Why is this so hard for some folks to understand? Is this really coming from the party of the Civil Rights Movement?
What's hard for us to understand is that Deuce claimed that NON OWNERS do not have a constitutional right and you're saying you 'destroyed' deuce's post. How exactly?
Can you see that or do I need to add some irrelevant and completely misapplied dig at the end?
Gawd I love this. Same crowd that argues you can call your boss an asshat on Facebook and he can't fire you because that is "free speech".