I agree. But rule breakers don't play by the rules...so putting "no rule breakers allowed" in the "official hall monitor rule book" is kinda something. I don't know what word I'm looking for.

If your expectation is perfection, then you're going to end up taking my rights away. Being intellectually dishonest like the cartoonist is just a milestone on an extremist path.

>Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.

Fair enough.

>Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.

Should be more of a case-by-case basis rather than "You are mental, no guns for you".

Whilst I admit the closest thing regular people are allowed in this country is airsoft weaponry (which imo is a lot more fun than joining the army with the sole purpose of shooting people), it's not impossible for the majority of American citizens to own their firearms of choice.

tl;dr, if you're enough of a retard to fall under one of these categories for whatever reason, barring the ones that could be interpreted as temporary and ones that are obviously not particularly fair in the first place, you shouldn't be fucking allowed firearms.

>Should be more of a case-by-case basis rather than "You are mental, no guns for you".

Look up the word ADJUDICATE. It does not mean "attacked by the Joooos".

>tl;dr, if you're enough of a retard to fall under one of these categories for whatever reason

I'm not happy about the Lautenberg Amendment, because you're (a) denying someone a constitutional right for a misdemeanor- not a felony and (b) grounds for restraining orders are so permissive today that they aren't directly linked to violence.

>Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance

Unlawfully dispensed medical marijuana, anybody?

>>22412

>Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance

Pot possession was the first thing that came to my mind, too. Ridiculous.

>grounds for restraining orders are so permissive today that they aren't directly linked to violence.

Are you sure there's not a distinction drawn between violence and non-violence in domestic violations?

There is a distinction, but it's overly permissive because of the definition of physical force.

spam and porn is the ENTIRE REASON we came to wtfux in the first place you ignorant cockwipe

I hope OP gets herpes.

when last i played, it was with 6-8 people at once, and we liked to keep it creative and fun. not 100% srs bisns. that gets rly stupid.

we had a lot of silly semi-functional theme decks. i had two--this, and a weather-themed deck (which was the dumbest pile of lolshit in the world and thus not pictured)

red/blk, vampires with bows

15 swamp
6 mountain
1 sol ring
1 rod of ruin
2 viridian longbow
4 sengir vampire
4 krovikan vampire
4 rakdos ickspitter

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Also not pictured:
a deck centered around Kitsune Mystic (left) which was made for a specific format game (3v3; seated a-a*-a-b-b*-b, *="emperor", team loses when emp is defeated; attack range 1, spell range 2) , played to its fullest one time before being unanimously banned from the table.

Tamanoa (combo-ish) deck, retarded life gain and table-wide burn at the same time~

Pact combo deck, Djinn Illuminatus + Pact of the Titan + Fervor/etc.

idk what else

20 ISLAND
20 UNSTABLE MUTATION
20 FLYING MEN

FUCK YOU

1 BLUE-EYES WHITE DRAGON

>>22394

>>22395

>>22394

how are you allowed to make fun of ANYONE?

>>22405
"hobbies are dumb"

>>22405
o hi im foto i hate fun

I'd actually believe it, no force on earth is as distructive as a bunch of stupid dogs

More like BY roofle.

The page you requested cannot be found. The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.