Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

What should happen is that they get expelled for criminal activity then their legal status is revoked, after that they are not allowed to have guns

Illegal migrants do not have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court in New Orleans has ruled, rejecting arguments by a Mexican man who was convicted of illegally possessing a handgun and argued that the ban was unconstitutional.

Except nothing they did was criminal. That’s why the judge rejected even a red flag hold on their guns.

They spray painted campus property, causing thousands of dollars in damage.

dp.. there are lots of thugs who deface public property, yet police aren't called to search their home. And I bet you a lot of these thugs own guns, illegally.

Cops put them under the red flag rule to prohibit them from owning guns, but white nationalists, that the FBI have long considered domestic terrorist groups, are still allowed to own guns, lots of it.

Are they spray painting hate speech or violent rhetoric? That is why this case is different.

apparently the judge disagreed.

The red-flag laws regarding the brother and the judge's decision there has no impact or bearing on the fact that the sisters led criminal activity (vandalism/hate speech) that led to their home being searched.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

What should happen is that they get expelled for criminal activity then their legal status is revoked, after that they are not allowed to have guns

Illegal migrants do not have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court in New Orleans has ruled, rejecting arguments by a Mexican man who was convicted of illegally possessing a handgun and argued that the ban was unconstitutional.

Except nothing they did was criminal. That’s why the judge rejected even a red flag hold on their guns.

They spray painted campus property, causing thousands of dollars in damage.

dp.. there are lots of thugs who deface public property, yet police aren't called to search their home. And I bet you a lot of these thugs own guns, illegally.

Cops put them under the red flag rule to prohibit them from owning guns, but white nationalists, that the FBI have long considered domestic terrorist groups, are still allowed to own guns, lots of it.

Are they spray painting hate speech or violent rhetoric? That is why this case is different.

apparently the judge disagreed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

What should happen is that they get expelled for criminal activity then their legal status is revoked, after that they are not allowed to have guns

Illegal migrants do not have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court in New Orleans has ruled, rejecting arguments by a Mexican man who was convicted of illegally possessing a handgun and argued that the ban was unconstitutional.

Except nothing they did was criminal. That’s why the judge rejected even a red flag hold on their guns.

They spray painted campus property, causing thousands of dollars in damage.

dp.. there are lots of thugs who deface public property, yet police aren't called to search their home. And I bet you a lot of these thugs own guns, illegally.

Cops put them under the red flag rule to prohibit them from owning guns, but white nationalists, that the FBI have long considered domestic terrorist groups, are still allowed to own guns, lots of it.

Are they spray painting hate speech or violent rhetoric? That is why this case is different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I must be missing something. What crime was committed?

Right wingers have essentially enshrined our rights to be heavily armed and say offensive things. The fellas had their guns legally and every right to them, as was evidenced when the court retuned them. They’re allowed to have banners with slogans you don’t like. This is about today’s America as you can get. So what’s the problem?

I think the difference is possible support for an organization on the terrorist list, which could violate federal law. As well it could be evidence of a hate crime if whatever the did as part of the protests caused harm. And I’m glad this is being made public because it shows that at least to some extent the campus protests were being instigated by anti-Semites not just pro-Palestinians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

What should happen is that they get expelled for criminal activity then their legal status is revoked, after that they are not allowed to have guns

Illegal migrants do not have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court in New Orleans has ruled, rejecting arguments by a Mexican man who was convicted of illegally possessing a handgun and argued that the ban was unconstitutional.

Except nothing they did was criminal. That’s why the judge rejected even a red flag hold on their guns.

They spray painted campus property, causing thousands of dollars in damage.

dp.. there are lots of thugs who deface public property, yet police aren't called to search their home. And I bet you a lot of these thugs own guns, illegally.

Cops put them under the red flag rule to prohibit them from owning guns, but white nationalists, that the FBI have long considered domestic terrorist groups, are still allowed to own guns, lots of it.

Are they spray painting hate speech or violent rhetoric? That is why this case is different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

What should happen is that they get expelled for criminal activity then their legal status is revoked, after that they are not allowed to have guns

Illegal migrants do not have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court in New Orleans has ruled, rejecting arguments by a Mexican man who was convicted of illegally possessing a handgun and argued that the ban was unconstitutional.

Except nothing they did was criminal. That’s why the judge rejected even a red flag hold on their guns.

They spray painted campus property, causing thousands of dollars in damage.

dp.. there are lots of thugs who deface public property, yet police aren't called to search their home. And I bet you a lot of these thugs own guns, illegally.

Cops put them under the red flag rule to prohibit them from owning guns, but white nationalists, that the FBI have long considered domestic terrorist groups, are still allowed to own guns, lots of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

What should happen is that they get expelled for criminal activity then their legal status is revoked, after that they are not allowed to have guns

Illegal migrants do not have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court in New Orleans has ruled, rejecting arguments by a Mexican man who was convicted of illegally possessing a handgun and argued that the ban was unconstitutional.

Except nothing they did was criminal. That’s why the judge rejected even a red flag hold on their guns.

They spray painted campus property, causing thousands of dollars in damage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

What should happen is that they get expelled for criminal activity then their legal status is revoked, after that they are not allowed to have guns

Illegal migrants do not have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court in New Orleans has ruled, rejecting arguments by a Mexican man who was convicted of illegally possessing a handgun and argued that the ban was unconstitutional.

Except nothing they did was criminal. That’s why the judge rejected even a red flag hold on their guns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

White people endorsing, “death to America”, carrying terrorist flags and having weapons and ammunition is scary and bad too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

White people endorsing, “death to America”, carrying terrorist flags and having weapons and ammunition is scary and bad too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

+1

You don't get to pick who has access to guns when you make them so freely available.

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

What should happen is that they get expelled for criminal activity then their legal status is revoked, after that they are not allowed to have guns

Illegal migrants do not have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court in New Orleans has ruled, rejecting arguments by a Mexican man who was convicted of illegally possessing a handgun and argued that the ban was unconstitutional.

Where does it say they are illegal immigrants?

It doesn't. The students graduated from Lake Braddock, so PP who assumes they are here on students visas is likely... wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

What should happen is that they get expelled for criminal activity then their legal status is revoked, after that they are not allowed to have guns

Illegal migrants do not have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court in New Orleans has ruled, rejecting arguments by a Mexican man who was convicted of illegally possessing a handgun and argued that the ban was unconstitutional.

Where does it say they are illegal immigrants?