Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It was said by Bernie in defense of him voting for the law that protects gun manufacturers. Hahanot the bogus hammer ploy again!So you DO think if someone hits another person over the head with a hammer it should be ok to sue the maker of the hammer?! Stab someone with a knife, sue the knife manufacturer...beat someone with a bat sue the bat maker....slap someone with a fish sue the guy who caught it?
"The president can rail all he wants."
WASHINGTON -- If Democrats really cared about gun violence, they would have done something about it when they were running Washington, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) charged Wednesday.
Boehner was responding to a question about whether or not Congress should reconsider barring the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from studying gun violence as a health issue, especially since Republicans have repeatedly argued that addressing mental illness is the way to prevent mass shootings.
Congress has been writing restrictions against such study since the late 1990s.
Boehner said the the topic has not come up in his talks.
"I don’t think there’s been any discussions at this point. It’s not been part of the discussions," he told reporters on Capitol Hill before expressing sympathy for the nine people killed and nine more wounded in last week's massacre in Roseburg, Oregon.
"We’ve seen far too many of these," Boehner said, before putting the onus on Democrats.
"In '09 and '10, we had Democrat majorities in the House and Senate. We had a Democrat president. And this clearly was not a priority for them. The president can rail all he wants," Boehner said, referring to President Barack Obama's angry denunciation last week of Congress' failure to address the issue.
More: Boehner Criticizes Democrats Over Mass Shootings
Boehner has a very "selective" memory. In fact, Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority (60 out of 100 votes) in the Senate for 133 days under President Obama - not two years.
FOX NEWS LIES: Obama only had a majority for 133 days, not two years
About That Filibuster Proof Majority
He's not gone. They haven't replaced him yet. He's staying for now. Can't get the votes for McCarthy."The president can rail all he wants."
WASHINGTON -- If Democrats really cared about gun violence, they would have done something about it when they were running Washington, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) charged Wednesday.
Boehner was responding to a question about whether or not Congress should reconsider barring the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from studying gun violence as a health issue, especially since Republicans have repeatedly argued that addressing mental illness is the way to prevent mass shootings.
Congress has been writing restrictions against such study since the late 1990s.
Boehner said the the topic has not come up in his talks.
"I don’t think there’s been any discussions at this point. It’s not been part of the discussions," he told reporters on Capitol Hill before expressing sympathy for the nine people killed and nine more wounded in last week's massacre in Roseburg, Oregon.
"We’ve seen far too many of these," Boehner said, before putting the onus on Democrats.
"In '09 and '10, we had Democrat majorities in the House and Senate. We had a Democrat president. And this clearly was not a priority for them. The president can rail all he wants," Boehner said, referring to President Barack Obama's angry denunciation last week of Congress' failure to address the issue.
More: Boehner Criticizes Democrats Over Mass Shootings
Boehner has a very "selective" memory. In fact, Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority (60 out of 100 votes) in the Senate for 133 days under President Obama - not two years.
FOX NEWS LIES: Obama only had a majority for 133 days, not two years
About That Filibuster Proof Majority
Once again a reminder why it's great boner is gone
1: Background checks will not stop people who are legally able to own a gun from getting one. A " clinically diagnosed violent psychopaths" is legally able to own a gun unless his right to do so has been removed by due process -- an action involving a judge.acting in accordance with legislation -- and so, absent that removal, a background check will do nothing to prevent him from getting a gun.When a democrat says "I want to have tighter background checks so that it's harder for clinically diagnosed violent psychopaths to get a gun" your job is to say Obama is coming to your home to kill grandma.
I will support any and every gun control law that prevents criminals from getting guns and doe sot infringe on the rightsof the law abiding. You find, one, let me know.The point is to scare low-information voters to the point where it is impossible to discuss the kinds of mild oversight that even Reagan favored.
BS. Whenever they feel politically safe in doing do, Democrat lawmakers further restrict the right of the law abiding to keep and bear arms.Secondly, you have nothing to fear from Democratic politicians, who have nothing to gain by changing the status quo. They merely pay lip service to gun control in order to appease their base
An unsupportable claimThe issue will never change. The USA will continue to be a place where lax gun laws result in more deaths...
You can't get background checks into a persons mental stability. Fourth amendment right to privacy. You need a warrant to check into someone's mental health.The type of weapon matters. Guns make it much easier (than say knives) to kill large numbers of people.
This is why we're more concerned with Iran having a nuclear bomb than knife.
But this is all besides the point.
Here is the point.
When a democrat says "I want to have tighter background checks so that it's harder for clinically diagnosed violent psychopaths to get a gun" your job is to say Obama is coming to your home to kill grandma. The point is to scare low-information voters to the point where it is impossible to discuss the kinds of mild oversight that even Reagan favored.
Secondly, you have nothing to fear from Democratic politicians, who have nothing to gain by changing the status quo. They merely pay lip service to gun control in order to appease their base. The issue will never change. The USA will continue to be a place where lax gun laws result in more deaths than Bin Laden could ever dream of.
(wow, just wow)
I do, one asshole is one too many.In 20 years and MILLIONS of concealed carry and you think you have a point? Retard much?Bystanders Panic As Woman Opens Fire At Fleeing Home Depot Shoplifters
Shoplifters
by Colin Taylor • October 7, 2015
SHARETWEET
The dangerous consequences of having a heavily armed civilian population was put on full display early afternoon on Wednesday, when a woman pulled out a concealed pistol and began firing at alleged shoplifters as they drove out of the parking lot of a Home Depot in Auburn Hills, Michigan. Police are considering whether or not to charge her with anything.
The woman, 47, had a concealed carry permit and a legal weapon, but the problems arising from this are obvious. First of all, it was not her place to take the law into her own hands to stop thieves committing minor theft. Secondly, when did the crime of minor theft carry the death penalty, to be dispensed by any random passerby in the name of corporate America? Where is justice? The vigilantism that the mass proliferation of concealed weapons inspires causes much more harm than good- like when a “good guy with a gun” tried to stop a carjacking and shot the victim in the head by accident.
It’s bad enough that our actual police forces feel like they have the right to summarily execute African-American suspects for being “threatening.” We cannot allow random civilians to go firing off semiautomatic weapons in a parking lot. This woman could have accidentally shot a child, a family, or caused property damage to other people’s vehicles just because she felt like the best way to stop a shoplifter was to kill him.
the number of times something does not happen is no excuse, or rationalization for the times that it does.
if it was a plane crash you'd be talking out your other ass.
So comparing our right to arms is not the same as comparing it our right to vote? be specific why is it different?false comparison ,but you just had to say something.So we need ID for voting right? I mean you just said one time is to many, RIGHT?I do, one asshole is one too many.In 20 years and MILLIONS of concealed carry and you think you have a point? Retard much?Bystanders Panic As Woman Opens Fire At Fleeing Home Depot Shoplifters
Shoplifters
by Colin Taylor • October 7, 2015
SHARETWEET
The dangerous consequences of having a heavily armed civilian population was put on full display early afternoon on Wednesday, when a woman pulled out a concealed pistol and began firing at alleged shoplifters as they drove out of the parking lot of a Home Depot in Auburn Hills, Michigan. Police are considering whether or not to charge her with anything.
The woman, 47, had a concealed carry permit and a legal weapon, but the problems arising from this are obvious. First of all, it was not her place to take the law into her own hands to stop thieves committing minor theft. Secondly, when did the crime of minor theft carry the death penalty, to be dispensed by any random passerby in the name of corporate America? Where is justice? The vigilantism that the mass proliferation of concealed weapons inspires causes much more harm than good- like when a “good guy with a gun” tried to stop a carjacking and shot the victim in the head by accident.
It’s bad enough that our actual police forces feel like they have the right to summarily execute African-American suspects for being “threatening.” We cannot allow random civilians to go firing off semiautomatic weapons in a parking lot. This woman could have accidentally shot a child, a family, or caused property damage to other people’s vehicles just because she felt like the best way to stop a shoplifter was to kill him.
the number of times something does not happen is no excuse, or rationalization for the times that it does.
if it was a plane crash you'd be talking out your other ass.
When a million instance of people protecting themselves occur - you are damn right that one instance is not a valid argument against being able to arm yourself. One instance where you cant even establish anyone was injured.I do, one asshole is one too many.In 20 years and MILLIONS of concealed carry and you think you have a point? Retard much?Bystanders Panic As Woman Opens Fire At Fleeing Home Depot Shoplifters
Shoplifters
by Colin Taylor • October 7, 2015
SHARETWEET
The dangerous consequences of having a heavily armed civilian population was put on full display early afternoon on Wednesday, when a woman pulled out a concealed pistol and began firing at alleged shoplifters as they drove out of the parking lot of a Home Depot in Auburn Hills, Michigan. Police are considering whether or not to charge her with anything.
The woman, 47, had a concealed carry permit and a legal weapon, but the problems arising from this are obvious. First of all, it was not her place to take the law into her own hands to stop thieves committing minor theft. Secondly, when did the crime of minor theft carry the death penalty, to be dispensed by any random passerby in the name of corporate America? Where is justice? The vigilantism that the mass proliferation of concealed weapons inspires causes much more harm than good- like when a “good guy with a gun” tried to stop a carjacking and shot the victim in the head by accident.
It’s bad enough that our actual police forces feel like they have the right to summarily execute African-American suspects for being “threatening.” We cannot allow random civilians to go firing off semiautomatic weapons in a parking lot. This woman could have accidentally shot a child, a family, or caused property damage to other people’s vehicles just because she felt like the best way to stop a shoplifter was to kill him.
the number of times something does not happen is no excuse, or rationalization for the times that it does.
if it was a plane crash you'd be talking out your other ass.
He's not gone. They haven't replaced him yet. He's staying for now. Can't get the votes for McCarthy."The president can rail all he wants."
WASHINGTON -- If Democrats really cared about gun violence, they would have done something about it when they were running Washington, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) charged Wednesday.
Boehner was responding to a question about whether or not Congress should reconsider barring the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from studying gun violence as a health issue, especially since Republicans have repeatedly argued that addressing mental illness is the way to prevent mass shootings.
Congress has been writing restrictions against such study since the late 1990s.
Boehner said the the topic has not come up in his talks.
"I don’t think there’s been any discussions at this point. It’s not been part of the discussions," he told reporters on Capitol Hill before expressing sympathy for the nine people killed and nine more wounded in last week's massacre in Roseburg, Oregon.
"We’ve seen far too many of these," Boehner said, before putting the onus on Democrats.
"In '09 and '10, we had Democrat majorities in the House and Senate. We had a Democrat president. And this clearly was not a priority for them. The president can rail all he wants," Boehner said, referring to President Barack Obama's angry denunciation last week of Congress' failure to address the issue.
More: Boehner Criticizes Democrats Over Mass Shootings
Boehner has a very "selective" memory. In fact, Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority (60 out of 100 votes) in the Senate for 133 days under President Obama - not two years.
FOX NEWS LIES: Obama only had a majority for 133 days, not two years
About That Filibuster Proof Majority
Once again a reminder why it's great boner is gone
