https://insideinvestigator.org/hunting-guns-protection/>“Connecticut has not banned hunting rifles. Whether or not they are constitutionally protected, they are certainly democratically protected,” Perry said. “As a rule, something that is popular doesn’t need constitutional protection, because it’s popular. Hunting rifles would certainly fall into that category.”>He went on to say, “As to whether Connecticut could restrict hunting rifles, I think we probably could not, because I think it could be shown that they are not unusually dangerous. They are not ill disproportionately suited in the way that… AR-15s are, and the record might well show that they were used and useful for self-defense. I’ll be honest, we have not done that analysis, but I have no reason to think that wouldn’t be true.”unironically correct. the 2nd amendment and CT state RTKBA>Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.explicitly only protect weapons of war and weapons commonly used in self defense. ergo a hunting rifle is not protected, but an AR-15 or a glock 17 are protected now, why the fuck would anyone but the more evil piece of shit tyrant regulate hunting rifles and shotguns, idk, since they are basically never used in murders, but democrat tyrant going to democrat tyrant.also looks like /news/ stealth added that 15 min timer from /v/ and /vg/
he's making threads again
>>1355532What's your problem with someone creating threads? Is it because you don't like what they're preaching and want to ban them for their ideas and their current news? I'm confused, isn't an open forum like 4chan meant to have all ideas and all perspectives, not just one ideology?
>>1355532cry more tranni boi>>1355562his owners only feed him if the board is full of communist propaganda
something really upset him. i wonder what?
>>1355569>Committing the heinous crime of bumping dRmpf threads off the board.I most humbly apologize, if it wasn't for an Anon being quite weird, I wouldn't have responded. I'm not gonna stoop to a strange behaving person's level and make a quick one liner. xD Got to get to the root of his mental distress.
>>1355635>I wouldn't have respondedOr you can simply not. The fact you did proves you're nothing more than an inferior subhuman troll, and a contrarian one at that. No normal sane human would think of being a troll. Subhuman trolls need to be banned.
>>1355645>he still doesn't control /news/>he still cries and throws temper tantrums about it4chan just isn't a good fit for you, kiddo
>>1355635>This was me>>1355645Or it means I'm a curious mind, and want to understand people that I might disagree with. It might mean I'm more patient than other users that throw insults the moment they hear something that doesn't align with their views. It might mean that instead of being a "subhuman troll", I might have proved that I am more "human" of an observer than you. > Deep thoughts to think about
>>1355562Your threads are low quality, use trash sources, and rarely have the non editorialized article text if any at all. Literally fuck yourself with a cactus, you absolute newfag cancer
>>1355672>>1355671Huh. Where are your sources then? I'd love to know which nazi publication you use to validate using subhuman in conversations. :) I'd love to know what type of dirty websites you frequent to think it's okay to demean the point of views of people that you might not agree with. Let's flip the standards back to you. Give me some sources, some editorialized articles, and then also explain with several examples constituting "trolling creatively". I'd like you to have original insights besides ad hominem slander, and hasty generalizations.
>>1355672>>1355655wow, tranni bois be mad as fuck
>>1355703have a rupee
>>1355635>xD>and >>1355665 can't think or it wouldn't be reduced to crawling to an AI for help>No normal sane human would think of behaving the way >>1355635 >>1355665 does on /news/Even that AI is too sane to think of behaving the way you do in /news/, so that proves it is superior to that which isn't human: >>1355665. Because no normal sane human would so much as think the way you do, least of all think of behaving the way you do. If >>1355665 can actually think, that is.
>>1355720> Even that AI is too sane to think of behaving the way you do in /news/Umm... The guy >>1355665 didn't use any AI? Hey bud, are you sure you're on the right thread?
>>1355724It did: >>1355701Are you sure you're on the right board, >>1355724?
>>1355729Bruh, that's not this thread. xD This thread doesn't have that comment. You're seeing shit bruh. What are you high on?
>>1355730>xDWhat are you high on?
>>1355750>>1355752>>1355680>>1355672>>1355671>>1355665>Hate to interject, buuuuuuutWhat thing are we trying to prove or give credit to with sources anywho? xD Aren't ya'll just trolling for no reason.
>>1355532Yes that's a thing that happens on 4chan. Does /news/ have some kind of rule against it?
>>1355853They aren't>xD Aren't ya'll just trolling for no reason>xDBut you are. The duality of the subhuman contraritard hypocrite.
>>1355917I've been on 4chan enough to translate these insults into the meanings they're supposed to represent.Leftard - Rightard: Someone extremely committed to the most common talking points of their respective sides.Paid Shill (Left/Right/Neutral): Saying talking points so out there that they must be getting paid to say it. Contrarian/Contraritard: Neutral onlooker that chooses neither right or left in their conversation, and are often demeaned by their lack of partisan devotion.
>>1355923Extremely good post
>>1355923>>1355931Extremely crap posts
>>1355933>>1355917>Using expert analysisThese two are the same person. Try not to feed this guy's ego, he's an anon just trying to troll and not add anything of value to conversations. When possible, point him out to the people and try not to engage. He feeds on any response, and will not reciprocate an appropriate response, unless you want to enter an insult war.
>>1355931>>1355923>Good post?Good post. *nodsnods* Make sure to refer to this chart whenever you are insulted to make sure you know what they really mean, behind their tough spiny shell.
>>1355944Extremely crap post
