Don Lemon Encourages Illegals To Kill ICE

[Nationalist]

20 hours ago, eyeball said:

Note Don Lemon still hasn't been charged with anything.

Let us know how that works out. 

So you've dropped your stupid argument and reduced to gloating that LeMon hasn't been arrested...yet?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

So you've dropped your stupid argument and reduced to gloating that LeMon hasn't been arrested...yet?

Nope. Still laughing.

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

ummmm....

BREAKING NEW 'Arrested And Charged' - Former CNN Host Don Lemon Gets Tragic News - News

CdnFox has apparently given up arguing and has reduced himself to posting malicious links.

Beware.

I've reported it.

Edited October 23, 2025 by eyeball

[Nationalist]

41 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nope. Still laughing.

CdnFox has apparently given up arguing and has reduced himself to posting malicious links.

Beware.

I've reported it.

Reported what? That @CdnFox posted a link?

I imagine your report was met with laughter.

But you've run out of arguments so...ciao.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Nope. Still laughing.

CdnFox has apparently given up arguing and has reduced himself to posting malicious links.

Beware.

I've reported it.

LOL i love that news articles that have facts you don't like are now 'malicious links'    ROFLMAO!!!!!

It would seem that he was arrested and charged, it was done quietly and he refuses to confirm or deny at this point,  but that's what seems to be the case based on what we know right now  

And i love that you're having a weird little hissy fit over it  

46 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Reported what? That @CdnFox posted a link?

I imagine your report was met with laughter.

But you've run out of arguments so...ciao.

Yeah, it's pretty hilarious.  If i don't post a link they scream "NO CITE!!!!!", and if i do they scream "MALICIOUS!!!!" LOL 

 

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL i love that news articles that have facts you don't like are now 'malicious links'    ROFLMAO!!!!!

It would seem that he was arrested and charged, it was done quietly and he refuses to confirm or deny at this point,  but that's what seems to be the case based on what we know right now  

And i love that you're having a weird little hissy fit over it  

Yeah, it's pretty hilarious.  If i don't post a link they scream "NO CITE!!!!!", and if i do they scream "MALICIOUS!!!!" LOL 

 

Meh...Tweenkies will be Tweenkies.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Meh...Tweenkies will be Tweenkies.

Yes, but that one comes with sprinkles  

[gatomontes99]

Oh look, more violence against ICE.

The FBI should look at these terrorists phones and prosecute anyone that encouraged these "peaceful protesters" to do this. 

 

Edited October 25, 2025 by gatomontes99

[Hodad]

On 10/19/2025 at 8:43 PM, Lockback said:

Actually, the NRA didn't "invent" a novel reading of the 2nd Amendment.  It IS an individual right.  Period.  And it's been held up in court case after court case. 

 

Not sure whether you're a lazy American or an uninformed-for-good-reason Canadian, but no, that's false.

There are some excellent long-format examinations of that history, but for a short version you can learn the history here.

“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home.

[gatomontes99]

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home.

One could say there was no need to make such a distinction since it is clearly stated in 2A. However, your assertion that 2008 was the first time (and implying some change to previous interpretations that don't exist) is inaccurate. In fact in 1939 United States v Miller, confirmed that a citizen had the right to own a firearm if it conformed to regular militia firearm standards. The only reason Miller gave for upholding the National Firearms Act was that a sawed off shotgun was not regular military equipment. It did acknowledge that, had the gun conformed to military standards, the possession of the weapon would have been legal. 

[Hodad]

53 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

One could say there was no need to make such a distinction since it is clearly stated in 2A. However, your assertion that 2008 was the first time (and implying some change to previous interpretations that don't exist) is inaccurate. In fact in 1939 United States v Miller, confirmed that a citizen had the right to own a firearm if it conformed to regular militia firearm standards. The only reason Miller gave for upholding the National Firearms Act was that a sawed off shotgun was not regular military equipment. It did acknowledge that, had the gun conformed to military standards, the possession of the weapon would have been legal. 

You're just ignorantly begging the question. 

Of course there were previous interpretations--one, precisely. Either learn the history or don't. I can't read it for you. 

[User]

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

Not sure whether you're a lazy American or an uninformed-for-good-reason Canadian, but no, that's false.

LOL, your big rebuke is to quote one Supreme Court Justice's opinion outside of the bench in an interview from well after it was written?

Come back when you can actually make an argument of your own before you start calling people lazy. I mean, if you stop being a coward long enough to engage with me, I will pick apart your bad arguments like I have always done. 

[gatomontes99]

19 hours ago, Hodad said:

You're just ignorantly begging the question. 

Of course there were previous interpretations--one, precisely. Either learn the history or don't. I can't read it for you. 

No. You said the 2008 was the first ruling that affirmed an individual's right. I showed that the 1939, Miller ruling affirmed the right while denying a set of weapons. 

[Hodad]

17 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. You said the 2008 was the first ruling that affirmed an individual's right. I showed that the 1939, Miller ruling affirmed the right while denying a set of weapons. 

You didn't show anything. You waved your hands and made a claim--about the 2nd amendment and the Miller case. You provided neither evidence nor argument. 

And you're claim itself is false. The truth is basically the opposite of what you claimed--that's why a Heller was a big deal. Miller continued the expectation that gun ownership was fully in the context of a well regulated militia, not a distinct individual right, and self defense was an insufficient justification. 

 

Justicia

Primary holding

"Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation."

 

And that's not just what weapons can be owned, but it also clearly makes when and how a person is armed subject to regulation--not as an individual right, but in the context of a well regulated militia. Individuals can keep and bear arms, but the right is constitutionally protected only in the furtherance of that goal. Federal and State law were able to regulate everything in that context. 

Again, you can learn the history or not. But it should be obvious that there wasn't a decades long legal strategy and battle to achieve something that you claim was settled in 1939. 🙄

Edited November 1, 2025 by Hodad

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

but in the context of a well regulated militia.

No. That isn't what that means. The ruling stated that weapons that are similar to what the militia uses are acceptable. 

From your own link:

Quote

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

The rest of the ruling reaffirms the individual right, and in some cases duty, to own and be proficient with a fire arm. 

Face it. You were wrong. You probably relied on bad information. 

[robosmith]

On 10/20/2025 at 2:20 PM, Nationalist said:

Yes well Tweenkie-Poo...not only are you a limp little pee-on, but a full fledged traitor.

One thing is for sure. You love your criminals. The more murdered, overdosed and raped Americans the better to you.

You should really be ashamed of yourself.

You should really STOP LYING about your PRETENSE that you get to decide who is traitor to the US.

[Deluge]

America is far too racist and hostile for a gentle soul like Don Lemon. Perhaps he should embrace his heritage and relocate to Africa? 

[Legato]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You should really STOP LYING about your PRETENSE that you get to decide who is traitor to the US.

When bed is made, time to lie down.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

When bed is made, time to lie down.

Maybe for you CLOWNS.

[Hodad]

8 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. That isn't what that means. The ruling stated that weapons that are similar to what the militia uses are acceptable. 

From your own link:

The rest of the ruling reaffirms the individual right, and in some cases duty, to own and be proficient with a fire arm. 

Face it. You were wrong. You probably relied on bad information. 

You are wildly misreading this. 

The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose enabling a well regulated militia. That was never in question. 

Miller rejected the idea of an individual right to bear arms outside of the context of a militia. You can read the significance of that anywhere. And you can find a dozen sites to explain why that individual right wasn't established until Heller. That's why it's a landmark case. 

From the NRA, celebrating their decades-long effort to effect that change:

"State by state, issue by issue, NRA-ILA changed the face of American firearms law and made political fortunes rise and fall on candidates’ Second Amendment records. Its grades and iconic orange postcards became synonymous with grassroots political activism.

The shift peaked in 2008 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which invalidated D.C.’s handgun ban. It became black-letter law that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, independent of service in an organized militia."

 

 

 

Miller was in stark contrast to the conception of the 2A as an individual right. 

And it left wide open state and city options for regulating gun ownership. 

You want a gun for home protection? Not protected. 

You want a gun to conceal carry? Not protected 

You want a gun for sport shooting? Not protected. 

You want a gun just because? Not protected. 

Heller is when that changed, and the 2nd amendment shifted to an individual right, independent of militia. 

 

 

[User]

21 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Miller rejected the idea of an individual right to bear arms outside of the context of a militia.

No, it didn't. Nowhere did it explicitly reject the notion of an individual right, but it did speak to that right regarding the relevance of a militia. 

Even then, you are talking about a case from 1939, when sitting here trying to discuss what the 2nd Amendment meant, which we would need to go back to when it was written. 

23 minutes ago, Hodad said:

And you can find a dozen sites to explain why that individual right wasn't established until Heller. That's why it's a landmark case. 

It didn't need to be. Heller affirmed, it did not establish it as an individual right. It isn't like for the last 200+ years individuals had no right to firearms and then all of a sudden Heller came along and BAM, now they do!

No, you clowns keep pushing for more and more harsh firearms restrictions and this was pushed to the test and Heller AFFIRMED the right that people like you kept trying to take away. 

 

[gatomontes99]

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

You are wildly misreading this. 

The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose enabling a well regulated militia. That was never in question. 

Yes. That is exactly what it said. But it did not say that the right was limited to people in the military/militia.

The purpose of the second amendment was to have a body of people that were proficient with weapons to draw upon in times of war. Miller was wrong to say that only military grade weapons were included. The 2A had nothing to do with the type of weapon. Further, the 2A specifically states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 

As I started out saying, you didnt have a need for a 2A SCOTUS ruling that expressly stated there was an individual right to own a gun. That right  was expressly, and clearly stated in the 2A. Miller affirmed that right almost 70 years before you swore up and down that the first time the SCOTUS made that ruling. 

Your implication that the 2008 ruling some how changed the 2A to give individuals the right to own guns is absurd and thoroughly debunked. 

[gatomontes99]

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

From the NRA, celebrating their decades-long effort to effect that change:

"State by state, issue by issue, NRA-ILA changed the face of American firearms law and made political fortunes rise and fall on candidates’ Second Amendment records. Its grades and iconic orange postcards became synonymous with grassroots political activism.

The shift peaked in 2008 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which invalidated D.C.’s handgun ban. It became black-letter law that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, independent of service in an organized militia."

Defeating blatantly unconstitional laws is not changing the meaning of the constitution. 

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

Miller was in stark contrast to the conception of the 2A as an individual right. 

And it left wide open state and city options for regulating gun ownership. 

You want a gun for home protection? Not protected. 

Not true

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

You want a gun to conceal carry? Not protected 

Not true.

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

You want a gun to conceal carry? Not protected 

Not true.

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

You want a gun for sport shooting? Not protected. 

Not true.

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

You want a gun just because? Not protected. 

Not true.

Miller created a new means of regulation for sure. One that was not expressly stated in the Constitution. But it did not remove the individual right to bear arms, it upheld it. Miller only added the caveat that the right applied to military/militia style guns. That did not comply with the Constitution. That is what it was meant to do, though. 

What Heller ture accomplished was eliminating the incorrect parts of Miller that established a link between service and ownership. Heller reaffirmed Miller's interpretation that an individual had a right to own a gun and that that right applied far more broadly than military style weapons. 

[Hodad]

On 11/2/2025 at 6:26 AM, gatomontes99 said:

Yes. That is exactly what it said. But it did not say that the right was limited to people in the military/militia.

The purpose of the second amendment was to have a body of people that were proficient with weapons to draw upon in times of war. Miller was wrong to say that only military grade weapons were included. The 2A had nothing to do with the type of weapon. Further, the 2A specifically states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 

As I started out saying, you didnt have a need for a 2A SCOTUS ruling that expressly stated there was an individual right to own a gun. That right  was expressly, and clearly stated in the 2A. Miller affirmed that right almost 70 years before you swore up and down that the first time the SCOTUS made that ruling. 

Your implication that the 2008 ruling some how changed the 2A to give individuals the right to own guns is absurd and thoroughly debunked. 

 

On 11/2/2025 at 6:39 AM, gatomontes99 said:

Defeating blatantly unconstitional laws is not changing the meaning of the constitution. 

Not true

Not true.

Not true.

Not true.

Not true.

Miller created a new means of regulation for sure. One that was not expressly stated in the Constitution. But it did not remove the individual right to bear arms, it upheld it. Miller only added the caveat that the right applied to military/militia style guns. That did not comply with the Constitution. That is what it was meant to do, though. 

What Heller ture accomplished was eliminating the incorrect parts of Miller that established a link between service and ownership. Heller reaffirmed Miller's interpretation that an individual had a right to own a gun and that that right applied far more broadly than military style weapons. 

🥱

You're welcome to your ill-informed and unsupported opinions. Meanwhile, 200+ years of jurisprudence and recorded legal history think that you're full of shit. Here is what actual legal resources say.

• “But on June 26, 2008, … the Supreme Court … held for the first time that ‘law-abiding, responsible Americans’ have the right to possess guns in the home – even if they have nothing to do with armies or militias …” — Brady United: District of Columbia v. Heller
   
• “The Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right to keep and bear firearms for purposes unrelated to an organized militia.” — Bolch Judicial Institute (Duke University) article Stevens, J., Dissenting – The Legacy of Heller (Judicature)
   
• “In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep firearms for self-defense.” — University of Illinois Law Review article Raising Heller (illinoislawreview.org)
   
• “District of Columbia v. Heller conclusively established that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.” — Yale Law Journal Note Open Carry for All: Heller and Our Nineteenth-Century Second Amendment (Yale Law Journal)
   
• “Heller, the Supreme Court announced for the first time that self-defense, not militia service, is the ‘core’ of the right to keep and bear arms.” (California Law Review)
  
  
  
  As a bonus, here's one from the organization that manufactured the lawsuit specifically to chase this outcome. Establishing the 2nd as an individual right was the whole point and purpose of constructing the case as it was constructed. 

• “On June 26, 2008, … the Supreme Court unambiguously held, for the first time in history, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.” (Cato Institute)

 

But you keep on thinking your thoughts and ignoring the facts if that's what you're into. First amendment, and all.👍

Edited November 5, 2025 by Hodad

[gatomontes99]

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

 

🥱

You're welcome to your ill-informed and unsupported opinions. Meanwhile, 200+ years of jurisprudence and recorded legal history think that you're full of shit. Here is what actual legal resources say.

• “But on June 26, 2008, … the Supreme Court … held for the first time that ‘law-abiding, responsible Americans’ have the right to possess guns in the home – even if they have nothing to do with armies or militias …” — Brady United: District of Columbia v. Heller
   
• “The Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right to keep and bear firearms for purposes unrelated to an organized militia.” — Bolch Judicial Institute (Duke University) article Stevens, J., Dissenting – The Legacy of Heller (Judicature)
   
• “In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep firearms for self-defense.” — University of Illinois Law Review article Raising Heller (illinoislawreview.org)
   
• “District of Columbia v. Heller conclusively established that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.” — Yale Law Journal Note Open Carry for All: Heller and Our Nineteenth-Century Second Amendment (Yale Law Journal)
   
• “Heller, the Supreme Court announced for the first time that self-defense, not militia service, is the ‘core’ of the right to keep and bear arms.” (California Law Review)
  
  
  
  As a bonus, here's one from the organization that manufactured the lawsuit specifically to chase this outcome. Establishing the 2nd as an individual right was the whole point and purpose of constructing the case as it was constructed. 

• “On June 26, 2008, … the Supreme Court unambiguously held, for the first time in history, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.” (Cato Institute)

 

But you keep on thinking your thoughts and ignoring the facts if that's what you're into. First amendment, and all.👍

I am not wrong. You are getting analysis from a biased source that wants guns banned. I am getting my information directly from the words of the ruling. My sources are unfiltered and accurate. Yours have a spin. That is why your opinions were inconsistent and wrong. 

[Hodad]

35 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

I am not wrong. You are getting analysis from a biased source that wants guns banned. I am getting my information directly from the words of the ruling. My sources are unfiltered and accurate. Yours have a spin. That is why your opinions were inconsistent and wrong. 

WTF? I don't recall you citing anything except your own half-assed opinion.

Meanwhile, I've given you authoritative source after authoritative source, including literally quoting CATO, which, again, is the farking organization that manufactured the Heller case to get this holding. Quoting directly from the horse's mouth--and both ends of the gun rights debate 

Also quoting about any legal review or journal you can find. You know, the people who actually know the law and legal history. 

Everyone manages to agree.

While you've got, well... you. Watching you become the poster child for Dunning-Kruger is hilarious and all, but maybe give it a rest at some point? Jeebus.