Today's lesson in the constitution

so you're that much of a dumbfuck that you have no answer for this? not surprised, considering the idiot opinions from the middle hole of your ass you've pulled out so far.

Translation:

"No Domer, I haven't carried my peashooter into the courthouse. Why? Because I'm a loud-mouthed pussy."
 
Translation:

"No Domer, I haven't carried my peashooter into the courthouse. Why? Because I'm a loud-mouthed pussy."

Interesting how you, someone that indicates he knows where I am having posted pictures he claims is me and where I live, has yet to show. In other words, seems we know the who the loud mouthed pussy is. It's you, BOY.
 
Read it, the Amendment has a prefatory clause, meaning it has to be defined before you move onto the rest of the Amendment

You have a poor grasp of English, or the law, or both, if that is conclusion you draw. All the more so because the Bill of Rights itself is prefaced on being restrictions on the government, as stated in the preamble.
 
Read it, the Amendment has a prefatory clause, meaning it has to be defined before you move onto the rest of the Amendment

the constitution, nor the bill of rights, defines rights but defines restrictions that the government is supposed to abide by.......provided they don't have the support of police state cowards who are afraid of the freedom of others.
 
yes.....these are the expected simple words of a statist coward who trembles at the feet of government. good job. LOL

Funny little coward. It’s the government in that courthouse that has you shitting your pants, isn’t it prissyboy?

I do always have to chuckle at you loud-mouthed pansies. Good stuff, twatsky.
 
so many times' i've heard this idiotic argument. show me where the republican and democrat parties got together in the 18th century and said 'lets fuck with the people and switch ideologies'........I really want to see that

lol

“Got together”? Priceless!

The ignorant ramblings of historical ignoramuses provide endless amusement.

Thanks, tardsky!
 
Last edited:
Funny little coward. It’s the government in that courthouse that has you shitting your pants, isn’t it prissyboy?

I do always have to chuckle at you loud-mouthed pansies. Good stuff, twatsky.

how much do you love the power you've given to government to kill those you disagree with? pretty highly, we suspect.
 
how much do you love the power you've given to government to kill those you disagree with? pretty highly, we suspect.

thecoward_poster.jpg__284x50000_q85_subsampling-2.jpg


There's your photo, Nancy.
 
so you have no answer, got it.

"Got together"! Right up there on the stupid index with your "vehicles are not necessary" because they are not listed as a right in the BofR. Just fucking endless laughs!

Tell me, you and AnnieOakley are in a secret contest for the dumbest motherfucker on the forum, aren't you?
 
"Got together"! Right up there on the stupid index with your "vehicles are not necessary" because they are not listed as a right in the BofR. Just fucking endless laughs!

Tell me, you and AnnieOakley are in a secret contest for the dumbest motherfucker on the forum, aren't you?

I answer questions about rights directed to me, whereas YOU do not.......so who's the real coward or dumbest motherfucker on the forum?????? twould be you.
 
I answer questions about rights directed to me, whereas YOU do not.......so who's the real coward or dumbest motherfucker on the forum?????? twould be you.

Yeah, here’s one of your hilarious answers:

"vehicles cannot be necessary"

So, I guess you don't need these:

red-truck-with-clouds.jpg


Dang, you’re great for a laugh!
 
Why don’t you try that, dumbshit? YOUR context was trying to compare the constitutional protection of vehicles versus guns. The typcal dumbshittery that you RW idiots frequently try to pull.

this is why nobody takes your shit seriously, because you don't stick to facts and reality. MY context wasn't about comparing the constitutional protection of vehicles vs guns, it was a direct question to you about how you could consider vehicles as a necessity for everyday life, so do you consider that there is a RIGHT TO DRIVE, given your penchant for denying the reality of inalienable rights.

So I will ask this one last time, to give you a chance to redeem your idiocy, IS THERE A RIGHT TO DRIVE if you believe vehicles are necessary for people to survive in todays world?
 
this is why nobody takes your shit seriously, because you don't stick to facts and reality. MY context wasn't about comparing the constitutional protection of vehicles vs guns, it was a direct question to you about how you could consider vehicles as a necessity for everyday life, so do you consider that there is a RIGHT TO DRIVE, given your penchant for denying the reality of inalienable rights.

So I will ask this one last time, to give you a chance to redeem your idiocy, IS THERE A RIGHT TO DRIVE if you believe vehicles are necessary for people to survive in todays world?

See, there you go, you illiterate fucking retard. I never made any comment about a right to drive. The comment I made is that vehicles are necessary to the function of modern society, while guns are not. Plenty of Western societies do very nicely without guns. On the other hand, modern society cannot not function without vehicles.

The illiterate moron that you are failed to understand that distinction. Off you went on your tardrant. Still are, shit-for-brains.

But, then again, I'm still laughing at the "vehicles cannot be necessary". Only you to thank for that cretinous gem!
 
See, there you go, you illiterate fucking retard. I never made any comment about a right to drive. The comment I made is that vehicles are necessary to the function of modern society, while guns are not.
no shit you cowardly fucktard.......you said vehicles were necessary so I asked you is there a right to drive. you have yet to answer that simple fucking question.

Plenty of Western societies do very nicely without guns. On the other hand, modern society cannot not function without vehicles.
in this context, I don't care about guns, i'm asking about vehicles and a right to drive, but you won't answer.
 
no shit you cowardly fucktard.......you said vehicles were necessary so I asked you is there a right to drive. you have yet to answer that simple fucking question.


in this context, I don't care about guns, i'm asking about vehicles and a right to drive, but you won't answer.

lol

You just keep providing endless entertainment. I love watching fools like you humiliate yourselves.

Vehicles being necessary for a modern society to function has ZERO to do with any Constitutional right. Is there a "right" to electricity, you fucking retard?

Mindless fucking idiot. Laughably pathetic.
 
Back
Top