Yet another gun tragedy to ponder

[DainBramaged]

Don't limit their right to buy the 'assault' rifles they say.


Don't ban the sale of mega-magazines they say.


Don't tell them how many guns they can buy they say.


Don't limit the purchase of ammo online they say, we need to get the best deals.


Don't worry about gun crime they say, arm everyone and it will go away.


How do you protect peaceful people from gun crime and maniacs then?

Why is their right to buy their guns more precious than a human life?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. And let's not ponder how the super-rich changed this country and created the conditions which led to

the mass killings.

No, let's just go back to 1994 when the Democratically controlled House (which had been controlled by the Democratic Party for 40 years) shifted to the Republicans because some Democrats thought that it was more important to push for anti-gun legislation than representing the views of other Democrats and independents in a democratic way.

Yea, let's not talk about the super-rich at all. Let's not talk about them shifting manufacturing jobs to foreign countries. Let's not talk about the bail-outs for the banksters who got rich while destroying the American economy. Let's not talk about the student loans which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. Let's not talk about the endless wars and war profiteering. Let's not talk about how the super-rich destroyed the future for this country.

[DainBramaged]

3. Really?

If you say so. Thanks for the distraction however.

[Mojorabbit]

38. It would be nice to not use this tragedy to further your

views while it is still in progress. We have no idea what the complete story is. It is like grave dancing and I think it is creepy. We do have crazy militia people in this country. We do have politicians who are whipping up their fears ala Michelle Bachman. We have no information other than the sketchiest of details.

[DainBramaged]

62. This is DU, I'll express my views the way I see fit

1) The guy is white

2) They've announced it's an act of domestic terrorism


3) the people were killed with a gun or guns


What am I furthering that you don't like? If you don't like my views, maybe you'll find solace in the gun forum instead of my thread.

[Mojorabbit]

68. Classy. nt

[DainBramaged]

69. Ignored

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year with a cherry on top.

[Zalatix]

82. Because DainBramaged didn't obey you, he or she is not being classy?

[samsingh]

79. good points

[cthulu2016]

4. And let's not ponder the heat earth of the universe

Lets' just overlook the grim implications of entropy that dictates that all life in the universe will someday cease.

My absurd off-topic distraction trumps yours.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. Not at all. IMO, the conditions led to the mass murder. Timothy McVeigh used a bomb, not a gun,

yet he was exposed to the same conditions.

In your view, are all good Democrats supposed to support more gun-control? Unquestionably? How do you account for the loss of Congress to the Republicans in 1994? Do you think that all good Democrats support unthinking gun control? I assume that you don't want to see a repeat of 1994. How will that not happen if there is a repeated effort for more onerous gun control in an undemocratic way?

Do you really think that there is no connection between the undemocratic changes caused by the super-rich and the mass murders?

[cthulu2016]

7. And Lex Luthor used a giant robot

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. And I thought that we were talking about facts.

[DainBramaged]

8. Did you know that the common slug leaves a trail of slime behind it

just like the murderers who leave a trail of death behind them.


There is no excuse and you can't blame the Democrats in 1994.


The NRA and the gun manufacturers have scared all of the 2A believers into guns guns and more guns.



Keep trying, were not buying the bullshit.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

11. My words speak for themselves. You are misrepresenting what I said.

At no time did I "blame the Democrats in 1994." Your false statement that I did so is contrary to the actual words that were posted.

In post #1, which you read and to which you responded, I clearly wrote: "some Democrats thought that it was more important to push for anti-gun legislation than representing the views of other Democrats and independents in a democratic way."

And now you ask,

"Did you know that the common slug leaves a trail of slime behind it"?

Yes, I've seen that. Yes, I certainly know that.

[DainBramaged]

12. And thanks one last time for defending 2A in the face of this tragedy

The NRA thanks you....

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. You made a false accusation in your other post (#6). And now you are making false accusations in

this one.

I am not "defending 2A in the face of this tragedy" as you so falsely state.

I didn't even mention the Second Amendment. You don't even know whether I believe that it is necessary for anyone to defend the Second Amendment. Or whether they should even try to discuss the Second Amendment.

You also falsely say, "The NRA thanks you...." That's not true. You have no factual support for claiming that the NRA is thanking me for anything or has ever thanked me for anything.

If you are truly concerned about the shooting victims, why haven't you mentioned anything about the economic conditions that led to the mass murder? Why haven't you considered the economic devastation caused to the Milwaukee area by those who have torn down Milawukee factories and shipped manufacturing jobs to foreign countries?

[DainBramaged]

17. Jesus give it up, go make your own thread Jesus

[jeff47]

47. And in the wake of his attack, restrictions were passed on the materials he used.

So if we want to go down that road again, we should enact some gun control. Just like you suggested.

[geckosfeet]

70. IMO - it was a hateful moron picking up a gun and shooting people that led to the mass murder.

And my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

But, I am very interested in understanding how the super-rich are inciting mass murder. Perhaps you could elaborate on that particular bit of social commentary.

[Whisp]

31. all that stuff gets talked about here a lot

just to let you know because obviously you've missed a lot

[AnotherMcIntosh]

35. Not by the OP! Not in this thread by the anti-gun OP.

And not typically by anti-gun posters.

If you know of any instance in which an anti-gun poster expressed such sentiments, any exception at all, I'ld sure like to know about it. Of course, if anti-gun posters commonly express such sentiments, such postings should be easy to find.

[Zoeisright]

40. Most of us around here can walk and chew gum at the same time.

And can discuss several different topics without having to mention them all.

Good god.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. When causation is the topic and the anti-gun posters neither express any sympathy

towards the shooting victims and their families or express any concern over the conditions which led to the mass murders, they are not walking and chewing gum at the same time.

If they are the ones demonstrating their anti-gun ferver and contempt towards gun-owning Democrats and gun-owning independent voters, what are they seeking to accomplish? They certainly don't want to reason with anyone.

[Whisp]

44. and if....

[jeff47]

46. First, we are capable of multitasking.

If you are not, I'm sorry. But plenty of us are.

Second, 1994 was not about guns. It was about scandal, the southern strategy and anti-Clinton. At least, if you want to believe things like "polling" over your own personal cause.

If we're going with personal cause, I'm gonna declare 1994 was about doughnuts having too many calories. That has as much basis as your theory.

[Trunk Monkey]

66. That's odd bill Clinton seems to think 1994 was ALL ABOUT guns

http://www.gunshopfinder.com/legislativenews/clinton8_1_04.html

8/1/2004--For ten years, it has been conventional political wisdom that the 1994 Assault Weapons ban cost the Democrats control of Congress. In his recently-released book "My Life," President Clinton provides an interesting behind the scenes narrative about what took place, and the political fallout afterwards. Here are some excerpts:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

[jeff47]

74. Again, polling from the time does not agree

So, doughnuts caused the 1994 loss then?

[Trunk Monkey]

75. You're argument isn't with me it's with Mr. Clinton. NT

[jeff47]

84. No, it's with you. You're the one trying to use Clinton as a human shield. (nt)

[samsingh]

80. it was the health care law that cost the Democrats - not gun control

Al Gore won the Presidency even supporting gun control

[AnotherMcIntosh]

83. Absolutely right. Thanks for posting this. Clinton seems to have some expertise in this area.

Please let me reinforce what was said about the 1994 election by re-posting a part of it:

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946...."

When vitriolic anti-gun-owner statements are made on this board, is everyone convinced that such statements are being made in good faith by bona fide Democrats instead of by Rovian supporters who want to revive the 1994 issue?

I'm not so sure.

[Electric Monk]

2. It's not a "gun tragedy", it's a human tragedy. The guns performed just as they were designed to.

[Reasonable_Argument]

9. Threads like this also prove the point people were trying to sidestep in the last shooting

This guy had a pistol and not an "assault rifle" yet people here are already calling for more restrictions. Tragedy will always be with us and no matter what restrictions they attempt to pass it will never be enough. My thoughts go out to all the victims of this tragic event.

[DainBramaged]

10. And thanks for defending thet 2A once again.....

When tragedy strikes your family, what will you say, it wa God's will?


Don't bother answering, your post is so lame I nearly spit on my keyboard.

[Reasonable_Argument]

15. I don't use personal tragedy as an excuse to strip the rights of others

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of many here. I suppose you were for the right using the 9/11 tragedy as an excuse to strip our other rights then based on your post? I'm an atheist btw.

[DainBramaged]

16. I'm not a hypocrite, I am anti 2A since day one

Merry Christmas and go to hell.

[Reasonable_Argument]

20. My post was directed at many here not just you as I stated

Get a grip on your ego please? Thanks for wishing me a Merry Christmas though

[madinmaryland]

21. WTF? A "personal tragedy" This is a fucking AMERICAN TRAGEDY!

The "right" you support manages to strip so many Americans of their life.

[DainBramaged]

22. They don't give a shit. Time after time here they've proven that

their cute little distractions, making excuses for the shooters, all because THEIR right trumps life, period.


It wasn't like this when I was growing up, it wasn't like this in the 80's, but it's been like this since Clinton, they are fucking scared sheetless and played for fools by the gun industry and the NRA.


And they express right (hate) with their guns at every occasion.

[madinmaryland]

26. ...

I met my first gun nut in when I started college in 79. Had never seen anything like that before I met him, and I grew up in rural northwest Ohio.

Boy, how times have changed.

[DainBramaged]

28. Once I put the gun rights defenders on ignore, this thread shortened up fast

I am tired of them trying to claim their right trumps life, tired. Some day a politician with guts will stand up to them.


They've made the country nothing but fearful of everybody. Everybody is suspect, and because they are, you must defend yourself, even with everyone around you having a gun.

Fuck them I say. They are the cause of this violence.

[hughee99]

53. If you're tired of listening to them,

why did you start this thread? You put out catnip and are pissed that cats showed up?

[HappyMe]

77. Then why did you bother to start this thread?

[Reasonable_Argument]

23. I was responding to his post

Perhaps we should examine what in our society produces these psychos and spend less energy trying to attack the vast majority of law abiding citizens.

[DainBramaged]

24. Right, defending the 2A in spite of the tragedy... who would have thunk it?

Shouldn't you be yakking with your buddies in RKBA instead of trying to convince those of us who hate guns that they are good for law abiding citizens as you put it?


So easy to spot.

[Reasonable_Argument]

25. Just trying to give people who wish to strip our rights some perspective

Just like I try to do with ever other discussion on our rights when they're attacked when people are using a tragedy to trample on them. I despise it when the right does it and am equally bothered by it when the left does it.

[DainBramaged]

27. (sigh) like I said, you think your right to own trumps life, trample this

goodbye. You aren't worth another word on my keyboard.

[Reasonable_Argument]

30. You apparently feel

That your right to the illusion of safety trumps everyone else's rights. This guy was a terrorist and, at least with you, apparently he succeeded.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

18. Shame on you. The poster said, "My thoughts go out to all the victims of this tragic event."

He said nothing about God.

In contrast, you did not express any sympathy in this post. Nor did you do so in your other posts in this string.

Instead, you said,

When tragedy strikes your family, what will you say, it wa God's will?

He said nothing about the Second Amendment. But you also got in a dig about the Second Amendment by saying, "And thanks for defending thet 2A once again....."

You should be better than this. Shame on you.

[DainBramaged]

19. Be ignored

go fucking pound salt.

[Missycim]

29. If you are going to insult someone get it right

Its pound sand not salt...

[DainBramaged]

32. What is the origin of the expression "pound salt" ?

Origin

This is sometimes used with the intention of meaning 'go and beat/whack sand' - with the back of a shovel or similar. That's not the original meaning though, as is made clear from the longer and less-often used version of the phrase - 'go pound sand up your ***'.

The phrase originated in the US and although common there, especially the midwest states, it isn't frequently heard in other countries.

The version 'go pound salt up your ***' is also sometimes used, presumably to heighten the image of discomfort.

It may well date to the early 20th century. That version was certainly well enough known in the US in 1969 for Max Yasgur to have used it when arguing with local dignitaries over his bringing the Woodstock Music and Arts Festival to his farm in Bethal, New York, saying:

"Well, you can all go pound salt up your ***, because come Aug. 15, we're going to have a festival!"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100219190801AAOSTUC


It was better than a simpe fuck you, don't ya think?


I guess you're half right then.

[Marengo]

51. That is an interesting point, where is your expression of sympathy?

You know, that which is demanded of gun owners whenever a tragedy like this occurs.

[HappyMe]

78. Agreed.

[Skittles]

5. the gun nuts won so GET USED TO THEM

[Warren Stupidity]

34. at least they could have the courtesy to own these events

[Skittles]

43. aw no, that would require integrity and courage

they're a bunch of fucking COWARDS

[Reasonable_Argument]

45. Interesting

So then you're responsible for any acts of vandalism by anyone at an OWS event? Come on, own it.

[Marinedem]

33. Well...

Don't limit their right to buy the 'assault' rifles they say.

Assault rifles are HIGHLY controlled items. If you don't even understand that basic fact, you really have no business adressing the issue. You can neither oppose nor support something that you do not understand. Furthermore, I'm not seeing what "Assault weapons" Which I think you might have meant have ANYTHING to do with what happened.


Don't ban the sale of mega-magazines they say.

How many rounds does a non-mega magazine hold? Serious question.


Don't tell them how many guns they can buy they say.

Why would the number of guns purchases have anything to do with the impact of their use in a shooting. How many hands does the average person have? 2? It's not not somebody is going to buy six ar-15s and tranform into some sort of brady campaign hydra of doom.


Don't limit the purchase of ammo online they say, we need to get the best deals.

I got nothing. I can buy it in stores or online. Yeah, it's cheaper online. What's your point? Is anyone more dead from over the counter ammo? See, this is why gun owners think gun-prohibitionists are fucked in the head. You are so fucking petty that the fact that someone can get a price break on ammo bothers you. It was never about the guns. It was about the control.


Don't worry about gun crime they say, arm everyone and it will go away.

Citations needed.


How do you protect peaceful people from gun crime and maniacs then?

Mental health reform, for starters. Harsher sentences for violent criminals. Radical, I know.

Why is their right to buy their guns more precious than a human life?

Because by purchasing a gun, I have hurt NOBODY. My freedom to do whatever the hell I feel like trumps everything up until it hurts somebody else. Show where my purchasing and owning of guns/ammo has directly hurt anybody and God as my witness, I will let you take a band-saw to every last one.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. For example, 5.

Don't ban the sale of mega-magazines they say.

How many rounds does a non-mega magazine hold? Serious question.

The limit is arbitrary. Are you in favor of sensible regulation of magazine capacity?

[Marinedem]

41. Not particuarly.

But then again, one person's "Sensible" is another person's "Ridiculous".

I own mags up to 40 rounds in size. I personally don't see the utility in owning a mag that holds any more than that, but then again, there are gun owners who don't see the utility in magazines holding more than 20 rounds. The whole thing is one big arbitrary ball of shit.

Large capacity magazines (Lets be vague, the number really doesn't matter) don't concern me from a safety standpoint in the least. a 100 round drum is no more deadly than five twenty rounders. Look what Cho Sung whatever the fuck his name was did with ten round mags. I just don't feel that these laws would have any impact, other than to curtail the rights of gun owners.

Any law passed to restrict magazine capacity would be nothing more than a giant heap of feel-good BS.

[petronius]

60. If the limit is "arbitrary", how can you call it "sensible"?

[Warren Stupidity]

72. Non sequitur aside, this is a classic example of why these discussions go nowhere.

You aren't interested in sensible regulation. You will quibble over words, technicalities, etc engaging in sophistry to deny that any sensible regulation is possible while maintaining that if one were to appear it could be supported.

Arbitrary limits are frequently sensible. For example speed limits.

[petronius]

81. Actually, this is a perfect example of what I said to you in the other thread,

that pro-gun-controllers assume that any proposed restriction is automatically sensible - and therefore, that anyone who asks for details and justification is automatically quibbling and obstructive.

In the case of magazine limits, why don't you set aside anecdotes and common sense, avoid the pitfall of arbitrary, pretty, round, numbers that end in zero, examine the whole range of firearm uses (defensive, criminal, suicide accident, recreation, etc) and the number of rounds used per event, and propose a limit that can be empirically justified as likely to have a positive safety impact without an undue infringement on anything else? When you do that, then you can complain that people who won't discuss it are being unreasonable.

Until then, the sophistry is yours. Gun owners will happily support sensible regulation when it appears, and reject arbitrary and unreasoned...

(As for speed limits, I doubt they're actually chosen arbitrarily based on someone's notion of common sense - transportation engineers probably spend a lot of time researching the best balance between safety, efficiency, road construction, and whatever else is relevant.)

[DainBramaged]

37. Yada yada yada

so many of you since Loughner used GUNS to kill, so many of you appeared here.

[Marinedem]

42. If you are insinuating something, you should come out and say it.

Not dance around me with cheap innuendo and cryptic babble.

It's the internet. You can say whatever you want.

[DainBramaged]

49. Nope our conversation ends here. I am anti 2A, you obviously are pro paranoia

you folks have been stinking the place up for awhile, I'd rather not feed the gun trolls.


Any of you.

[Marinedem]

56. Typical

Typical ad hominem:

Can't attack the message, so attack the messenger.

Generally, resorting to personal attacks is a sign that you've lost control of your emotions and the argument.

Par for the course for those opposed to gun ownership.

[Kingofalldems]

61. Thanks Rush for a post that does exactly what it is accusing

someone else of doing.

[jeff47]

54. Well indeed

Assault rifles are HIGHLY controlled items.

Sure, when you very carefully craft your definition of "Assault Rifle". It's very difficult for a civilian to buy an actual M-16. However, most sane people would consider an AR-15 close enough.

How many rounds does a non-mega magazine hold? Serious question.

IMO, about 9 for a pistol, 5 for a rifle.

But that would kinda be the point of having a debate on the issue. So that we could establish, together, that arbitrary line.

Why would the number of guns purchases have anything to do with the impact of their use in a shooting.

I really hope this doesn't come as a surprise, but it is far more difficult to conduct a shooting when one is unable to purchase a firearm with more ease than buying a box of Sudafed.

It's not not somebody is going to buy six ar-15s and tranform into some sort of brady campaign hydra of doom.

Yes, that's why our soldiers are only ever issued a single weapon.....oh wait.

I can buy it in stores or online. Yeah, it's cheaper online. What's your point?

I don't know what their point was, since really they should be concerned about the quantity of ammo purchased, as opposed to the source. And not in a "can't buy more than X rounds" but more like "Buying more than x rounds raises a red flag". Much like how anti-money laundering laws work.

Citations needed.

For what? They're pointing out that anti-gun-control people claim more guns would create less gun crime. That's what would need a citation, in that we've got plenty of evidence for the inverse - countries with more restrictive gun laws have less gun crime. Sure, crimes like stabbings go up, but it's a lot harder to conduct a mass stabbing than a mass shooting.

Mental health reform, for starters.

Please list the specific reforms and how they would stop actual mass shooters.

Harsher sentences for violent criminals.

You are seriously arguing that insane people will think the sentence, "I'd love to shoot all those people, but I'd get life instead of 25 years, so I guess I won't."

Because by purchasing a gun, I have hurt NOBODY.

Who do I hurt when I buy two boxes of Sudafed?
Who do I hurt when I break the speed limit on a deserted Interstate (thus safe road w/ no accident possible)?
Who do I hurt when I don't follow building code and don't put an egress window in a basement, and there's never a fire?

See, that last one gets to the heart of the problem.

Nobody's burned to death in that specific basement. But we don't make law based on that specific basement. We make law on what has actually happened in other places. So we either needed to outlaw flammable products in basements, or come up with a practical, real-world way for people to avoid burning to death when the basement stairs are impassible due to fire. So the law requires that egress window.

Mass shootings, and gun violence in general, is much too common. So we either need stricter gun control, or you guys need to come up with specific mechanisms that actually work to prevent them.

You saying "no" will not win in the long run. Enough people will needlessly die that the tide will turn against you and we'll just take almost every gun away. So better start thinking of specific ways to avoid that.

[Zoeisright]

39. Exactly.

Thank you.

[Major Nikon]

48. Que the gun apologists

[DainBramaged]

50. Right on que, they have been on alert, here especially.

too bad they can spew here and we can't spend 30 seconds at Free (HAHAHAHA) RePUKElic.

[L0oniX]

55. another tread to trash.

[DainBramaged]

59. Say what? My President? My wonderful President?

And your wonderful president isn't really doing much about it now his he?

So who did you vote for, or should I say, who are you going to vote for?


This is Democratic Underground, or have you forgotten that little nugget.


Regarding you reply, it has EVERYTHING to do with fear and NOTHING to do with the economy. If it was the economy, why are gun and ammo sales through the roof?


You make me laugh. So sad you are.

[sendero]

64. You are wrong.

... and you will be seeing lots and lots more of this. People with nothing to lose are dangerous.

As for Democratic Underground, I reserve the RIGHT to criticize our president for his failings. Unlike FR, I'm allowed to do so. This does not mean I think the Republicans are any better on the contrary they are far worse. However, I am pretty tired of choosing between malicious cretins and complicit dupes.

In the meantime, keep on bleating about problems that simply cannot be solved by government, while you watch your government fail to solve the problem it COULD if it weren't bought and sold.

[DainBramaged]

65. Unfortunately, it looks like you've been allowed for a long time

It's your government too pal, and I use pal very loosely. Unless of course, you agree with Rick Perry about succession?


Have a great life, it's too bad you can say what you've said here. Back in the days of II, you wouldn't.


Bleating? Bleat this. Sorry you gun fanatics think that guns trump life. One day,they won't. Maybe Free Republic is where you belong.

[Skittles]

71. UM

this nutcase gunned down innocent people in a temple.....because of the economy?

[DainBramaged]

73. That is the RW meme, everything can be blamed on 'Obama's' economy.

I guess yesterday was the perfect time to roll it out.....

[aikoaiko]

58. We don't know if any of those restrictions would have impacted this tragedy.

Why not wait to see what happened and how it happened if you're actually interested in preventing a murderous rampage like the one at the temple?

[Trunk Monkey]

63. Since we're clearly about to rehash Aurora, let me just throw this back out

Ive seen a lot of mindles rage directed at gun owners today
I’ve also seen, in the short time that I’ve been here, a clear double standard on DU. I’ve read post after post this weekend that states very clearly “Fuck gun owners, fuck the NRA, I’ve had enough, I want all your fucking guns banned now.” I go into the “gungeon” and I see anti gun types engaging in obvious trolling behavior that would get them banned on any other forum on the net or banned in any other DU forum if they went after other groups the way the did gun owners. I especially like the “All gun owner are compensating for a small penis” posts

I see the accusation made time and again that anyone who is even the slightest bit pro RKBA is a freeper troll. There’s a thread in the gungeon right now in which an anti states that the clear solution is to ban all firearms and two posts later states “I don’t want to ban your guns”.

IMO the best solution is to have a gun control forum, a gun rights forum, and a gun debate forum let the first two be safe havens and the third be a place for those who choose to debate

[DainBramaged]

67. Right, you've been here in this identity since early June and you've seen it time and again?

"anti's"


NRA verbage


thanks for the heads up.

[HappyMe]

76. No mention of hate groups?

They need to be monitored, raided and shut down.


My thoughts are with the families and friends. I hope they will eventually find some peace.

[onehandle]

85. Cue our Rightists to report home. nt