 
Criminals conceal their weapons. Law abiding citizens wear them in the open.
This whole thing is a stupid cherade (?).
The whole ‘practicing my 2nd amendment rights BS’. Funny, I really don’t think these people practice this right all the time, they are just showboating and trying to cause a commontion. Looking for their 15 minutes.
Now, if the whole argument was about gun control I can see them making their presence known. But it’s not, it’s about health care.
There is no reason at all to be bringing guns to ANY town hall meeting regardless of your opinion on the 2nd amendment.
What is the point they are really trying to get across here? That we want health care so they can carry a gun? WTF idiots.
It’s like Critical Mass for the NRA.
Maybe they’re actually for voluntary active euthanasia.
Carrying a gun into a crowd is a dumb-ass move. Anyone who has received open carry training should be made to realize it. If a bunch of Albanians can rip of George W’s watch with the Secret Service watching, I’ll guarantee some nutcase could take a gun and start shooting. There is a reason they don’t arm riot police with live rounds (most of the time, in America).
I have absolutely no idea why no one reporting on this has brought the public safety issue up.
AZ. The land of Limbaughmania.
“I’ll guarantee some nutcase could take a gun and start shooting.”
I’m sure that’s what they were hoping for.
As a lifelong AZ resident, I would say that stupid is the default mode. On occasion we as a state rise to a collective “kind of dim.”
When did AZ get more right wing gun nuts than TX?
I might be wrong, but I thought I read that the guy with the gun was there to protect the pres.
On the supject of incompetency… looks like, as expected, the pres is fucking up the CARS program. They can’t run a simple program like that but they can successfully tackle the health care issue…. yeah right.
What can’t the pres fuck up?
Make a list…. stuff that the government fucks up… stuff that the governement does right…. which list is longer?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A63RC81&show_article=1
“Make a list…. stuff that the government fucks up… stuff that the governement does right…. which list is longer?”
kg— blind, across-the-board denigration of anything you think of as ‘government’ does not serve. If you don’t like government, move to Somalia.
kg, you are wrong. Read BJ’s links. There were a couple of people carrying guns. None that were interviewed were supporting the President. Oh and it was staged… check the second link.
So how is Cash for Clunkers failing? It’s so popular that GM is hiring people back and upping their production (1300). So is Hyundai (3000 in Alabama). Dealers are having to wait a little bit to get their money, but both GM and Chrysler are going to be fronting dealers the money. Did they think the repayment would be instant? Chances are you have to wait at least a couple of weeks for your paycheck after the days you actually worked? Didn’t you mention that you work at a school? It probably took at least a month for your first check when you started… But that’s an evil government institution… 457000 new more energy efficient cars have been sold and people are getting put back to work. That’s failing…
Oh, and can you imagine what would have happened to anyone carrying a gun around a Bush rally? They’d be spending the rest of their life in Guantanamo.
maybe you will do constitutional law
and then straighten out what the hell a militia is
Guns in what could become highly emotional environments just seems like a really bad idea. Guess maybe thats why so many bars don’t allow weapons, even for those with permits. Seems too obvious…
Exercising rights my ass, I suspect it was something between showboating and minor intimidation.
You already have the laws in your favor, what are you trying to prove? All it would take is one fuckup (insert Plaxico here for example) to deteriorate the situation. Be a good basis for a gun control based gvt. conspiracy maybe.
Truly sad that attempts at healthcare reform are bringing out so much bullshit.
It is great that The United States of America is a country that allows its citizens to bear arms, some locations more freely than others. The same should be said if you would like to smoke week or shoot smack, as long as you do not infringe on the health, safety or rights of others you should be allowed to do so. Break the rules, and you should be ass fucked John Holmes style, unless you are into that shit then other arrangements can be made.
It is unfortunate that common sense is not a constant among people, just as it is unfortunate that many laws are written to shelter the stupid.
Damn dude, “ass fucked John Holmes style”? Wouldn’t that constitute cruel and unusual punishment? Think I would take the gas chamber myself.
But hey, maybe that would truly be a deterrent. Film the shit and broadcast in on the internet. Look who is the badass now…
I sometimes have to remind myself that the whack jobs on the cable news channels don’t represent the majority of “normal” people, right or left. At least that is what I try to convince myself some days.
For the 2nd Amendment advocates; do you really think the framers had in mind automatic weapons when they wrote the amendment? Or were they thinking muzzle loaders? I don’t think George Mason was that dim witted when he advocated for a Bill of Rights. These guys aren’t carrying around a long gun, with powder and a rammer, they have automatic weapons that are accurate up to miles and can kill several hundred people in a crowd before anyone reacts. Jesus Wept.
As for KG, why not just admit that people like you are Anarchists. Just get rid of government all together. Let the strongest survive.
KJR – You must be retarded, because “accurate up to miles” and “automatic” go together like “thinking” and “church”.
Nowhere do you have a right to not feel uncomfortable or unoffended. This is news to most lefties, so I’ll let you slide.
Also, do you think the framers had Ass To Mouth for online viewing in mind when writing the 1st?
We can ride that merry-go-round for hours.
I think there are three questions in play:
1) Should a citizen of the United States be able to own weapon?
2) Should Arizona state law prohibit the open carry of a loaded firearm in public?
3) If you can own & carry, is it reasonable to expect a citizen to utilize a bit of discretion in the exercise of that right?
I answer the first and third in the affirmative, and the second in the negative.
My bad mxracer, I didn’t think we were getting so technical, I was just trying to make a point. So here is my correction, I hope it meets your approval:
“a person with a good rifle, or a good sniper rifle, can be accurate to more than a mile, and a person with an automatic weapon could kill dozens in a crowd before anyone could react.” Sorry.
My point was simply that I don’t think that this was in mind when the 2nd Amendment was written. And I must be a ‘tard, because I don’t at all understand what you were talking about with the 1st amendment.
Shit’s gettin crazy out there. Here’s one from your neck of the woods!
Hateful bastards!
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/12591/
Wow, mx you pulled the rarely seen quadruple negative…
As a gun owner, without a carry permit, I mostly agree with BJ but I don’t have any problem with people being told no guns around the President (this or any other one).
2nd Amendment nuts hang everything on “shall not be infringed” and ignore the “well regulated militia” part. In the parlance of the time, “well regulated” meant well trained, and militias were state run. The framers wanted people armed and trained so that they could be called into the service of the state, if the need arose. You even swore allegiance to the state. I think most of the modern day private militia nuts seriously lack training and have allegiance only to their paranoid fantasies.
BDJ you’re right, it is pretty f-n stupid to carry around and own a 9 mm when the 40 cal is a much more viable option. 40 cal = wowy wow
not quite the anarchist… just a strong advocate of states rights. 10th amendment and all… but I understand that leftists don’t think highly of the whole “bill of rights” they just pick and choose.
The framers of the constitution didn’t expect the internet when the wrote the bill of rights…. maybe we have too much freedom there too.
And I’d have to look up the article where I read about they guy and the gun at THAT specific rally. I don’t ONLY read what johnny links and neither should you.
kg, I’d like to see that link. You implied that you were referring to that specific rally. I looked briefly for a reference to what you mentioned and didn’t find anything. I would hope that neither one of us only reads what we see here… Jeez, I might start thinking like Schulzy…
I think we probably agree more than you think when it comes to the Bill of Rights… Many things do need to be left up to the states, but there are issues that cross state lines and the federal government needs to step in to set minimum standards that all of the states should meet. There are things that the federal government can do that states can’t.
…“The framers of the constitution didn’t expect the internet when they wrote the bill of rights…. maybe we have too much freedom there too.”…
…i’d disagree w/ the thought that we have “too much freedom” anywhere…i’d suggest we oft times don’t have the discretion to use our freedom intelligently or in a responsible manner considering the good of others…
Hey, just because we’ve talked too much politics for a Friday and I’m about to do some whiskey editing on a manuscript:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b36Yi-Pb1wM
…in the spirit of friday, el jefe…imagine if you would, taking that “sport” & making it an “art”…
…then they could do it naked & it’d blow pole dancing right out a’ the water…
…just guessin’…
Term limits with straighten out this fucking mess that our country is in and that our government has created!!!!!!!!!!!!
KJR-
He wasn’t carrying a sniper rifle, or an automatic weapon.
What’s your point?
KJR – And a geriatric in a Caddy could stroke out & mow down a couple dozen people at a festival. We can play the What If game all day.
First amendment, freedom of speech (which also includes art, film, print, etc). The framers didn’t have Ass to Mouth porn in mind when writing it, so should that also be illegal?
El Jefe – ANYWHERE the President is located becomes Federal property as the Secret Service has control within XXX yards of his location (I forget what that distance is). No weapons are allowed in that area. Your point about not having any weapons around him is moot.
Private militia nuts are crazy, but they still have rights too.
Oh, and I know facts don’t count for shit around here, but the racist gun toter with the “assault rifle”*? He’s an African American and was interviewed miles away from and hours before the appearance of The Annointed One. But of course the mainstream media dare not report the truth unless it’s to the benefit of Dear Leader.
*Not an assault rifle in any way, shape or form. Semi automatic, actually. An assault rifle** is selective fire.
**Or Sturmgewehr, as Adolph Hitler*** named the G-43.
***Historically important left wing socialist leader. See also Barack Hussein Obama.
I’m not interested in a gun carrying public (this ain’t the wild west anymore) but I do think that it is important that I be able to possess one (maybe I do, maybe I don’t). What makes my skin crawl is seeing someone with a gun in one hand and a Bible in the other muttering something about “God’s will be done…”. When I was personally involved in that I made sure that a round was in the chamber, oops, cat’s out of the bag.
haha, what a bunch of fraidy cats. the scenarios people come up with, and I’m the conspiracy theorist? if our law makers continue to restrict us based on all the theoretical dangers in life we won’t be able to live a very free-willed existence. and we’ll all live happily ever-after with our phony doctorates.
the reason riot police use rubber bullets/tasers is to try to keep the cops from slaughtering people. most cops have special guns that won’t work if anyone other than the preprogrammed operator tries to shoot it. so fuck you and your misinformation.
Kudos to the Obama admin that this guy wasn’t just quietly wisked away before he could become the news. As was mentioned, Bush was more than happy to continue with a policy that Clinton established during his years, where no protest, dissent, or disagreement of any kind was allowed within line-of-sight of any appearance of the president – even hours before showtime. Even local cops were required to be dissarmed. Clinton even extended the ban to include members of his cabinet – I remember an incident in Phoenix where some protesters were arrested and held then released after without having been charged for the crime of holding a sign along the motorcade route of some minor Clinton admin dignitary.
“In the parlance of the time, “well regulated” meant well trained, and militias were state run. The framers wanted people armed and trained so that they could be called into the service of the state, if the need arose.”
El Jefe nailed it!… Why is this SO hard for most peolple to understand? Always seemed pretty clear to me…
Wrong. As usual El Jefe has no fucking idea what he’s talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
If you are 18-45 you are a Selective Service member of the US military, and that’s only one little technicality. “Well regulated” means control and supervision through rules and regulations then as it does now. We have refined gun control laws. . . people have the right to own guns regardless, the 2nd gives extended rights for people to create a military force of civilians.
schulzy,
Nothing in there disagrees with what I’ve said. If you’re going to say that I’m wrong, you might at least attempt to find these little things called facts. They’ll help you out, and unlike you, if I am presented with facts (and not the insane ramblings and innuendo of a paranoid CTer on the verge of a nervous breakdown), I’m willing to change my mind. You’re just showing how petty you are. You aren’t even arguing a point of contention. You’re just yelling to be heard. Are you even older than 21? Grow up.
DC v. Heller was about the right of individuals to own guns, which the court has repeatedly decided that we do have. The 2nd gives the STATE the right to create militias. NOT private citizens.
“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 says the citizen’s right to keep AND BARE arms shall not be infringed or we stand to loose our FREE State. There’s no mention of any State having the exclusive right to create and/or regulate any civilian militia.
“It says the citizen’s right to keep AND BARE arms shall not be infringed or we stand to loose our FREE State.”
schulz— wow, this really says it all… two misspellings in a single, incoherent sentence. Way to represent, d00d!
“Guns don’t kill people… Apes with guns kill people!” Homer
i know, fuck you. hey, i spelled that correctly.
And another thing… Everyone knows that the government is keeping guns legal so they can kill anyone they want, then blame some regular dude for the crime…. They just want us to go on hating anyone who’s different, so they can go around blowing up buildings, whenever they feel like it… When are you people going to wake up?
Does anyone else like to wear womens panties, and lipstick, while cleaning their guns? There must be someone out there who understands!
how about an pointing out where it says that the state regulates and creates militias?
“The people” means you and me, or the Fourth Amendment don’t mean shit.
Article 1 Section 8, The powers of Congress:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
For an annotated summary on clauses 15 and 16 see:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/42.html
For a summary of how it has been applied:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n21_v11/ai_16941861/
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
For related case law seee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_v._United_States (Although mostly a First Ammendment case it did relate to the Second.)
How that has been interpreted here:Second Amendment – Private Militias
also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpich_v._Department_of_Defense
or, why my friends in the National Guard got sent to Iraq
My point is this: Under the Fourth Amendment the people are to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. I think we all agree that “the people” in this instance means each and every individual citizen. Yet the left have managed through some twisted and torturous convolution of logic to interpret the same phrase, “the people”, to mean something entirely different in the Second Amendment; that is, the right to keep and bear is NOT an individual right of the free and sovereign citizen.
Now anyone with a modicum of common sense, even a lowly electrician like me, knows that you can’t have it both ways. English is not that complicated a language no matter what your definition of “is” is. (Thank you Willy the Impeached.) The phrase “the people” means each and every one of us as individuals or it doesn’t, in both the Second and Fourth Amendments. So which one is it?
Did you miss the part where I said I own guns? As a gun owner I have zero fear that the government is going to take them away. There is no reason to be afraid of that possibility. The Supreme Court has always upheld that the right to bear arms is an individual right. “The People” is the same in both amendments. It is the “insurrection theory” that the private militia nuts hang on to, and that has been generally dismissed by the Supreme Court (that’s how Dennis v. US relates to the Second)
I really don’t give a flying rat’s ass what you own. I just want someone to ‘splain me how the left can have it both ways. Read my post again.
And nevermind the Supreme Court. With a “wise Latina” who don’t care about facts in charge I’m betting that all bets are off, vis-a-vis what the Constitution says.
Dave, you’re closer than you think:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/scotus_to_consider_hearing_chi.asp
Heller dealt with the District of Columbia – an area under federal control. What happens in a city like Chicago? Yet to be determined, it seems.
We’ll see how it plays.
And, remember, the 2nd Amendment can be, well, amended if need be. It’s pretty clear that there is at least some rational disagreement on intent & meaning in the choosen words. The framers could have tightened that one up a bit and saved up all 200+ years of questions.
To those who think Arizona is not the wild wild west: to the south is our own private Afghanistan. The territory of the Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are the front lines. I do not mind the immigrants, that is not what this is about. This is the wild wild west. Instead of Billy the Kid you have the Zeta, La Familia, the AFO, the CFO, Los Negros, and the list goes on. The Mennonite communities have aligned with the LDS exiles (another issue on its own) to protect there homes and interest in their communities in the Sierra Madres. This wild west is in phoenix as the nations kidnap capital of the US.
It still is the wild wild west. Meth labs junkies and all! now we just have cellphones, ipods, automobiles and hummers ( all types) and water faucets with running municipal water supply.
Welcome to Arizona. Home where I can drive with my mini 14 in the gun rack with a clip in ready to roll. The best is the drive through liquor store where I can get Jagermister, Schlitz, .223 and .45 rounds, Hustler, Slim Jims, a lighter and Zig Zags, Power Bait and Shotgunners News. “Debit please.”
Live Arizona-This isn’t Utah! (or Colorado ’cause I can buy any alcohol on a Sunday).
So, sorry to go off the main subject line. This is address to all those who have choose to come here, if they disagree with the wild wild west (which it is more so than ever) then they should choose to leave ASAP.
Cast your vote from higher ground baby!
Jonny, here’s the part you people don’t seem to get, and for the life of me I can’t understand why: Maybe ther framers meant exactly what they said. That’s good enough for me. Any other understanding of the Constitution just seems like a make work program for lawyers.
Oh, and Jonny, “closer than you think” seems, to be polite, abit patronizing. I’ve been following the case. I’d appreciate you giving me credit for having at least a basic grasp of current events in the future. The first, fourth and fifth amendments are recognized nationwide as God-given rights. Only a liberal would pick and choose which other ones to recognize.
And your “wise Latina” said the firefighters weren’t qualified, flying colors or not. As far as I’m concerned her opinion don’t mean shit.
Despite the efficacy of the founding documents being buffeted, the finality of the discussed statement can only be tested in war. Skew it however you please, the statement is preserved and no act of any congress can question it.
The Government Can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0&feature=player_embedded
I think the world will not suffer tyranny. I guess it all depends on your personal measure of freedom. I don’t even own a gun, but like they say, it’s the thought that counts. I think anyone can see that if you take the guns away from law abiding folks you simply give the criminals an edge. Taking away what lies behind criminal behaviors through social means would be a form of socialism I would support and would certainly do more to clean up the streets.
“English is not that complicated a language no matter what your definition of “is” is. (Thank you Willy the Impeached.)”
Oh my fucking Gawd !!!!
10 years later and people are still pissed because Clinton got a fucking blow-job ??????????
Sweet Jesus Gawd All Mighty. Just fucking shoot me now. Then you can change the 2nd Amendment all you want. I need a fucking aspirin.
“Maybe ther framers meant exactly what they said. That’s good enough for me.”
Dave— So te3ll us about your “well regulated militia.” You mean rabid gun nuts holed up in the woods?
“And your “wise Latina” said the firefighters weren’t qualified, flying colors or not. As far as I’m concerned her opinion don’t mean shit.”
Another racist slur, aimed at the Supreme Court, whose authority you don’t respect. So not only are you picking your favorite half-sentence from the Bill of Rights, you pick and choose which government entities to respect. Some people can rationalize almost anything. What a bizarre, paranoid fantasy you live in.
“Only a liberal would pick and choose which other ones to recognize.”
Dave— oops, this one is way to precious to let slide… you refuse to recognize the authority of your duly-elected your President and the Supreme Counrt, yet a sentence fragment out of the Bill of Rights is holy above all other laws on earth? What a bizarre, paranoid fantasy you live in.
“I think anyone can see that if you take the guns away from law abiding folks”
schulz— I think anyone can see that people who are afraid that jack-booted gubmint thugs will raid their compound and seize their god-given weapons, is living in a bizarre, paranoid fantasy. Yeesh, get a grip, you guys.
Dave, in your comment above, you said: “I’d appreciate you giving me credit for having at least a basic grasp of current events in the future. The first, fourth and fifth amendments are recognized nationwide as God-given rights.”
Don’t patronize me bro! I’m not. Chill for a minute.
There are two levels to this, the current gun control question; 1) what does the Second Amendment actually mean, and 2) to what extent does it apply to the states?
What I was trying to tell you in that comment is that the extent to which the Second Amendment applies to the states is entirely in play. District of Columbia v. Heller didn’t answer both parts of the question, merely the first half. It’s going to take a second case, or even a series of cases, for the Court to sort out. And, even then, the House can, forgive the phrase, amend the Amendment as they find necessary.
From the article I linked above in my prior post:
See http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/scotus_to_consider_hearing_chi.asp.
Jonny, I’m not a lawyer. But I do have a decent command of the English Language. To the best of my knowledge it’s generally accepted that the phrase “the people” as used in the Fourth Amendment applies to the individual. To suggest that the phrase has any other meaning when used elsewhere in the Constitution of the United States of America seems to be parsing words in a manner that, quite frankly would have Slick Willy standing and applauding. It means exactly what it says or it means nothing. Maybe my common sense is getting in the way but that’s the only way I can see it.
“Maybe the framers meant exactly what they said. That’s good enough for me.”
Dave, you are being an idiot in ways too numerous to mention. But I’ll try anyway. First of all, do you think every framer put the precise same meaning on what he was signing? That would definitely take an idiot, to think that.
And second, even if they achieved some kind of amazing, harmonious mind-meld, do you think they miraculously surmounted the natural limitations of the English language?
Do you think they envisioned every potential circumstance?
And how are you going to go about finding the person who magically knows what they meant here in 2009? Since lots of people seem to disagree, how will you do that?
Presumably you are now saying, “no, E, you are the idiot. Anyone who doesn’t have socialist leftist baby-killing leanings can see exactly what the framers meant.”
To which I reply: go get a goddamn Constitutional Law casebook and start reading it, you moron. You will discover that hugely powerful minds have disagreed over just about every damn sentence in that document for over 200 years now. Exhibit A, which maybe you’ve heard of: the Constitution says Congress can’t make laws abridging the freedom of speech. So does it say you can yell “fire” in the firehouse or not? What did they mean? Since it’s so easy, Dave, tell me, what did they mean?
You must be a lawyer or somthing.
Who mentioned anything about a compound? Talking about yelling fire and shit, what a bunch of small minded arguments. Just because you have unwavering trust in the government doesn’t mean I should. I ought to be able to talk about their corruption and if the need arises I ought to be able to arm myself against them. Fuck you and your itch to take my rights away. Fucking weak willed small minded little fucking babies.
schulz— repeat after me, “You ask a lot of questions. Get off my property!”
If you hate government so much, why not move to Somalia? As a bonus, you could probably shoot anyone you want to.
…ewww, harsh, mikey, harsh…but prob’ly true…
…the vehemence here speaks volumes (yes, i’m gulty) about what we perceive to be our personal freedoms within the context of the “constitution of the united states of america”…
…i’d say it’s refreshing in the sense that it can all be openly discussed but it does get stale because nothing is being accomplished…
…starts to sound like an old foto of a new york tenement looks…everybody’s hung their laundry out to dry…
…just sayin’…
…whoops…”guilty“, not gulty…
i know, you stupid little asshole from hell, you move to where you can set up whatever fucking god damned dictatorship you want. leave this country, now. this place is not for the likes of you. fucking stupid cocksucker. fucking total lack of talent. no fucking wonder you were chosen for jury duty, you’re a fucking tool. the prosecution was drools over such a dolt as yourself, idiot.
Wow, Schulzy. You take yourself WAY too seriously.
By the way, jury duty is a RESPONSIBILITY of citizenship, not something to be avoided at all costs. If you aren’t willing to do it occasionally, you are the one who should move. Do you not want to be a citizen?
BABY BLUE!!!!!!! YEAH, BABY BLUE!!!!!!
this post just turned into guido beach, 4am.
who the fuck is sake hawk, anyhow? i love sake.
BABY BLUE!!!!!!
Where the fuck have you been? We’re all guidos in here.
I’m not talking about avoiding jury duty, faggot. Idiot, where did I mention avoiding jury duty? People like you and fucking faggot are simply ideal for the prosecution, because your PC fucking little fairies that follow all orders of the state. You and faggot take your “liberal” selves way too seriously, thinking you’re all smart and alternative and stuff. What a fucking couple of fucking fucksticks.
“no fucking wonder you were chosen for jury duty, you’re a fucking tool.”
schulzy, I think you need to get back on your meds… You get mad because no one agrees with you so you start throwing out slurs. Grow up. I swear, you’re still in high school. At least dave still has a sense of humor. I’m going to go back to laughing at you…
Dumbass, that sentence has nothing to do with avoiding jury duty. I have answered the call, but never been chosen. I have witnessed a number of times who the prosecution and defense chooses for their juries and have an understand why they do so. Essentially, the less you know about/question authority, the more likely you are to be chosen. Chomsky’s 20%ers like you and Meiky are great candidates for juries, as you’re so heavily engrained into the machine that you don’t dare counter it. Your life is the great lie.
I’m sure there are a number of people who agree with me, probably more so than you. You think I’m all wrong, but I’m not. I haven’t seen you try to lighten the subject without attacking me personally. So fuck you, you fucking motherfucker. You’re the little baby who continually commits the most atrocious fallacies so as to make any argument of yours completely infantile.
Your points above have nothing to do with a true test of the 2nd, as it says right in the fucking idiotic links you provided. Congress may be able to raise a militia, but if enough people are dissatisfied with the system, no rule they make up can matter. Just keep sitting back and let fascism take over completely, we’ll all learn one way or the other.
Besides, I’m more of a stubborn kraut. I know I’m right motherfucker, now lay down and shut up!
Bwhahahahaha! That’s right. You know it all. No one else knows anything. You’re a real revolutionary. Oh, make it stop. I can’t take the hilarity and nonsensical arguments…. Bwhahahaha!
You have nothing over me. Try to really beat me in an argument, just try it. You can’t so you laugh it off. Good for you.
I laugh because you’ve shown the world that you are a pathetic excuse for a human who resorts to slurs when anyone disagrees with the all mighty schulzy. You must really live a sad little existence. Grow up, get a sense of humor, and listen to something other than Alex Jones.
Nice. Look at how grown up you are. What a great man. . . now that’s laughable.
Why’d you suddenly drop the jury thing? You are lost. Go clean a swamp.
Hey, leave the swamp cleaners out of this!
Just kidding. Game on!
I have to admit that Schultzy’s logic is, in fact, unassailable. It turns out he is right, it is not actually possible to win an argument with him.
I know. I am humbled to be using the same intertube machine waves as him. I will go back to being a lowly swamp cleaner.
This is better than the three stooges. Nyuck nyuck nyuck.
So who wants popcorn?
And buttmunch, muchas gracias for recognizing my big throbbing sense of humor. Truly, Beavis, you are pretty cool.
Wow, I’ve been called a “faggot” and “buttmunch” in the same day. I am in the presence of mental giants. Since I have decided to follow the ways of Schulzy, and all he says is true, I must now become gay. dave, you want to be my first? I’ve got to warn you, I think I prefer being a top. I’ll be gentle…
i knew it was a case of man love.
holy shit, this thing is still going on?
Sorry to see I have been missing out on this (man?) love fest…
GOTTA BE SMILIN’, GOTTA BE DANCIN’, GOTTA BE SHAKIN’ DAT ASS!!!!
BABY BLUUUUUUUUE!!!!!!!
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Precisely.
…is there, like a prize for “lamest argument///best insult” on this particular bitch-fest ???…
…just askin’…
The prize is that you get to participate. Everyone’s a winner. Liberal thing, dontchaknow.