Father of Oregon shooter calls for stricter gun laws

Sorry dick nose won't work,even whackoff said it was you. WR is your bro gay rey . Originally Posted by i'va biggen

ONCE AGAIN YOUR reading and comprehension skills fail YOU EKIM. Check out post # 109 to see that it was YOUR hero woomby that WACO was referring to. But you just keep on WKing for woomby now, ya here ! Have you been sampling the rabbit pellets a little too much EKIM ? !!

ONCE AGAIN YOUR reading and comprehension skills fail YOU EKIM. Check out post # 109 to see that it was YOUR hero woomby that WACO was referring to. But you just keep on WKing for woomby now, ya here ! Have you been sampling the rabbit pellets a little too much EKIM ? !! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Who is ekim gay rey? Keep on sucking sperm bank's ass little ass kisser.

You'll have to modify and/or repeal the 2nd Amendment first. Good luck? Originally Posted by LexusLover

If I had said 15 years ago. . . that gays should be allowed to marry in all 50 states and the vast majority of Americans should support it, including gangsta rappers. . . the response would probably have been. . . good luck.

If I had said 15 years ago. . . that gays should be allowed to marry in all 50 states and the vast majority of Americans should support it, including gangsta rappers. . . the response would probably have been. . . good luck. Originally Posted by southtown4488

Is there a "Gays Can Marry" constitutional amendment?

Once upon a time the "law of the land" was that the amendments applied only to the Federal Government and not the States. The SCOTUS expanded the APPLICATION of the amendments to the STATES. Do you see the "operative" words .... "EXPANDED THE APPLICATION OF THE AMENDMENTS"?

Again, "good luck" with repealing the 2nd Amendment!!!

Prohibitions don't work well in this country. That's why people sneak in.

Is there a "Gays Can Marry" constitutional amendment?

Once upon a time the "law of the land" was that the amendments applied only to the Federal Government and not the States. The SCOTUS expanded the APPLICATION of the amendments to the STATES. Do you see the "operative" words .... "EXPANDED THE APPLICATION OF THE AMENDMENTS"?

Again, "good luck" with repealing the 2nd Amendment!!!

Prohibitions don't work well in this country. That's why people sneak in. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The 2nd amd doesn't need to be repealed, it just needs to be interpreted differently. . . it states "A well regulated Militia".


In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[ (Wikipedia)

when enough Americans get fed up with having ten times the gun homicide rate per capita than England and Australia and demand a change for the better, the courts will follow. . . just as they did with gay marriage.

The 2nd amd doesn't need to be repealed, it just needs to be interpreted differently. . . it states "A well regulated Militia".


In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[ (Wikipedia)

when enough Americans get fed up with having ten times the gun homicide rate per capita than England and Australia and demand a change for the better, the courts will follow. . . just as they did with gay marriage. Originally Posted by southtown4488

So will YOU be clamoring for "sanctuary city" status for YOUR home town, suckclown ? Let the pobre putos break into YOUR house while YOU'RE there, and unarmed chapete, and see how THAT works for YOU. Pero, that's YOUR gente, right !

The 2nd amd doesn't need to be repealed, it just needs to be interpreted wrongly. . . it states "A well regulated Militia".


In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[ (Wikipedia)

when enough Americans get fed up with having ten times the gun homicide rate per capita than England and Australia and demand a change for the better, the courts will follow. . . just as they did with gay marriage. Originally Posted by southtown4488

FTFY, suck-clown.

FTFY, suck-clown. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What makes the way it was interpreted in 1876 or 1939 wrong and the current ruling right? Timing? You're the suckclown, you inbred fuckstick.

What makes the way it was interpreted in 1876 or 1939 wrong and the current ruling right? Timing? You're the suckclown, you inbred fuckstick. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Those rulings ignored the Founding Father's intent, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Those rulings ignored the Founding Father's intent, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Says who? You? You don't anymore know the founders' intent than you know how to rise and fucking fly, you faggot fucktard.

Says who? You? You don't anymore know the founders' intent than you know how to rise and fucking fly, you faggot fucktard. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Contrary to your mentally impaired understanding of and your lib-retarded disdain for American history, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, the Founding Fathers often spelled out their intent to win support for the new constitution. Their intent is there for any literate student of history to read, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Furthermore, in Heller, the SC ruled that you and your ilk distort and misrepresent the SC's finding in Miller, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. So, STFU, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Contrary to your mentally impaired understanding of and your lib-retarded disdain for American history, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, the Founding Fathers often spelled out their intent to win support for the new constitution. Their intent is there for any literate student of history to read, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Furthermore, in Heller, the SC ruled that you and your ilk distort and misrepresent the SC's finding in Miller, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. So, STFU, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

As usual, you assume you know more than SCOTUS. If you're so smart, why are you on a hooker board acting like a fucking repetitive retard? The intent was for militia members only, not private citizens. Fucktard.

As usual, you assume you know more than SCOTUS. If you're so smart, why are you on a hooker board acting like a fucking repetitive retard? The intent was for militia members only, not private citizens. Fucktard. Originally Posted by WombRaider

The SC used the Founding Fathers' intent in its Heller ruling, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, and, in effect, it said you and your ilk are mendacious liars and misrepresent the ruling in Miller, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. So it would be your supercilious ass that has a problem with the SC, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

The SC used the Founding Fathers' intent in its Heller ruling, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, and, in effect, it said you and your ilk are mendacious liars and misrepresent the ruling in Miller, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. So it would be your supercilious ass that has a problem with the SC, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Interesting how you skip over Cruikshank.

Interesting how you skip over Cruikshank. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Skipping over inconsiderate facts is a basic premise of this entire board, and no one is more "expert" at it than IB.