No it's not.She clearly said, and I quote: 'fight back' in the first video. This is clearly a message of violence, saying gun owners should murder black and hispanic people in the streets and kick their babies in the face.
Also she said to the NY Times (not an actual person) in the second video: "We're coming for you". Clearly this means that WHITE citizens armed with deadly mass murdering assault rifles are walking towards the NY Times building to shoot any black/hispanic person in the building.
This is clearly a direct order (think Order 66 in Star Wars) to all mass murdering WHITE assault rifle owners to kill any marginalized groups in America and turn it to be 100% white again. Don't confuse this with plays depicting Trump getting stabbed and brutally murdered (lol grow up conservatives), which are actually true art.
What bearing does that have on the second amendment not being written for your individual protection?
It's the second amendment because it was the second added to the Constitution.Yeah, the founding father didn't want you to protect yourself with guns....that's why it's only the 2nd amendment...
What bearing does that have on the second amendment not being written for your individual protection?
It's the second amendment because it was the second added to the Constitution.
Do you think the third is important? It's number three!
A Democratic congresswoman from New York on Thursday night accused the National Rifle Association and its spokeswoman of being "domestic threats" to the security of the United States.
Rep. Kathleen Rice took aim at the NRA and syndicated talk radio host Dana Loesch on Twitter, writing that "we can't ignore" the threats they pose under President Donald Trump.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/10/kathleen-rice-nra-dana-loesch-threats-national-sec/
Democrats in this country continuing to demonize gun owners while knowing fuck all about them outside of what the New York Times tells you about them. Most people don't even know, the NRA gets more than half of it's funding from Members (aka American Citizens). Funny, Democrats wouldn't never make a statement like this against Islam, and foreign gang affiliates, that actually torture and murder but as long as keep the narrative that white gun owners are the problem, it's all good.
I'm a member, the NRA represents me, and my interests very well.NRA doesn't equal Gun Owners. NRA is the Gun Manufacturer Lobby outfit.
If gun rights help keep tyranny at bay then I think they help my personal freedom and protect me.
Note she says "going to fisk" and not "going to fist" to old grey hag.
. The fuck are you talking about?You don't believe they added the amendments due to their importance? Do you not believe the right to free speech and the right to protection from government wasn't the most important aspects to society to a free country trying to free themselves from British rule? Is this what academia is teaching people today?
Would.
. The fuck are you talking about?
I was pushing back against your suggestion that their order has anything to do with relative importance to each other.
Do you think the Third is more important than the Fourth? After all, it comes first!
The 12th is more important than the 13th? It came first!
No, my assertion was that importance is irrelevant to the number attached to the amendment.Your moronic assertion was that the 2nd amendment wasn't important in context because "they simply only added it 2nd" By YOUR logic, the freedom of speech isn't important in the context of the Constitution, they simply wrote it in first.
Fair enough. I think if you subscribe to second amendment insurrectionist theory you have to have the courage to acknowledge that you are, indeed, an ongoing potential threat to domestic security.
I would think most NRA members would be proud to declare such.
Funny story, her husband hates me. We met, it didn't go well.
Dana was cool however.
Its easy for her to say, she probably has armed security detail that protects her.
When Democrats preach against 2nd, what they are really telling you is that only the wealthy and elite who can afford armed guards have a right to safety.
No, my assertion was that importance is irrelevant to the number attached to the amendment.
At no point did I say the second (or first) "wasn't important"
You're making shit up because you got caught with your pants down. Again.
This guy? Is he an undercover hipster trying to infiltrate or something?