No one is taking away their hunting rifles and handguns. What exactly do they want? The same firepower as the military and if so why do they support the military? Just get rid of it and then they can go fight overseas with their own weapons.
They all sound illogical. They are also dragging in the abortion issue which has zero to do with this subject. "Obama is so concerned with schoolchildren so why isn't he concerned with millions of unborn children?". If I read that one more time maybe I will go on a spree through the nearest redneck neighborhood.
They basically would want any rules or regulations - completely uncontrolled. It's a similar vein of thinking in the financial industry, where they deride any regulations - which caused our most recent collapse.
I don't understand it - I think a gun (or lots of guns) makes them feel powerful and allows them to have a chip on their shoulder or be more confident. Most are not hunters - and there's a huge difference between a hunting rifle and what some of these people have.
It's bizarre. However, that's the NRA - a lot of gun owners and NRA members are for reasonable laws. NRA is not and is a big bully (with their guns).
I think the NRA's new ad is waaaaay out of line. These nuts have been given too much power. Who the hell do they think they are? It's coming to a head. I wouldn't put anything past them. A bunch of psychopaths if you ask me.
They want the right to kill people.
How is that any different from AIDS infested homos who murdered tens of thousands?
I don't know what they want but what they need, is a brain.
What church do you go to, good Christian conservative family-oriented straight male at r3?
Not enough F&Fs in the world for the cunt at R3.
The NRA owns this country and they don't want you to forget it.
They want to go back to the Wild West days of no gun regulations and total lawlessness because they think they have something to prove.
[quote]who murdered tens of thousands?
Care to back that "murder" statistic up?
[quote]Tragically 26 people were killed at Sandyhook due to a crazed gunman. Last year nearly 1 million children were killed by a licensed doctor in an abortion. where is the outrage there?
Typical abortion link argument I'm seeing today. Apparently fetuses are more important than already born, breathing human beings.
They fear race wars.
I work with gun nuts, and they are coincidentally trying to get the lone hispanic male fired.
to have a much larger penis than their's to hate fuck them. overcompensating bastards.
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
--- Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf
The gun nuts think it's a god given right for them to own guns, any type of gun. They'll find a Bible verse to support this belief if they have to.
And I don't want to hear how the saintly founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment and therefore owing guns is some type of scared cow. It's fucking not. Were the founding fathers infallible? Did they not allow slavery in this country? Were not some of them slave owners themselves? Did they exclude women from voting? Did time move on and those wrongs righted? Well time has moved since every white American man owned a musket. And the 2nd amendment should either be abolished or amended or radically re-interpreted for the 21st century.
We can't let the wingnuts win this one. We'll be truly fucked if they do. They win this and other fundamental issues over the next few years and I'm going to have beg relatives in Australia and New Zealand to sponsor me for immigration.
The false equivalency is astounding, r10.
R11 they fear government. They're arming themselves for an uprising one day. And they should fear the government with ads like that. You don't bring POTUS's children into it. He's probably fuming.
There's an old saying...you attract more bees with honey.
well yes R12. Their guns are an extension of their collective penises.
R3 certainly typifies what a cesspool DL has become.
The NRA doesn't give fuck about the living, the unborn or anything else except the selling of killing machines.
Of course the "right to bear arms" when written consisted on one shot black powder rifles. I don't think it included automatic weapons capable of huge capacity clips.
R18, R3 is one out of 18 replies prior to this one, but he "typifies" DL? I think you need to look up the definition of the word in a dictionary.
why is it ok for the President to surround himself with other people's kids on stage today when he signed his new gun regulations, but it's not ok for the opposition to highlight the armed guards at his kid's school? Isnt that a double standard??
I'm neither a nut, nor a Christian. I'm not against abortion in most cases.
I don't even own a gun, but I believe the founding fathers were uber wise in allowing us to keep our weapons to protect ourselves against our government becoming tyrannical. The 2nd amendment is all about giving the rests of our rights teeth to defend themselves from being taken.
You people who would disarm us, are just being foolish.
R16, the gov't fear mongers are stoking the flames themselves. The more the nutters stockpile a military load of weapons and ammo and thumb their noses at the federal government, the more the feds will investigate them. And boom, the war all the nutters all fear but really want so they can play war with all their special guns. That will show the libs how manly and truly patriotic they are...
[quote]You people who would disarm us, are just being foolish
disarm? No, keep your funking rifles and handguns.
The problem with the commercial is that President Obama's children are treated no differently than any other president's children (well preteen children anyway). It isn't his call.
Imaginary yes, but Bartlett had to stop being President because his child was kidnapped and in jeopardy. It isn't that much of a stretch to believe that scenario, regardless of the party in the White House.
R24 is right, it's what they truly want, isn't it? The gun nuts want a big civil war, it's what they are striving for.
R22, what types of weapons should civilians have in order to give those teeth some bite?
Rocket launchers? Tanks? Landmines? Nuclear weapon?
What is enough? Where do we draw the line?
Obama's plan doesn't come anywhere close to taking guns away from Americans. It doesn't come anywhere close to doing away with the 2nd amendment. But of course the NRA are all too happy to cynically play on those fears. Sadly, judging by your response, there are plenty who will fall for it.
God helps us when you're a bad guy because you do not want millions of military-style weapons in a so-called first world country.
I'm going to make a bold statement and say that Obama's chances of finishing his second term alive are dwindling.
But no one wants to disarm you R23. They just want a few more restrictions. What's wrong with a psych evaluation, longer waiting periods and limits on assault weapons?
No "child" gets killed in an abortion clinic.
Just made this point to a conservacunt filled thread on Facebook.
And yes, in the same thread, some nut mentioned the threat of "takeover" by the government as a justification to own an assault rifle.
Some of these people are really untreated paranoid personality disordered or paranoid schizophrenics--which I have always suspected.
[quote] The gun nuts want a big civil war, it's what they are striving for.
I say bring it. Those sorry pussies will be wiped out before they even know what hit them.
My message was meant for R23, R22.
Why does the arguement we need our guns to keep the government honest always seem to me to translate as "we are going to start a civil war if that uppity nigger in the Whitehouse steps out of line."
Isn't threatening to take arms against the government treason?
Why do you need guns to control the government when you have elections?
Or do elections only count to gun people when the person they want got elected.
I love how everyone here is climbing aboard with taking guns away from the public, yet has stood around and said nothing while our military has been slaughtering innocent middle eastern civilians, including children, for 10 years.
We are a sick and stupid people who deserve the fascist government coming our way.
The Founding Fathers, or the heads of the states actually, were afraid of a STANDING FEDERAL ARMY. They didn't want to pay for it and they didn't want that threat hanging over their heads. There was also some thought that a standing army had to have something to do and wars being the best way for them to spend their time.....
The 2nd Amendment had ZERO to do with hunting or with arming the people against a tyrannical government. It was about having a military to respond to external threats available without having to pay for it.
These facts are clearly shown in the writings of those who put together the Bill of Rights.
Idiot at R35. As explained no one wants to take your guns away.
Innocents always die in wars. Shitty fact of life. Talk to the government. As if it will do any good.
If the republicunts are elected then, yes, we will be fascist.
Bingo R34. It's all about keeping the negro from getting too uppity.
Speaking of paranoid schizophrenics....(looking at R35).
The NRA makes MONEY off of guns sales and have Republicans in their pockets. A ban cuts into profits. They want to revert back to the wild wild west with everyone packing.
[quote]yet has stood around and said nothing while our military has been slaughtering innocent middle eastern civilians, including children, for 10 years.
One of the more popular talking points from freepers I've seen today. "Wah, those poor little children in the ME being slaughtered but evil libs are taking my guns away". As if anyone of them gives a shit about little brown, foreign, MOOSLIM kids being killed.
[quote]I love how everyone here is climbing aboard with taking guns away from the public
nobody is taking guns away from anyone that isn't an unhinged lunatic! Is this why you are so befuddled? You seem borderline.
True, R40. The "what we REALLY need to talk about is mental illness" vamping didn't work for them, so they have to find something else to point at.
There is NO reason why the public needs the equivalent to machine guns. It is pure idiocy to suggest otherwise.
Comparing the armed guards for the presidents children to armed guards at schools is ridiculous. His children are targets not just for wingnuts who hate the president but global terrorist.
The truly has nothing to do with guns. We should be focused on the lack of mental health for our children. The people who do these terrible things are disturbed and there has to have been warning signs that parents or teachers or neighbors or doctors could have seen if there was training for treating mental illness. If a determined person wanted to kill a bunch of kids and had no guns, what is to stop them from burning down the school, or poisoning the water, or just running in with a chainsaw and hacking away at people?
There are people in this country who do not feel safe, safe in their own home or safe in their own city of safe in their own county. If they need weapons to make them feel safe, the second amendment grants that right. We need to concentrate on the people doing the crimes and spend the money on identifying mental health issues early and getting these kids help.
Why didn't my previous post show up?
My dad never cared one bit about guns, but after the Newtown shooting when (not surprisingly!) there was increased talk of gun control, he went out and bought a handgun with an extra large magazine - never mind that the kids that were killed were the same age as his grandsons.
I blame Fox news that gins up fear in all these angry old white guys (like my dad) who are mad as hell that they have four more years of the "n%gger" president and on top of that, he's going to take away their precious guns. I think for a lot of people it's their own pitiful way of throwing a fuck you to the government - and Obama.
As for the NRA, they feel that they are so powerful that no one dare say no to them.
The cure for erectile disfunction is not assault weapons!
Just Say No, No NRA.
I asked on the other one of these gun threads and no one answered -- why did the last assault ban only last for ten years? Why didn't they just ban them and be done with it?
R22 are you that stupid that you have to repeat right wing talking points that make no sense?
Any president, democrat or republican is a target. Some of them have been assassinated. Their families are also targets to get at the president. He and his family are national figures. Actually, literally known world wide.
99.9999 percent of the kids in America are not famous. So its a false comparison.
The president also has his finger on the button if he decides to launch missiles. By your definition, you should have the same right.
They say they want to protect themselves from the government. Yet, the same people rarely if ever oppose the massive military spending that makes their own personal arsenal irrelevant. As if 10 AKs in the basement will stop the Marines from invading your home.
The NRA as an organization just wants to sell guns.
They may as well pass a law against sunshine to try to prevent melanoma, as to pass a law against guns. Illegal sunshine would be just as harmful to the skin as legal sunshine.
In the meantime, gun control legislation will insure a big resurgence of right wing success at the polls. I predict that the Democrats will be out of the White House on January 20, 2017, and the Republicans will take the Senate in the next election cycle, and will hold the Congress for many years to come.
Ever read about prohibition? I'm sure that gang bangers are going to follow all gun laws.
I think "gun-free" communities should be set up just for liberals so they can announce it to everyone that there are absolutely no guns in their communities. I'm sure they will feel really safe then....right? Because we all know that no one will ill-intent would dare harm a liberal in a "gun-free" zone.
[quote] Ever read about prohibition? I'm sure that gang bangers are going to follow all gun laws.
Whether they follow them or not is irrelevant.
If they have illegal guns that's one more means of arrest on a FEDERAL weapons violation which will send them away for longer.
Fuck off FReeper shitstain @ R54 and go back to Free Republic with your pathetic, tiny-penised ilk.
Aren't liberals really nice people. What a great society we would have if everyone would just throw insults and vulgarity at each other like liberals do.
Dumb people are eating up NRA's facile elitist crap. The president is a one-off exception. He gets privileges and protection that no other American gets. His family gets protection that no other American gets. This protection has been extended in some form since 1901--to Republicans and Democrats alike.
So please spare us the truly stupid equality argument of "the president's children are not more important than my own. Why shouldn't my kids be protected by an armed guard or teacher or principle?" Don't confirm your stupidity by demonstrating your ignorance of how the president's life is very different from other Americans and how the extraordinary circumstances of his life calls for extraordinary measures.
Or do you think we should all have our own Air Force One? You know, we're all equal.
By the way, having a rent-a-cop on campus or arming your middle-aged principle isn't providing the same protection as the one accorded to Malia and Sasha Obama anyway. Or are you asking for the secret service to shadow every child in school?
What a gun nut wants, what a gun nut needs, whatever makes a gun nut happy sets you free, I'm thankin' a gun nut for givin' me a bj.
WOW! R56, with debate skills like that, it is a cinch that your side will win in this disagreement.
I have several friends who own firearms who do not think like this and are very embarrassed about the overall picture of gun owners the NRA is painting. They have no problem following the existing gun laws and see no need for assault or military weapons being put into the hands of civilians. I think the NRA administration are off their nut and painting this picture of every single gun owner as some asshole who thinks there should be no restrictions. Unfortunately, this will be the faction who gets the press and makes all the noise. They are off the chain paranoid and it is scary that they want some total control over all weapons.
r57 -- liberals do battle with mugger money and by correcting each other's grammar.
Then they pass laws making it illegal to laugh at them.
R44 in to some of your examples about the way people can achieve mass killings with a chainsaw and fire, the simple truth is those two things take a couple seconds/minutes to get going and you have time to try and rescue yourself or get rescued. With a fire there is at least smoke and most building have fire exstinguishers as to chainsaw, I suppose you would hear it and duck or lock yourself in a room or climb out of a window. Or even hold up a chair in defense. That's the main problem and argument against some of these weapons, the speed at which they kill. A fire has to spread and with a chainsaw you actually have to get close and then you might just get maimed, which is survivable.
The idea that just because people are fearful they should arm up, seems like the worst reason. Since often the fear is not rational. I would prefer not to have irrationally fearful people with guns. And in some cases no weapons, as I think George Zimmerman is one of those fearful people who operated under the assumption that because I fear it, it must be bad. Granted there are neighborhoods that are hell holes, but I bet most of the people screaming the loudest about their guns being confiscated don't live in those neighborhoods.
I think that actually is one of our biggest problems in this country, fear disproportionate to threat.
Gee R60, your side HAS no debate skills, so I'm putting it in language even you idiots can understand.
NRA-funded trolls sitting at workstations, spreading disinformation 24/7.
One person pretends to be twenty, a hundred, a thousand.
[quote]nobody is taking guns away from anyone that isn't an unhinged lunatic!
Who decides who is an unhinged lunatic, and who isn't? Where's that law? Do you mean the one's with a criminal background? Weh ave that. You make up these stupid statements/phrases, and don't explain what they mean, or how to implement them. There's no crystal ball that tells anyone what someone will or won't do with a weapon. People with no criminal backgrounds kill people with guns everyday.
Ask a gang-banger OP.
[quote]I don't even own a gun, but I believe the founding fathers were uber wise in allowing us to keep our weapons to protect ourselves against our government becoming tyrannical. The 2nd amendment is all about giving the rests of our rights teeth to defend themselves from being taken.
Yep, they also believed blacks and women to be sub-human, and were pro-slavery.
Your puny gun will not protect you against the government. The government will drop a bomb on you, or bulldoze your house.
[quote]The 2nd Amendment had ZERO to do with hunting or with arming the people against a tyrannical government. It was about having a military to respond to external threats available without having to pay for it.
r63 I don't think Timothy McVeh had a gun just a truck full of fertilizer. The point was if you want to kill a lot of people fast you don't need a gun. But you need to want to kill a lot of people and that usually is predicated by some kind of mental illness. I'm not against stricter gun laws or at the least some more hoops to jump through to own them legally. But if we continue to ignore the fact that the majority of these people are mentally ill then we will continue to have these events. It just might be with bullets.
Because alot of them would not pass the background checks.
R70, both things need to be done. Increased mental health resources and banning machine gun-like assault weapons.
The paranoia makes no sense. We "need" these guns because because the federal government is just waiting for the right time to do what exactly? It's understandable that people in the 1700s were worried about an untried and untested federal government, but surely the reality suggests that there isn't some great conspiracy and that the only thing preventing tyranny is a populace armed with machine guns.
Given a choice, I don't understand by tangible evidence (excessive gun violence completely disproportionate to other developed nations) is seen as less important as the highly unlikely scenario that the government is going to suddenly decide to enslave the people. I think I'll stick with what's real rather than what's imaginary.
I have conservative in-laws who keep spouting on about how having guns protects freedom of speech, freedom of assembly etc. and can't grasp the fact that other countries have those rights with incredibly strict gun control. They are utterly convinced that having guns is the only thing keeping them "free".
It's a hard time to be of Facebook when your siblings married southerners...
R70, and after that I believe fertilizer sales in mass quantity now raise red flags and are reported, perhaps even regulated. Certainly that doesn't mean no one will ever construct a bomb that way again, but I do believe it is more difficult now as a result of action taken post-McVeigh. I don't believe that McVeigh was mentally ill either so all mass murderers are not crazy. I don't think the act of mass murder automatically makes you crazy.
The point is a gun is the primary way in this country to kill a lot of people fast.
The point is at this moment in our society mass and multiple murders are not being achieved through explosive devices, chainsaws or arson. Should that happen then we should also deal with that accordingly.
The argument that murder is illegal and yet people still murder so why bother ignores the deterrent aspect. More people would probably commit murder of all kinds if there were no consequence or attempt to prevent it. So the idea that unfettered access to guns of all kinds should be fine 'cause there will be gun crimes anyway...
One of the NRA refrains is about the responsible gun owner so it's not just about the mentally ill, it's also about people who can legally buy guns who enable. It's about the woman who legally bought a gun then gave it to her neighbor, who then killed firefighters, or the Newton killer who's mom was a legal purchaser, or people who are willing to buy guns for gangbangers. No amount of mental illness conversation or screening will catch the enablers. So why not limit what they can get their hands on? Then it won't matter how they misuse their right to purchase a gun.
The dream they were promised - a societal hierarchy headed by straight white males. Gun fetishism is nothing more than the straight white man's fear of lesser beings taking away his power.
Agree that all the ammo and clips in the world won't protect you from Uncle Sam if he wants your hide. I've also come to realize that the gun nuts, racists and fundies prattling on about "coming civil war" are having an identity crisis. They view themselves as warriors in some fashion or other, and what are warriors without a war, rattling their war toys?
This is also a group of people who do not like losing, and they are just beginning a series of losses that is driving the crazy to the surface. I want them to squawk loudly--we need to see them, and know who they are.
It's simple -- they saw the black and Latino gang members with Big Guns, so they feel they need Big Guns too.
The problem they have with the government is that they fear it will side with the minorities (the reason they believe the feds "steal" all their taxes -- to support minorities) and thus there is no one to protect white people but armed whites themselves.
That is 99% of what you read on those gun rights sites.
Looks like whites are the ones whites need to be afraid of.
Arm chair Rambos.
Good point. There is an ugly racist undertone to the opposition to firearms. Class plays a roll also.
Here are some questions for all the gun enthusiasts and NRA supporters.
Are you aware that for years the NRA supported gun control? When the Black Panthers urged their community to buy and carry guns, in the '60s, suddenly the NRA decided gun control was just the thing.
Have you ever heard any NRA spokesman say that if Trayvon Martin had a glock he would be alive today? What the gun advocates want is no gun control for white people.
There's a class issue also. There is a bus strike in NYC right now. The bus drivers want to save their seniority rights, which means their jobs, when the city changes companies.
Has anyone heard the NRA say that strikers on a picket line would be safer and more effective if they had sidearms and assault rifles?
[quote] They may as well pass a law against sunshine to try to prevent melanoma, as to pass a law against guns. Illegal sunshine would be just as harmful to the skin as legal sunshine.
Wow. I can't believe that a human being actually wrote that.
How many shootings occur weekly in Chicago, Philly , Detroit, DC, etc. those cities have the most strict gun laws. It won't matter. These murders are no committed by lawful people. Gang bangers don't give a shit about gun laws. I bet if Republicans ran these larger cities, the weekly body count would be posted like the national debt ticker.
[quote] Gang bangers don't give a shit about gun laws.
Gang bangers? How OLD are you?
An assault weapon ban would have the same effect Prohibition and the War on Drugs did. Gun purchases would skyrocket because of paranoia & mistrust of the government. People own firearms to protect themselves from common criminals and the government aka closet criminals.
The best things to do in this situation are: 1. go after the pharmaceutical industry for all of these psychotropic drugs that have egregiously adverse side effects, and
2. go after our sensationalist media who ''celebrify'' these mass killers & go overboard with the grief porn coverage of these tragedies. This just encourages people who feel like nobodies to go commit copycat crimes in the hopes of going out with a bang & getting a name for themselves
May I also add that getting a single-payer universal health care system in this country will help matters more than a gun ban. Most insurance companies do not cover mental illness. Change the way our healthcare system deals with mental illness. Most annual physicals don't include a mental evaluation.
I also think gun insurance is a good idea to enact. If our cars have to be insured, why aren't guns?
A gun ban does nothing. Urban areas with the strictest gun control have the most gun violence. In Chicago, hundreds of kids aren't dying from AK-47s and assault weapons Mr. President. They are dying from cheap handguns.
R83 I'm 143 years old.
The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
"The Second Amendment was ratified . . . to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that. . . .
"In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.
"In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state.
"The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
"As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, 'The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.'
"It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?"
"If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains." -- Thom Hartmann
Did gang-bangers disappear R83? Me, I'm 29 cunt. What the fuck age have to with this?
The NRA exists to make $$$$$$$$ for the gun companies.
Nothing more. Gun nuts buy into the 'philosophy' and spend their money on guns convinced that at any moment not the Feds are going to take away something they don't really need.
Fucking morons are being grifted for every penny supporting companies that could give a shit about their families or their rights.
It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Planning on expanding your territory, R88?
If not, you do not have to worry about gang-bangers, any more than you have to worry about those little green men that appear just out of your sight line.
F&F R90! Many decent people have to in places where gang-bangers rob, steal and murder every day.
I mean, what do these people think, they're going to take on the gov't? Shoot and kill people? To what end? It's a freeper fantasy that they could win but then what? Are they going to step up and govern the nation? And what about those of us who oppose their views? Are we meant to then live under their tyranny? I mean, what are these people thinking? It seems like the NRA should be supplying mental health care to all of its members because these people are batshit crazy.
They're all such lemmings completely pumped up with fear by Fox, Limbaugh, Savage and that ilk. If you look at some of the 10s of 1,000s of FB posts since Obama's announcement, these people just repeat the same lies over and over - completely unaware that they're in an echo chamber. And the way they all pose as if they are constitutional scholars is just plainly ridiculous because all they're doing is parroting a single, ill-informed fear mongering source they heard on the radio or on some blog and they just repeat it ad nauseum.
Whatever happened to civility? Where does all this bloodlust come from, they think the solution to everything is shoot them dead. Do they think they should be immune from prosecution? I mean, there are a lot of people sounding their war cry - what, they're going to kill people?
They already completely dehumanise anyone who holds an opposing view because, of course, they same people pumping them with fear have also demonised the opposition into non-existent caricatures - how often do these people tell you who you are and what you think, how dumb you are, etc.?
Next time there's a shooting I wish instead of all the faux concern and faux grief, the POTUS (whomever it is) would just say, "That's the price we pay for our 2nd Ammendment, folks. Now move on, there's nothing to see here."
I mean, these people act as if they've never heard of an Executive Order before. And if you point out that Bush signed 290 of them (to Obama's current 149, I think) they're like, "Why are you still taking about Bush? He's not the President anymore!" as if our history isn't somehow cumulative. And of course it didn't stop them from blaming Jimmy Carter for the economic collapse or Clinton for 9/11.
This whole Obama/Hitler/Children meme - I mean, please, Bush was in a classroom full of children on 9/11, if they want to go there. But no, that's different.
I'm so glad I don't actually live in the States anymore, it must be maddening.
They want a race war and failing that an arsenal to shoot the black guy who had the misfortune of taking that door to door vinyl siding job. Seriously. Talk to a gun nut long enough and these topics come up. They might use the word "thug" instead of nigger but only b/c they don't if you're cool like that yet.
And you can bet those people are in favor of gun control, R91.
So what's your problem?
R22, those children are there with their parent's support and consent. The NRA used his children without his consent or the consent of his wife.
[quote] go after our sensationalist media who 'celebrify' these mass killers & go overboard with the grief porn coverage of these tragedies.
Yes. Of course. Let's not touch the precious 2nd Amendment, which is untouchable and absolute, but let's go right ahead and openly violate the 1st Amendment but telling the media what it can and cannot broadcast.