As a POC, our skin color is not GOD, ok? This:

It’s not really next to the campus. It’s a few miles away. I work a few blocks from it and there are multiple reports of incidents in that area. But I might add big shakes hot chicken right next to it is the shit.

I don’t want you to say anything about it. I thought we were done. We agree that Trump is disgusting; we disagree that Stern is disgusting in this specific case (if he is joking); I think that Stern’s disgustingness or lack thereof is irrelevant anyway.

Why do a huge percentage of American liberals love Bill Maher? He’s as bad as Stern with racism and science denial thrown in. He’s the same kind of guy as Trump down to the haircut except that he’s an atheist and makes fun of Republicans. Every analogy I’ve heard him make to this election has referenced dead hookers…

And therefore 'dumb racist shit' shouldn't be protected by the constitution?

It does not say the "militia" has a right to bear arms. It specifically says the "People." This is a contrasting statement. If you think it's not applicable to today, fine, but you need a new amendment.

Actually, the 3rd amendment is really important, as it forms part of the justification for the right to privacy. Probably not as strong a component as the 4th et al, but important nevertheless. See: Griswold v. Connecticut. In other words, if the right to privacy is Vultron, then the 4th amendment forms the head, and…

Soo... freedom of speech is racist?

Please explain where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights I can find the part as originaly written where the Founders said abortions were totally cool.

One of the few times a federal court was asked to invalidate a law or action on Third Amendment grounds was in Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d. Cir. 1982). In 1979, prison officials in New York organized a strike; they were evicted from their prison facility residences, which were reassigned to members of the…

Exactly. It offends and humiliates hilarious extremists while making the rest of us laugh.

It keeps the national guard and other military forces from occupying private property with out consent and compensation. Think the next hurricane disaster hits and a national guard battalion just comes and moves in to your apartment tower against your will. Then you would want the third amendment around.

So why do you think the framers were opposed to placing agents of the state in the homes of free men and women? How do you think the framers would react to the total surveillance posture of the state (including tapping your phone, Internet connection, and scanning through your walls with infra-red?

Being a slave to page views=trying to troll on as many as possible. Using a tragic event for self benefit is one of those things gawker sites are good at.

Couldn't have put it better myself. This whole charade of an article was created only to put the 2nd Amendment at the end of the list. Can't really understand this site sometimes.

I enjoy debates over stuff like this.

Yeah, you have no idea what you are talking about, and the Supreme Court has ruled it grants the right of US citizens to own and keep firearms. Unless you are trying to say you know and understand more about the law than the Supreme Court?

Not according to any U.S. court that has ever interpreted it. That aside, the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which concerns the rights of citizens, not government powers. The power to establish an army is already contained in Article I. The Supreme Court since Marbury v. Madison has refused to interpret…

Because liberals think that free speech is at best overrated, and at worst something which needs to be curtailed in favor of political correctness.

this is actually pretty incredible. you have managed to be hyper-partisan and alienate an entire half of the population without using any actual words of your own. this is like one of those muhammad cartoons