3 people were killed at a UPS today. 13 killed in last 72 hours. WHY do we have

[Maraya1969]

and entire thread showing support for the shot congress people who are responsible for the guns and not for every other people who has been killed in the last 72 hours!!!!

I am so fucking sorry that I cannot feel sorry for these people who, to my mind are responsible for the damn guns that were used to shoot them in the first place.

Go ahead and lock this thread or flame me. I don't care. I can't muster up one ounce of sympathy for them. Perhaps if one was killed I could feel bad for their family but not now.

And on top of everything they have the best health care while the great mass of other victims of gun violence suffer monetarily for long after because of health care bills.


http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours

[Else You Are Mad]

1. Compassion

Is what separates us from them, to forget that lets them win.

[FiveGoodMen]

109. I would say that empathizing with them when all they want to do is destroy us

is what lets them win.

Moral superiority without health care, social security, and civil rights isn't worth a damn.

[Not Ruth]

2. And hundreds get killed in cities like Chicago

While you barely ever hear about the victims

[Maraya1969]

6. You are right.

[luvMIdog]

3. There actually was a thread for all the victims of gun violence. It's here somewhere if you look.

The people of the GOP and right wing are not my teachers. I don't seek to emulate them . I seek to rise above that level. That's my goal. Not to become the monster. When anyone is attacked by a terrorist or mad gunman and hurt badly, it is the kind thing to do to put behind us any other feeling than that of compassion. Anyone can love their friends ..it's harder to have compassion for your enemies, but it needs to be there. When we lose that we have lost all... we become the monster we did not like in the first place.

[Maraya1969]

5. I just don't see why their shootings should get any extra anything. And the

fact that they are the main reason so many are killed by guns every single week in the US makes it all the more horrifying to me to see them get special treatment when they are hurt.

Remember that the US has the most gun killings of any industrialized country and it is because of people like them.

I do not wish harm on anyone.

[luvMIdog]

7. some people are slower to learn. Our society has so many thing to learn we just keep trying and

trying. Teaching our own children and teaching others. Resisting wrong and voting. It's not going to happen overnight, and maybe never, but some of them will change their ways. We don't know which ones & we don't know when. Life is never fair and there is no justice on earth. It's not fair that some child is dying in their mothers arms today because they don't have food and I do have food. I try to hope for some progress & don't expect all attitudes to be fair because it's like setting myself up for disappointment.

[Maraya1969]

8. Thanks for that sane statement. You reminded me of my Buddhist beliefs that I let fly out the

window today!

[luvMIdog]

10. maybe you just need a good hug today. Here have a ((((((hug))))))

[Maraya1969]

15. Thanks.

[FiveGoodMen]

11. But quick to unlearn

I'm 57. This is by far the worst that Americans have acted in my lifetime.

It is NOT that we are learning slowly.

We are turning into a nation of monsters and spoiled children very rapidly.

[luvMIdog]

13. I'm 60 :D Yes, these are troubled times. We have to keep planting trees, sweeping the kitchen in

spite of all the insanity and keep trying to make it a better world for those we are leaving it to.

[Maraya1969]

9. I found it and thanks. The link is below

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029204557

[JTFrog]

4. And a possible active shooter now at Travis Air Force Base.

An incident is definitely happening, no confirmation of shooter yet.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Travis-Air-Force-Base-on-Lockdown-Amid-Real-World-Security-Incident-Officials-428515163.html

[smirkymonkey]

12. I'm with you. All shootings are tragic, but why does it only matter to the media when rich, white

men are shot? The other victims were just as loved and important to their families. Don't they deserved to be covered and honored as well?

[jmg257]

20. Every week a bunch of people get shot in chicago.

Not so often do members of congress face assasination.

[smirkymonkey]

21. So you think they are more important than the others

who have died yesterday? I'm sorry, I don't think that congresspeople are any more important than the average citizen. Their lives are equally valuable.

[jmg257]

22. So did i say anything about one victim being more important?

No... Seems you missed the point.

[LeftInTX]

36. It is about being in powerful positions in government.

Scalise had assigned security because of his position as majority whip. If he didn't have this security, it would have been much worse. A bunch of them could have been killed.

It could have happened to a group of Dems too. Imagine if a shooter had targeted the Dems baseball practice. I doubt that the Dems have assigned security. A bunch of them would probably be dead.

[Abq_Sarah]

14. I must have missed something

Because I'm pretty sure no one in Congress right now was responsible for authoring the Bill of Rights.

[yallerdawg]

16. We do have what may be called well-regulated militias (Capitol Police?)...

but YOU having a gun is not necessary for MY security in a free state!

[Igel]

19. Only if you some serious re-defining.

That kind of re-defining elsewhere would permit censorship and permit habeas corpus to include federal liquidation or hit squads.

[Marengo]

24. Irrelevant, since militia membership is not a prerequisite for firearm possession.

[yallerdawg]

25. If you totally ignore the first half of the 2nd Amendment - "irrelevant"...

as if it doesn't exist and has no meaning applicable to our revolutionary founding against an oppressive government, or looking at it from a 21st century perspective when we are in obvious crisis - I guess you have a point if your goal is to sell more guns. To anybody with the money.

[Marengo]

26. It doesn't exist as an enforceable prerequisite, so...ya, irrelevant.

[yallerdawg]

27. It exists. You ignore.

Just so you know, the Democratic Party, liberals and progressives heartily support common sense gun control.

Still and always.

[Marengo]

30. Where today is a US citizen denied the right to possess a firearm unless they are enrolled in...

A militia?

[yallerdawg]

31. Try going to the Capitol with your firearm.

Or an airport. An airplane.

An NRA meeting with the president as a speaker.

A town hall meeting with a Republican Congressperson.

I could go on and on and on and on and on.

And I damn sure wouldn't tell the cops when they pull me over, "Lookee here - I've got a gun."

And yet there are 'well-regulated' citizens at each of these interactions who are armed. Who could be called up to serve in the military - like the 'militias' of old.

[Marengo]

32. That isn't an answer to what I asked and you know it. Try again.

[yallerdawg]

33. If the 'right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'...

then there are an awful lot of places - and situations - where that doesn't apply.

And yet there are non-military, 'well-regulated' citizens who carry firearms at all occasions.

I answered your question again. You just don't like the answer.

The beef seems to be with stopping the ability to purchase firearms - not the right to keep and bear arms, which is infringed all the time.

[Marengo]

37. Still not an answer to what I asked. Try again.

[yallerdawg]

38. Answered.

You don't like the answer.

Please tell me the answer you want - or is this game (as usual) 'last comment wins?'

[Marengo]

39. Nope, and your diversionary tactic is obvious. Shall I take that as a concession?

[yallerdawg]

40. YOUR diversionary tactic is obvious!

Is there a handout y'all follow?

A manual?

Training classes?

It's too consistent a strategy by our "gun advocates" to be a natural phenomenon.

[Marengo]

41. Still waiting for an example of where firearm ownership is only permitted to persons enrolled...

In a militia.

Waiting...

Waiting...

Been waiting for a while now...

[yallerdawg]

42. It has already been answered.

I am quite familiar with the "diversionary tactic" of playing 20 questions.

I answer. You question the answer with a non-sequitur. On and on it goes.

Every time there is a shooting, y'all show up. Nothing new here. Nothing.

[Marengo]

43. Still waiting for you to provide an example of where firearm ownership is only permitted to...

Persons enrolled in a militia. As of yet, you have not answered. I wonder why that is?

[yallerdawg]

44. Your comment ends with "?"

See?

Just what I said!

[Marengo]

45. Still waiting for you to provide an example of where firearm ownership is only permitted for persons

Enrolled in a militia. Do you understand the question? Do I need to rephrase it somehow? I simply can't understand why you are incapable of answering.

[yallerdawg]

46. I win when you hit "Twenty!"

You could go up thread and respond to my answer - but that would make the rest of this thread chain completely irrelevant!

We don't want to do that, do we?

[Marengo]

47. STILL waiting for you to provide an example of where firearm ownership is only permitted to persons

Enrolled in a militia.

[yallerdawg]

48. Your question was...

"Where today is a US citizen denied the right to possess a firearm unless they are enrolled in a militia?"

That is the question I answered.

You are now "referencing" an entirely different question.

Another of 'The Twenty.'

[Marengo]

49. Ahhhh, so it IS a semantics game you are playing to avoid answering the question.

Dictionary.com:

Possess
1. To have as belonging to one; have as property; own

OWN


Now that you can no longer continue to pretend not to understand the definition of possess as I used it, how about an answer?

[yallerdawg]

50. I answered the question.

It is YOU who are playing a game.

Ridiculous, endless repetition that has nothing to do with anything.

Meaningless question after question.

Answer my question? Do you use a hand out, a manual, actual training classes?

What time does your shift end?

[Marengo]

51. No, you did not, and you know this. Otherwise, you would not continue with this absurd effort...

To evade. Now, let's try again. Please provide an example of where firearm ownership is permitted only for those persons enrolled in a militia. There is no reason or excuse not to answer.

[yallerdawg]

53. See, you are just playing a game.

Meanwhile:

3 shot, 1 killed, in drive-by on Detroit’s west side

3 people found dead of gunshot wounds at Oak Ridge home

Man Shot and Killed; Taney Co. Sheriff Investigating

Phoenix police: Male dead after home shooting, man detained

On and on and on.

My hometown:

2 dead, 1 injured in Montgomery shooting

[Marengo]

54. And STILL waiting for you to provide an example of where firearm ownership is only permitted for

Persons enrolled in a militia.

[yallerdawg]

55. At least we know what is important to you.

"The right to buy guns shall not be infringed."

[Marengo]

58. Still waiting for you to provide an example of where firearm ownership is only permitted for

Persons enrolled in a militia (which I suppose is contingent on you ceasing to pretend you didn't understand the question).

[yallerdawg]

59. The question was answered YESTERDAY!

Repeating it over and over and over and over and over does not mean you are getting any further in the game.

See - it works like this.

I'm thinking of an animal.

You ask, "Is it a rock?"

I say, "No."

Now, when you ask, "Is it a rock?" over and over and over and over - it doesn't change what I am thinking! Still the animal!

When is your shift over?

[Marengo]

62. In other words, you can't as your position is entirely untenable and your only "out" is a...

Diversionary tactic in the form of a semantics game. In post #49, I formally clarified (as if you didn't understand in the first place, which I do not for a moment believe) the definition of the word as I used it. After that, you STILL refuse to answer, even though you now understand your original reply is not applicable. If you were capable of answering, you would have done so after that point.

[yallerdawg]

64. Why are your questions...

more important than my questions?

You haven't answered a single one!

Do you all have a sheet you answer off of? A manual? A flow chart of some kind?

What time is your shift over? I'll know - sooner or later.

[Marengo]

65. Mine, the first in this exchange, remains unanswered. Try again.

[yallerdawg]

66. #25. Answered.

And yet you have not answered a single question I have asked.

[Marengo]

67. At this point, you have answered in a manner. By continuing to duck and dodge long after it has...

Been established as a diversion tactic, you're confirming you don't have anything to back up your position. Now is the time for you to do so.

[yallerdawg]

69. #30. Answered.

"STILL an animal."

[Marengo]

70. LOL! Confirmed, you having nothing to support your position.

[yallerdawg]

71. Excuse me?

#25 and #30 absolutely confirm my position!

"Ignore the answer" - that HAS to be in the manual, right?

[Marengo]

72. LOL! Yep, absolutely confirmed, you have NOTHING to back your position.

[yallerdawg]

73. # 33. Answered once more.

Answered yesterday.

From "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People:"

[Marengo]

74. I have repeatedly stated you have not. Rather than acknowledge this and proceed with...

The discussion in the direction always and obviously intended, you continuously fall back on the semantics diversion. At this point, I'm left to wonder did you intend to obfuscate from the very beginning, or did you not truly understand and are too embarrassed to acknowledge that? These are the two logical conclusions left to choose from.

[yallerdawg]

75. Since the question has been answered...

and you refuse to recognize this - and you are obviously well past "Twenty Questions" - then we are playing "Last Comment Wins"?

And you still refuse to answer a single question I have asked?

[Marengo]

78. Wow! It's rare to find someone who so vigorously rubs their own nose in their own fail, and publicly

As an added bonus! It appears I have found one. It is entertaining, and I thank you for that.

[yallerdawg]

81. It's YOUR nose in the fail!

Ignoring the answers is not on ME.

It's on YOU.

Of course, if you can't acknowledge the first half of the 2nd Amendment, then I can see how you missed the answer to your question!

[Marengo]

82. Where has the first half been enforced as a legal prerequisite for the ownership of firearms...

By free private citizens?

[yallerdawg]

83. I get it that you support unconditional gun sales!

The point is - if we want to be strict Constitutionalists, the 'language' - which you chose to ignore - is right there!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This implies "membership in a well regulated Militia" to "possess (own)" a gun, much less "keep and bear" it!

[Marengo]

84. If that is the case, at some point of time and somewhere in the United States, militia membership..

As a prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms should have been enforced I would think. Can you provide any examples or if not, can you explain why such a clearly defined prerequisite has not been enforced?

As for your comment that I "support unconditional gun sales", please provide a cite or link to where I've ever said such a thing. If you can't, I'd say a retraction is in order.

[yallerdawg]

86. Where in the second half of the 2nd Amendment...

do you see any right of the government to "infringe" on gun purchasing?

Only the first half implies condition - "well regulated." "militia," "necessary to the security."

I can only assume that if you dismiss the first half of the amendment, then you dismiss the notion of the right of the state to "infringe."

What part of the 2nd amendment are you referring to if not the right to "keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"?

[Marengo]

95. Still waiting on a link or cite to where I've stated I support "unconditional gun sales".

Or maybe a retraction if you cannot? Should I begin to wonder about your integrity?

[yallerdawg]

96. Sorry, I'm just consistent.

IF the first half of the 2nd Amendment is as you state - "It doesn't exist as an enforceable prerequisite" - then all you have left is "unconditional gun sales."

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Obviously, the government can infringe on Free Speech which demonstrably hurts other citizens - but the same doesn't apply to gun sales for some reason. (?)

[Marengo]

97. Your position isn't "consistent" It's nonsensical. Government, Federal and state, can and do impose

Restrictions. If you read post # 80 in this thread, you will notice I am in favor of conditions so your characterization is false. Government however can't deny a person the right to own a firearm if they are not enrolled in a militia. The Heller decision found the RKBA to be individual and unconnected to militia service, yet you keep insisting it is. As I have asked before, can you provide an example of firearm ownership being allowed only to persons enrolled in a militia?

[yallerdawg]

98. I replied to #80 days ago.

Multiple courts with political persuasions and agendas have looked at the 2nd Amendment and reached a variety of conclusions.

When I see the 2nd Amendment - from the perspective of just a common individual reading what it says - I see a lot about militias and security and free state, which you ignore.

The basis for "infringing" on gun sales exists in the language of the amendment!

Let's not discuss the "infallibility" of Supreme Court decisions! There are multiple examples of reversals time after time.

[Marengo]

99. Do you acknowledge that I am not in favor of "unconditional gun sales" as I stated that I am...

In favor of licensing as a condition?

[yallerdawg]

100. There is your inconsistency.

If you toss out the conditional portion of the 2nd Amendment - and ignore what guns are being used on fellow citizens - what is 'licensing'? When you buy a gun, you get 'licensed'?

Since licensing to day is generally state and local requirements - like those "Heller" restrictions in DC - your argument basically makes 'licensing' unconstitutional. Like a 'poll tax' or 'reading requirement' to vote.

Supporting 'licensing' is meaningless.

[Marengo]

101. Heller did not find the right to be unconditional, and acknowledged that as Heller conceded the

Licensing required by D.C. "law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously", did not find reason to address the licensing requirement. Your argument that licensing is a restriction rising to the level of unconstitutionality is false. That was neither argued nor found in Heller.
At any rate, Heller found the first clause to be prefatory and does not limit or expand the scope of the second, which the majority found to be the operative. I think it likely that a national licensing system, perhaps similar to the Illinois FOID, would be found constitutionally permissible so long as it does not impose a significant burden on the applicant. Under this imagined system, which would incorporate current Federal and state requirements, only persons who hold such a license could purchase a firearm whether from an FFL or another private citizen.

[yallerdawg]

102. It's your argument, not mine.

I believe the 2nd Amendment includes the conditions for gun "ownership" as you like to put it, and if you argue that the first half of the amendment doesn't apply, then you are arguing that gun "ownership" shall not be infringed. Period.

[Marengo]

103. What condition does it impose?

[yallerdawg]

104. The conditions related to our founding in the late 1700's!

The need for armed militias in support of a revolutionary government with a substantial threat!

Recognition this is a period piece relevant to historical conditions that don't exist anymore - and we do not have a "right to keep and bear arms" today!

[Marengo]

106. What case law do you base your opinion on?

[yallerdawg]

107. I have pointed out repeatedly...

that all you have to do is read the amendment!

Not legal arguments and politicized court decisions.

Heller decision 5-4.

McDonald v Chicago 5-4.

Easily reversed with a liberal court.

[Marengo]

108. What would be the precedent for a reversal? If the meaning is so clear, how can there be such

Conflicting interpretations?

[yallerdawg]

110. Look at any of the dissenting opinions.

Why does this amendment reference only militias and security in a free state and no mention of self-protection, home defense, hunting - if it was intended as an individual, unconditional right at that time?

Why does it reference militias at all - followed by 3rd Amendment about "quartering soldiers" also specific to revolutionary grievances at the time?

[Marengo]

111. That hunting is not specifically mentioned actually reinforces the individual interpretation...

Hunting was a widely practiced activity with the firearm being the primary weapon used. As the founders didn't specify the ownership of firearms be allowed for purpose of hunting, the intent must have been that individuals not in militia service be allowed to own arms as it's absurd to assume that only those enrolled in a militia would engage in the activity. The same goes for any other activity in which firearms were commonly used. Usage could and was subject to regulation and in urban areas this could be quite severe in the interest of public safety, but the Fedearal constitution does not limit ownership to militia members. I have read the dissenting opinions, and didn't find them compelling at all.

[Jim Beard]

77. I own over a dozen rifles and pistols but am getting sick & tired of people

who are NRA membership peddlers. I want reasonable control, not a fight. I am tired of seeing so many of our citizens murdered.
Too many throw in suicide numbers but that is a choice, murder isn't.

[yallerdawg]

79. "NRA membership peddlers."

Favorite group: "Gun Control and RKBA."

They've been toned down a bit with ascension of NRA A+ candidates, but they're always lurking when we have "controversial" shootings.

Everyday gun violence? Not a peep!

[Marengo]

80. I agree with you, and junked my NRA membership long ago. I'm an FFL holder, and would like to see...

A national licensing system implemented. I didn't find the application process overly burdensome, and my license was issued within a few weeks. The problem I have encountered with many controllers over the years is that eventually they expose their true desire for "reasonable" control to be punitive and even threatening in nature so as to discourage gun ownership. Odd how so many otherwise progressive people want to go Brownshirt over this particular issue. Equally odd is how suddenly law enforcement becomes entirely trustworthy to determine who Is fit possess a firearm.

[yallerdawg]

85. Odd?

The status quo:

Rialto police shoot, kill brother of domestic-violence suspect in San Bernardino

Woman’s Body Discovered Inside Local Park, Investigation Underway

Police investigating homicide in Mesa

1 dead in Harrisburg shooting; police searching for 2 suspects

14 people wounded, 2 fatally, in city shootings

[billh58]

88. Thank you.

I sincerely believe that you represent a majority of American gun owners, and "reasonable control" is what both sides of the debate are looking for.

Unfortunately, the Second Amendment absolutists and the NRA/ILA apologists claim that "reasonable control" really means a ruse to "grab" everyone's guns and make ownership illegal. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[mr_lebowski]

87. I do know that there have been instances in the past where state laws were either proposed ...

and I'd imagine in some cases PASSED ... that had the explicit purpose of declaring all non-felon persons over 18 who lived in a state to be declared 'members of the State Militia', and the purpose behind these laws to be to make it so everyone in a state could buy a firearm. And the reason for this (at the time it was proposed/passed) was to comply with what was understood at that time ... to be a limitation to the 2nd Amendment ... specifically, that there was only a COLLECTIVE 'right', not an 'individual right' ... to keep and bear arms ... elaborated by the 2nd Amendment.

And I also know that, in effect, it was the SCOTUS's Heller decision (I believe around 2008) that actually finally 'officially' declared there's an 'individual right' to 'keep and bear arms', that exists outside the scope of 'militia membership'.

Prior to that point in time, it was entirely POSSIBLE for states to make laws declaring that only members of 'a well-regulated militia' have an absolutely guaranteed 'right' ... to keep and bear arms. How many DID so, I'm not certain, but I'd bet a fair number ... if you looked back over the whole history of the US.

[Marengo]

89. A majority of state constitutions enumerate the right to keep and bear arms to varying degrees...

Of specificity. Several use the word individual, whereas the major of the remainder use home, self, themselves, himself, etc. Speaking for myself, I'm not convinced the collective interpretation was the original intention and there is compelling evidence it is a fairly recent invention. The majority decision in Heller found it to be an individual right as you mentioned, which I believe is the correct interpretation, but as it was not unanimous the question is not entirely settled. I seriously doubt however that the fundamental question of individual vs. collective will revisited anytime soon.

[yallerdawg]

90. "Workin' 9 to 5..."

What a way to make a livin'!"

See ya next shift!

[Marengo]

94. Hey, where's that link or cite I asked for to back up your claim that I support "unconditional...

Gun sales"?

[mr_lebowski]

92. 'Collective' right is not at all a 'recent invention', it's the 'individual' that's the recent one

The Collective interpretation was considered 'settled law' til the NRA started backing challenges to it in the 1960's.

For example, one of the most prominent cases in the 1930's wrt the 2A was a matter wherein a state prosecuted someone for possessing a sawed-off shotgun, the ownership of which was banned, probably because they were a favorite tool of the Al Capone types of the world at the time. I could look up the case name but don't really feel like it, you're likely familiar anyways.

So, the argument against guilt was along the lines of 'the 2A doesn't allow the State to ban sawed-off shotgun ownership', but the State (forget which one ... Illinois maybe?) argued that it did, on grounds that a sawed-off shotgun was not a militarily useful type of firearm, hence NOT suitable for usage in the man's function as part of the 'militia' as enumerated in the 2A. Therefore they COULD be banned. And the State ... WON.

I may have some details wrong but that was the gist. IOW, the 'militia' aspect of the 2A was very much a part of the calculus in prosecutions, court decisions, and creation of laws around gun ownership, pretty much throughout our history ... until fairly recently.

Pretty sure that 1930's decision I refer to was considered precedent-setting ... but then cases that cropped up in the 60's, backed by the NRA ... who wanted (in order to make the gun mfg's more blood money) a decision re: the 2nd saying it grants an individual right to gun ownership ... and it took them until Heller in 2008 to actually do so ... this is my understanding anyway.

[Marengo]

93. US v Miller, and the case examined only the issue of whether or not the firearm could be...

Considered as suitable for militia use and therefore protected by the Constitution. It did not examine the scope or content of the right beyond that and did not draw any conclusions as to which interpretation, collective or individual, is correct. The opinion of the court was that the firearm in question was not protected as it was not deemed suitable, but this doesn't rise to the level of affirming the collective interpretation. Neither of the two defendants were members of a militia, and there was no argument as to whether or not they had a right to possess a firearm, only what type. The case always seemed rather shady to me at any rate, as neither defendants or their council were present.

In regard to how the right was interpreted throughout American history, my impression from what I have read is that until the late 19th century it was largely regarded as an individual right with the collective interpretation gaining ground as a means to address certain social and political trends threatening the status quo.

[jmg257]

105. Since BARs were very much used by the military (BTW as were short barreled shotguns),

Do you think if Miller was carrying a BAR, as so many bad guys did back then, they would still be legal (not controlled) to own?

Declaring what weapons are legal based on their use by the military is a scary proposition...one in keeping with the intent of the 2nd for sure, but scary none the less.

[HAB911]

57. +++++++++++

[billh58]

60. There you go

reading the WHOLE sentence again. Don't you know that the second half of the sentence is the only part that Billy Bob needs to follow in order to shoot up road signs and blow away those gun-grabbers that piss him off?

You need to listen to Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, Alex Jones, and the rest of the guns-are-the-solution proponents in order to understand the TRUE meaning of the Second Amendment.

If necessary...

[Maraya1969]

18. I think you need a nap

[Orrex]

76. No, but Scalise voted against mental health restrictions on gun ownership

Scalise, like every other employee of the NRA, has acted to curtail any and all sensible gun restriction, so it's amazing to see those same NRA employees wailing and gnashing their teeth when someone shoots at an elected official in exactly the way that many in the GOP have been urging them to do.

[Demtexan]

17. What you said.

I agree.

They want guns everywhere and get angry when it happens to them.

Tough.

I am done with republicans.

I will save my pity innocent victims.

[HAB911]

23. +++++++++++

[Tracer]

28. Who was it that said ....

"one person's death is a tragedy, a thousand people's deaths are a statistic."

[inwiththenew]

29. They are public figures

Why do we have threads when celebrities die? On average 6k-7k people die each day in the US. Why don't we honor all of them?

[Joe941]

34. If you can't muster up sympathy...

I'd suggest there is a dark part of you in need of help.

[Maraya1969]

35. I find that people who have a need to quietly insert a negative comment about

another person's personality as a vague attempt to help or shine a light on, are just deceitful and full of their own hatred - toward self and others.

I suggest there is a dark part of you in need of help.

[amuse bouche]

52. I agree 100%

[HAB911]

56. "important" people are more important to some

[gilbert sullivan]

61. Millions of Democrats and Progressives have guns and support the 2nd Amendment.

So there is that...

[Scruffy1]

63. I'm with you on this one.

I despise all the gunhumpers. Guns have never solved anything.

[FoxNewsSucks]

68. I couldn't agree more. nt

[Alea]

91. Main stream media decides who matters

Can't blame gunners or grabbers for that.