Sounds like suby is way into cannibalism

*pats contrived schadenfreude on the head*

They're just in it for the money.

What kind of an awful person would try to get anyone to eat his mother?

WTF? I still don't know what this is about.

/farking gun nuts
//has no problem with legally owned guns, or the handgun ban being overturned in Chicago, but I don't get the people who are wholly devoted to arming everyone to the teeth and act like a world in which one cannot ride the subway dressed like Rambo is fascism.

DeaH: What kind of an awful person would try to get anyone to eat his mother?

This. Why so mean-spirited? That is another thing I don't get about most conservative attempts at humor.

DeaH: What kind of an awful person would try to get anyone to eat his mother?

Watch (new window)

Ikam: This. Why so mean-spirited? That is another thing I don't get about most conservative attempts at humor.

noone does, that's why south park is so unpopular.

This is why the check was made.
Link (new window)

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010), was a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in McDonald v. Chicago and remanded it back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment. The Court of Appeals had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.[4]

The Second Oral argument took place on March 2, 2010.[5][6] On June 28, 2010, in a 5-4 decision, the High Court held that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, protecting those rights from local governments.[7]"

Ikam: WTF? I still don't know what this is about.

The city of Chicago is required to reimburse legal fees to the plaintiff attorneys who sued to overturn the city's unconstitutional prohibition upon civilian handgun ownership.

The nearby suburb of Oak Park also owes attorney's fees. They had been assured by then-Mayor Richard Daley that the city of Chicago would cover their fees should they stand with Chicago in the lawsuit. Evidently, Mr. Daley lied.

We couldn't get him to eat his own mother, but . . .

Outstanding! Beats MILF by a MILE.

proteus_b: Ikam: This. Why so mean-spirited? That is another thing I don't get about most conservative attempts at humor.

noone does, that's why south park is so unpopular.

Huh are you trying to make some point here?

HotWingConspiracy: They're just in it for the money.

Which they're then going to turn around and give pay lawyers with. This is simply a reimbursement, so it's not like the Second Amendment Foundation is making any money off this.

IronOcelot: This is why the check was made.
Link (new window)

LOL... Emmanuel didn't even have anything to do with the case. Contrived schadenfreude indeed.

Halli: proteus_b: Ikam: This. Why so mean-spirited? That is another thing I don't get about most conservative attempts at humor.

noone does, that's why south park is so unpopular.

Huh are you trying to make some point here?

There are a lot of people who really like mean-as-hell humor and both sides on the US political coin do it.

Because People in power are Stupid:

Why are "conservative" blogs so derpy?

I believe the answer to your question resides within the question itself.

Because People in power are Stupid: My grade school teacher would have definitely circled the first paragraph and wrote "EXPAND!" in red pen next to it.

They're shooting for the kindergarten reading level crowd...

DeaH: What kind of an awful person would try to get anyone to eat his mother?

Someone really into incest?

when are the gun nuts going to realize that they've won the damn fight? there's even a fair number of states with "make my day" laws, where they get to just shoot anyone who they feel threatened by. you won. go jack off to your guns or whatever it is that you do.

/gun owner
//not a gun nut

EyeballKid: CapnBlues: when are the gun nuts going to realize that they've won the damn fight? there's even a fair number of states with "make my day" laws, where they get to just shoot anyone who they feel threatened by. you won. go jack off to your guns or whatever it is that you do.

/gun owner
//not a gun nut

All these gun nuts must be insecure about something. But what could it be...?

oh, maybe someone leaked that obama memo about sending the black panthers around to all the gun owners' houses to take their guns, money, and women and give them to big-dicked black men. i got that memo, you see, because i'm a Liberal. It's a liberal thing, guys. You wouldn't understand.

CapnBlues: when are the gun nuts going to realize that they've won the damn fight? there's even a fair number of states with "make my day" laws, where they get to just shoot anyone who they feel threatened by. you won. go jack off to your guns or whatever it is that you do.

/gun owner
//not a gun nut

Like most conservatives, they need something to be afraid of. The gheys, Saul Alinsky, SEIU!!, ACORN!!!!! GUN GRABBBERS!

You know, one of the things I like about Rahm is that he keep his promises (he donated $10K to charity when the fake Rahm on Twitter came forward) and that he has no problem admitting publicly when he's wrong.

Those are two things that we should be looking for in politicians, no matter what party they belong to.

CapnBlues: there's even a fair number of states with "make my day" laws, where they get to just shoot anyone who they feel threatened by

Please identify such a state.

Dimensio: CapnBlues: there's even a fair number of states with "make my day" laws, where they get to just shoot anyone who they feel threatened by

Please identify such a state.

Link (new window)

There you go, buckaroo. Bang bang.

I can't believe that it has to be explained to people that sometimes the loser pays the winners legal bills......

Dimensio: CapnBlues: there's even a fair number of states with "make my day" laws, where they get to just shoot anyone who they feel threatened by

Please identify such a state.

and beyond that, would a nationwide concealed carry without permit zero registration stand-your-ground law shut up the gun nuts? Would that be enough? If you feel threatened, you can shoot anyone, anywhere, with little to no justification, and be immune from prosecution. is that enough for the gun guys? where does this shiat stop?

A Dark Evil Omen: Congratulations. I guess? Next up, you gun weenies can help get the knife laws in Washington State changed. I want to walk down the street with my daggers.

hell with that, i want to be allowed to carry a sword into an elementary school. sabre.

/begins with a bloody s.

CapnBlues:

there's even a fair number of states with "make my day" laws, where they get to just shoot anyone an invader of the home who they feel threatened by

/FTFY

Pine Oil Funeral: CapnBlues:

there's even a fair number of states with "make my day" laws, where they get to just shoot anyone an invader of the home who they feel threatened by

/FTFY

so it would finally be enough gun deregulation if you could carry your gun anywhere in the country and shoot anyone who you felt threatened by?

redmid17: It will be illegal to have a gun in the garage, on porches or in the yard

Given the insane amount of crap that gets stolen from those places in my neighborhood, I can see the logic behind that. My neighbors have had chained items stolen off their porch on more than one occasion.

Dimensio: Ikam: WTF? I still don't know what this is about.

The city of Chicago is required to reimburse legal fees to the plaintiff attorneys who sued to overturn the city's unconstitutional prohibition upon civilian handgun ownership.

The nearby suburb of Oak Park also owes attorney's fees. They had been assured by then-Mayor Richard Daley that the city of Chicago would cover their fees should they stand with Chicago in the lawsuit. Evidently, Mr. Daley lied.

Thanks for the explanation. It would have been helpful if the blogger had actually put that out there as well rather than just posting a picture of a check and the equivalent of 'na na boo boo'.

CapnBlues: when are the gun nuts going to realize that they've won the damn fight? there's even a fair number of states with "make my day" laws, where they get to just shoot anyone who they feel threatened by. you won. go jack off to your guns or whatever it is that you do.

/gun owner
//not a gun nut

Lets see, California, New Jersey, New York City, Washington DC, Boston, and any other place that refuses to acknowledge the 2nd is an enumerated, fundamental constitutional right.

This is compounded by arsehat judges who somehow translate Heller's holding that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home somehow means "only in the home"