.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to Boozegood.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="Boozegood:1339367"][QUOTE="ShadowSD:1339364"] I'm just repeating commonly used terms in the analysis of this tragedy, I'm not making any of them up. If you have an issue with the terms, that's fair, but I can tell you I don't go around inventing words. [/quote] Because they are obviously slanderous words that put images in peoples heads; when in fact they literally mean absolutely nothing. Please tell me what an 'assault weapon' or a 'military style rifle' is? [quote] And if nukes are Constitutionally debatable but currently aren't allowed, why aren't semi-automatic weapons in the same category?[/QUOTE] My research has shown that Nuclear Weapons contradict certain other parts of the constitution. But since I don't have any of that research on hand right now I'm unable to argue that point. Also, the idea that the ingredients required to create a nuclear weapon can be federally regulated without disturbing the constitution. [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.004 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][