I thing the guys who used guns to WIN their liberty would look at you and wonder what drug you are on.
I think the guys who have used guns to protect their liberty would wonder who dropped you as a kid.
I think the guys that would rob you blind and assault your wife and daughter are giving each other High Fives because they's just discovered an easy target.
Further, his position implicitly argues that members of the "militia", all able bodied make citizens (let's throw in women these days), should actually be able to purchase M-16s and other military rifles.
Without picking a side, I'd like to point out the interesting dichotomy we have here.
On the one had, with regards to the Second Amendment, some people are more than willing to infringe on Rights when they believe the greater good would be served . Often making the argument that the Second is outdated, that the founders never saw Semiautomatic weapons coming, etc.
On the other hand, presumably those same people absolutely stand against a law the also arguably infringes on Free Speech rights and arguably for a purpose just as valid as their Second Amendment statements. After all, the Founding Fathers could never had imagined that a 12 year old girl could be purchased anywhere on the continent with the click of a button. (Ironically, 12 year old girls were practically marriage material back then.)
I guess a silver lining in all of this is that pretty much everyone will become acutely aware of the consequences of infringing on any of our Constitutional Rights, no matter how well intentioned.
Whether it is mere perception or not, companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc are seen to be anti-competitive and a net detriment to the overall market. But perception is usually the basis for laws and regulations despite the best intentions.
These guys need to get out in front of the perception and "do something" (I have no idea what that would be), or when the Democrats eventually do regain the majority (and they will...it's all a cycle), we will end up with an incomprehensible mess of regulations and restrictions that nobody wants to deal with.
It is highly likely that your little website selling wooden birdhouses would end up having to file/certify/abide by some stupid regulation that in reality has nothing to do with wooden bird houses. That is just how Washington works.
So take heed, Facebook, Amazon, and Google. What befall you will befall us all.
Being a single mother seems to be a badge of honor in the US.
Spending time with someone, enjoying their company, isn't the same as being in a monogamous, committed relationship...marriage.
That's my whole point. Why put yourself in jeopardy when you can just as easily, and more safely, treat the relationship as the business transaction it actually is?
There will always be the minority who stay in abusive relationships and marry beneath them (financially). Who knows why? But the divorce rates and the outcomes for men are empirical evidence that marriage is a treacherous thing for them.
Even Educated women prefer men of means. Why would they want to carry a guy who earns less than they do?
What makes it even worse for the guy is that educated women who are making a good living have even less reasons to stick around. Vows these days are optional. When any argument ultimately ends up with the woman threatening to divorce (because she can financially, and the legal system will generally assure that she comes out on top) what is a guy supposed to?
Statistics show that most of the time men get the short end of the stick. Emotionally, legally, financially.
It is the rare woman who doesn't calculate earnings power into the formula for picking a mate.
Gold Digger is a real thing and is perfectly reasonable when you think about it. Would a woman prefer to raise their children in poverty or in a wealthy household? Statistic have indicated that the two major causes of Divorce are arguments over money and infidelity. I suspect that one drives the other.
A woman who dispenses with the charade of love and simply charges the going rate (transparency) is looked down on because she doesn't play the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you live, Disneyland?
A Democrat Administration refused to investigate Hillary until being embarrassed into it and even then doing everything they can to give her a pass.
Comey had to go out of his way and apparently had to violate FBI procedures to keep from labeling her actions regarding emails as criminal.
Not to mention failed attempts at a clandestine meeting between the fucking AG and Bill Clinton.
If someone had been appointed to investigate Hillary in the same way that Lavrentiy Beria Mueller Trump, she'd probably be on Death Row by now.
BTW, what other Rights in the Bill of Rights do you figure ARE NOT Fundamental Rights?
I thing the guys who used guns to WIN their liberty would look at you and wonder what drug you are on.
I think the guys who have used guns to protect their liberty would wonder who dropped you as a kid.
I think the guys that would rob you blind and assault your wife and daughter are giving each other High Fives because they's just discovered an easy target.
Check the link. It discusses trafficking of underage girls on the internet.
Last I looked, you buy things on the internet by clicking a button.
Further, his position implicitly argues that members of the "militia", all able bodied make citizens (let's throw in women these days), should actually be able to purchase M-16s and other military rifles.
You seriously don't think human trafficking is a thing, eh?
Are you also denying that Pagepage.com was pimping underage women?
Seriously?
Maybe someone should be checking your computer.
And every other right in the Bill of Rights is acknowledged as an individual Right.
Supremes agree the Second is an individual Right also
In the immortal words of W.C. Fields
Go away, kid, ya bother me.
Without picking a side, I'd like to point out the interesting dichotomy we have here.
On the one had, with regards to the Second Amendment, some people are more than willing to infringe on Rights when they believe the greater good would be served . Often making the argument that the Second is outdated, that the founders never saw Semiautomatic weapons coming, etc.
On the other hand, presumably those same people absolutely stand against a law the also arguably infringes on Free Speech rights and arguably for a purpose just as valid as their Second Amendment statements. After all, the Founding Fathers could never had imagined that a 12 year old girl could be purchased anywhere on the continent with the click of a button. (Ironically, 12 year old girls were practically marriage material back then.)
I guess a silver lining in all of this is that pretty much everyone will become acutely aware of the consequences of infringing on any of our Constitutional Rights, no matter how well intentioned.
Ha!
Seems like that's just making it worse for themselves in the long run.
Whether it is mere perception or not, companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc are seen to be anti-competitive and a net detriment to the overall market. But perception is usually the basis for laws and regulations despite the best intentions.
These guys need to get out in front of the perception and "do something" (I have no idea what that would be), or when the Democrats eventually do regain the majority (and they will...it's all a cycle), we will end up with an incomprehensible mess of regulations and restrictions that nobody wants to deal with.
It is highly likely that your little website selling wooden birdhouses would end up having to file/certify/abide by some stupid regulation that in reality has nothing to do with wooden bird houses. That is just how Washington works.
So take heed, Facebook, Amazon, and Google. What befall you will befall us all.
Ya, fuck you.
Gad damned tin foil hat assholes and your bullshit.
Finding unadulterated food is easy if you have half a brain which you apparently don't.
How do you add sugar to eggs, vegetables, beef, chicken, etc?
Who is making you buy shit in a box?
Non sequitur.
What you eat isn't due to some shadowy cabal of industrialists.
Jean-Luc Picard!
Presumably French dude with an English accent. Never did figure that one out.
Sugar is added to all kinds of things where it really has no business being.
LOL!
You had a tenuous argument going, but I stayed with it.
Then you threw this out and it all collapsed into a pile of SJW Bullshit.
Not a damned one of them.
Being a single mother seems to be a badge of honor in the US.
Spending time with someone, enjoying their company, isn't the same as being in a monogamous, committed relationship...marriage.
That's my whole point. Why put yourself in jeopardy when you can just as easily, and more safely, treat the relationship as the business transaction it actually is?
There will always be the minority who stay in abusive relationships and marry beneath them (financially). Who knows why? But the divorce rates and the outcomes for men are empirical evidence that marriage is a treacherous thing for them.
Regardless of what you think about Trump, the target of the law is human traffickers.
Selling 12 year old girls is not OK.
The law may be imperfect, but it isn't about anyone pushing morals.
Even Educated women prefer men of means. Why would they want to carry a guy who earns less than they do?
What makes it even worse for the guy is that educated women who are making a good living have even less reasons to stick around. Vows these days are optional. When any argument ultimately ends up with the woman threatening to divorce (because she can financially, and the legal system will generally assure that she comes out on top) what is a guy supposed to?
Statistics show that most of the time men get the short end of the stick. Emotionally, legally, financially.
It is the rare woman who doesn't calculate earnings power into the formula for picking a mate.
Gold Digger is a real thing and is perfectly reasonable when you think about it. Would a woman prefer to raise their children in poverty or in a wealthy household? Statistic have indicated that the two major causes of Divorce are arguments over money and infidelity. I suspect that one drives the other.
A woman who dispenses with the charade of love and simply charges the going rate (transparency) is looked down on because she doesn't play the game.
I figured Facebook would go the way of AOL eventually. But not this way.
AOL suffered a long, painful, pathetic death. Looks like FaceBook will be put down pretty soon compared to AOL.
I stupidly signed up for Twitter once.
My very first post was a response to some Leftist.
Twitter immediately suspended the account and wanted me to provide an ID, Phone number, etc. because the post was, "suspicious".
So, ya. They believe terrorists are anyone who disagrees with the Left.
Fuck'm
I call Bullshit.
Youtube is deliberately demonetizing some channels. It has nothing to do with advertisers.
In the previous Channel I mentioned (DeerMEatForDinner) there were many ads for firearm related products on his hunting videos.
Not anymore. You can't tell me that the firearm and hunting industry decided not to advertise on a hunting channel.
Complete and utter Bullshit.