Don Lemon Encourages Illegals To Kill ICE

[gatomontes99]

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Meanwhile, I've given you authoritative source after authoritative source

No. You did not give me an authoritative source. You don't get to quote a lwnj and then appeal to authority when your authority is just a lwnj that is promoting the same fantasies you want to be true. I quoted the rulings. If you want to prove me wrong, bring up the actual rulings, like I did. 

[User]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

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. 

Feel free to stop being the coward you are and respond to me. If you can. We know you can't which is why you ran and hid like a coward. 

[Hodad]

12 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. You did not give me an authoritative source. You don't get to quote a lwnj and then appeal to authority when your authority is just a lwnj that is promoting the same fantasies you want to be true. I quoted the rulings. If you want to prove me wrong, bring up the actual rulings, like I did. 

Lol. You quoting lines you don't understand and can't parse for meaning is NOT evidence of anything--except the fact that you're way out of your depth. And now you're just spewing random words with no meaning. 

You just called CATO a "lwnj." CATO. Think about that. And a quick sampling of prominent legal journals. Which is just ridiculous.

 

Here's Hillsdale College (you know that one, dontcha😉 - not a reputable school but a well known echo chamber for MAGA)

"In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that for the first time held unambiguously that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self-defense."

 

How about the Heritage Foundation?

"It was another 217 years before the United States Supreme Court definitively and clearly stated that the 'right to keep and bear arms' protects an individual right rather than a collective right. The tardy but vital recognition of this right was set forth in the High Court's 2008 opinion in Heller."

 

Are you gonna call these left wing sources too? 🙄

This is really easy. As a well known fact, there are quotable sources everywhere. Should we do some more, or are you done making a fool of yourself?

 

[User]

47 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Should we do some more, or are you done making a fool of yourself?

Why don’t you stop being a coward? 

[gatomontes99]

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

Lol. You quoting lines you don't understand and can't parse for meaning is NOT evidence of anything--except the fact that you're way out of your depth. And now you're just spewing random words with no meaning. 

You just called CATO a "lwnj." CATO. Think about that. And a quick sampling of prominent legal journals. Which is just ridiculous.

 

Here's Hillsdale College (you know that one, dontcha😉 - not a reputable school but a well known echo chamber for MAGA)

"In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that for the first time held unambiguously that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self-defense."

 

How about the Heritage Foundation?

"It was another 217 years before the United States Supreme Court definitively and clearly stated that the 'right to keep and bear arms' protects an individual right rather than a collective right. The tardy but vital recognition of this right was set forth in the High Court's 2008 opinion in Heller."

 

Are you gonna call these left wing sources too? 🙄

This is really easy. As a well known fact, there are quotable sources everywhere. Should we do some more, or are you done making a fool of yourself?

 

You quoted Brady originally. Those other outlets got it wrong. It doesnt matter if they are conservative. Here is what was in Miller that proves my point: "Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seems to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below." Justia

As the ruling in Miller states, the right exists and the only debate was the scope. This ruling guaranteed the individual right, with limits. We can all agree that there are limits. Miller backed that notion. Heller changed the scope.

Heller, in fact, restated previous rulings and expressly conveyed that: "(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47." Justia

So, not only did Miller state that individuals have a right (with some limits), but Heller made the same argument while expanding the right to exclude the limits placed by D.C. and expressly stating that they DID NOT differ from previous rulings. 

[Lockback]

On 10/30/2025 at 2:40 PM, Hodad said:

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.

The 2nd Amendment IS an individual right. 

Period.

Exclamation point!

[Hodad]

On 11/14/2025 at 9:19 PM, Lockback said:

The 2nd Amendment IS an individual right. 

Period.

Exclamation point!

Well, shoot. If some rando on the internet says it, that definitely negates 250 years of jurisprudence and legal scholarship. Solid argument. I must concede. 🙄

[User]

36 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Well, shoot. If some rando on the internet says it, that definitely negates 250 years of jurisprudence and legal scholarship. Solid argument. I must concede. 🙄

Or, stop hiding like a coward and actually deal with counterarguments that challenge your crap assertions. 

Even the one you are making now is BS. 

[herbie]

On 11/14/2025 at 6:19 PM, Lockback said:

The 2nd Amendment IS an individual right. 

Period.

Exclamation point!

Yes. The ONLY part MAGAts know and give shit about.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

that definitely negates 250 years of jurisprudence

jurisprudence... Lookee one of them intalekshool elitists.... git him boys  yeehaw!

[User]

8 minutes ago, herbie said:

Yes. The ONLY part MAGAts know and give shit about.

No, we like the whole amendment. 

9 minutes ago, herbie said:

jurisprudence... Lookee one of them intalekshool elitists.... git him boys  yeehaw!

No, just a coward like you. Neither of you can actually engage in any substantive argument here to support your nonsense.