Looks like Cruz just got a 9 point lead as opponent says ARs are bad

a reply to: gortex

The AR is not a weapon of war.

I am from Texas, live in Texas and calling us pigs is quite a jump, especially since you don't even know what "AR" even means.

Cruz' s oppent has been trying to gain by scooping some liberal votes, but in the rural areas he is failing.

Mg

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

It's hard to say what the founding fathers thought about guns. The 2nd Amendment traditionally didn't apply to gun ownership until the NRA said it did in the 1990's and then SCOTUS affirmed it in the 2000's.

This is the dumbest thing youve posted on this subject.

The 2A has protected firearms for its entire existence.

Nope. As I just posted it wasn't until 2008 that this was the case.

LOL no you didn't.... I don't think you even understand what you quoted.

Ok genius, explain to me what you think that court decision did.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

It's hard to say what the founding fathers thought about guns. The 2nd Amendment traditionally didn't apply to gun ownership until the NRA said it did in the 1990's and then SCOTUS affirmed it in the 2000's.

This is the dumbest thing youve posted on this subject.

The 2A has protected firearms for its entire existence.

Nope. As I just posted it wasn't until 2008 that this was the case.

Gotta stick to those idiotic liberal talking points for dear life I guess.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

It's hard to say what the founding fathers thought about guns. The 2nd Amendment traditionally didn't apply to gun ownership until the NRA said it did in the 1990's and then SCOTUS affirmed it in the 2000's.

This is the dumbest thing youve posted on this subject.

The 2A has protected firearms for its entire existence.

Nope. As I just posted it wasn't until 2008 that this was the case.

LOL no you didn't.... I don't think you even understand what you quoted.

Ok genius, explain to me what you think that court decision did.

I did, last post on page 2... It was a ruling about D.C. handgun ban, and rifle requirement. It DOES NOT grant gun ownership rights, or declare the 2nd amendment is about guns... The 2nd amendment has always been about guns. Seriously read the case again, slower.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

It's hard to say what the founding fathers thought about guns. The 2nd Amendment traditionally didn't apply to gun ownership until the NRA said it did in the 1990's and then SCOTUS affirmed it in the 2000's.

This is the dumbest thing youve posted on this subject.

The 2A has protected firearms for its entire existence.

Nope. As I just posted it wasn't until 2008 that this was the case.

LOL no you didn't.... I don't think you even understand what you quoted.

Ok genius, explain to me what you think that court decision did.

I did, last post on page 2... It was a ruling about D.C. handgun ban, and rifle requirement. It DOES NOT grant gun ownership rights, or declare the 2nd amendment is about guns... The 2nd amendment has always been about guns. Seriously read the case again, slower.

No you posted a small section of the same thing I posted while clipping out this part:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,

Don't cherry pick information to suit your needs. That's why I posted the entire description.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

It's hard to say what the founding fathers thought about guns. The 2nd Amendment traditionally didn't apply to gun ownership until the NRA said it did in the 1990's and then SCOTUS affirmed it in the 2000's.

This is the dumbest thing youve posted on this subject.

The 2A has protected firearms for its entire existence.

Nope. As I just posted it wasn't until 2008 that this was the case.

LOL no you didn't.... I don't think you even understand what you quoted.

Ok genius, explain to me what you think that court decision did.

I did, last post on page 2... It was a ruling about D.C. handgun ban, and rifle requirement. It DOES NOT grant gun ownership rights, or declare the 2nd amendment is about guns... The 2nd amendment has always been about guns. Seriously read the case again, slower.

No you posted a small section of the same thing I posted while clipping out this part:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,

Don't cherry pick information to suit your needs. That's why I posted the entire description.

You're cherry picking... You completely left off the aspect this was about DC's handgun ban and rifle requirement, it's even right there in the case history you listed !!!! You even intentionally cut that part out, before you accused me of cherry picking !!! LOL

You are not doing yourself any favors...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Heller decision reaffirmed what was legally presumed to already be the case.

Heller isn't the only decision on guns by the SCOTUS and should not be viewed as stand alone.

They did not overturn precedent with Heller, they confirmed it.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Go read the post again. I DEFINITELY posted the part about the handgun ban. I included the entire description. I'm starting to become convinced you don't know that the SCOTUS can rule on other laws or Amendments while addressing certain cases like this one.

a reply to: gortex

Spoken like someone who has never seen 100 hogs lay waste to a crop

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Go read the post again. I DEFINITELY posted the part about the handgun ban. I included the entire description. I'm starting to become convinced you don't know that the SCOTUS can rule on other laws or Amendments while addressing certain cases like this one.

At first, and when I pointed out this was about DC's handgun ban, you cut it out and went back to a false argument. You did that because you realized reading it in whole, shows you as wrong.

a reply to: missed_gear

The AR is not a weapon of war.

Yeah , I got that impression from the half dozen others before you.

I am from Texas, live in Texas and calling us pigs is quite a jump, especially since you don't even know what "AR" even means.

Please quote the part where I called Texans pigs because I didn't.
Apology accepted.

a reply to: gortex

Holy crap.

ARs are not automatic.

Lmao!!!

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I only cut it out to show you the part of the description YOU cut out. Stop distorting things that literally just happened for everyone in the thread to read and see. The entire description is still posted where I originally posted the link and I never edited it to remove it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Thanks Tex , appreciate you contribution.

I wish all the dems would be as honest as beto.
Good for beto and his transparancy!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I only cut it out to show you the part of the description YOU cut out. Stop distorting things that literally just happened for everyone in the thread to read and see. The entire description is still posted where I originally posted the link and I never edited it to remove it.

The case... Is about DC's gun ban...

Not gun ownership as a whole. If you think that's what the case was about.... You are wrong...

It's that simple.

If you think you didn't have a right to own a gun until the 1990's (LOL) you are wrong...

If you think the Supreme Court never heard a case about guns, and the second until 2008.... You are wrong...

It's that simple...

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I only cut it out to show you the part of the description YOU cut out. Stop distorting things that literally just happened for everyone in the thread to read and see. The entire description is still posted where I originally posted the link and I never edited it to remove it.

The case... Is about DC's gun ban...

Not gun ownership as a whole. If you think that's what the case was about.... You are wrong...

I know what the case is about. I've been agreeing with you on that point. In ADDITION to the case being about the DC gun ban the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment protected gun rights. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

If you think the Supreme Court never heard a case about guns, and the second until 2008.... You are wrong...

Prove it then. Show me a court case where SCOTUS ruled on the 2nd prior to this case. And don't tell me about the other case you linked before, it didn't mention the 2nd.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 727Sky

Guess he has never been on a pig hunt in Texas

Yeah , them Texan pigs are armed to the teeth no other option than to use an AR.

Weapons of war do not belong in the hands of civilians.

So I don’t own a gun. Have no need to own one. That said, I absolutely disagree with you. Our constitution specifically states that citizens deserve to have weapons as a means to protect against tyranny. Now should there be limitations absolutely, however I think we need to deal with the current laws on the books and fix them before we start carteblanche taking things away. It’s like in high school. Some kid comes in with weed. Next thing you know they are searching all the lockers then searching peoples houses too. Same principle applies deal with the troublemakers and respect those whom don’t break the law.

Camain