The army should have met them before the rally, taken their details and informed them that they were going to be sent on a special mission in Iraq. Watching them run for the hills would have been great fun.
Probably could have maybe picked a different day, however it needs to be done. This is just the beginning of them trying to take our guns. It'll make its way all over if they don't start somewhere
Considering these couple guys have been in numerous pictures I don't think this proves what you want in demographics. Every pro Trump source was anxious to get their pic. I mean I have seen these 3 black guys a dozen times and not seen the same white person twice in a pic. And I don't expect you to be up to date on how racist black people view Trump. Key word racist not the black community as a whole. There is a small racist section of black Trump voters which agree with the alt-right view of separate countries by race. They hate white people and think their economy is better without them just as white racists feel. So to these black voters they are willing to accept a white man who will give them what they want even if he is white. They know they are pawns in a white system and the best black man they can hope for is an Obama who is just a tool of the man. The best course of action is to use the white man to your advantage. Harness his hate, go to his rally and use your superior mind to trick them. Social order is meant to change. A race war can be seen as good to some. This is something the FBI has confirmed. The sort of black person at these rallies is not very nice. But go on enjoy your beer. I'm sure you think it was a clever point and I can't show you otherwise. The reading is there if you bother which confirms what I say,
No they couldn’t pick another day because tomorrow they’re needed behind the counter at McDonald’s and at other various fast food outlets throughout the city....lol...
Dey took err gerrrns Americans have always been too privelaged with guns in their relatively new country, never got to experience a proper battle of blunt force combat, always happy to stand over there and shoot. I say take their guns! give them swords for a while until they learn how to be true warriors.
I’ll gladly trade my gun for a sword and bad-ass knight armor. Under one condition. The president, every politician, government official, and every loud mouthed celebrity hands over their guns and fires their bodyguards too.
Yes, yes, absolutely yes. I've been saying this for years. A true warrior can kill and defend with a blade. A peasant can pull a trigger a half an inch
No time to read the Wall Street Journal article I linked? Or you could just search MLK day rallys in Richmond. Or not. Might learn something if you do. Your choice.
I don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, so I can't read the article. I was responding to your statement, I don't see any violation of the 2nd Amendment. Please explain the violation.
Funny, I don't subscribe either, but can see the article. This link describes the pending violations.https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...5e1d82-35b0-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html
The thing is; it might have had a valid purpose in the frontier areas, esp when they weren't states yet, where there was no proper law enforcement and the rule of hanging a person for horsetheft actually had merit. Some americans wanna act like it's still like that.
The Washington Post also requires a subscription. What I did find was that Virginia passed SB 70, which makes background checks mandatory for all gun sales except between family members and estate administrators, etc.. SB 69 allows for only one gun to be purchased each month, that's 12 a year or 120 in 10 years...and it also has exemptions. And SB 35 allows for the banning of firearm possession in public spaces during an event that requires a permit. Like a parade or protest. If that's what you're talking about there is no violation of the 2nd. Maybe you could explain in your own words what your concern is.
Weird. I don't subscribe. This is the 2nd WaPo article posted here in as many days that I could see and others couldn't. Anyway, in case you're curious ...
You didn't include the red flag law they're also proposing. If you don't see that those pieces of legislation will infringe 2nd amendment rights, which clearly shall not be infringed, we just don't see eye to eye on the subject.
The Red Flag law allows for the temporary confiscation of a gun or guns, with a court order, from someone who is deemed by society to be a danger to themselves or others. The court may be petitioned to consider whether a person is a danger based on statements, actions, or records of the individual in question. If the court finds the person is indeed a danger, the weapons are removed for a set time, after which they are returned unless another petition is advanced and found to have merit. All challenges so far to these types of laws have been found to have no merit and no violation of the 2nd has been found as the 2nd does not guarantee that any and all persons may possess guns. There are exceptions to who can own guns, such as convicted felons, juveniles, the mentally unfit, etc., it varies by state. So you support allowing dangerous people to own guns? For example, someone who beats his wife and children, threatens to shoot them or perhaps his or her neighbors, discharges his or her firearm in anger, directs threatening Tweets or Emails at government officials, so on and so forth...and his or her behavior has been documented and reviewed by a court......they can have their guns until they actually shoot someone, and then we can can complain about the the police not "doing something" beforehand?