No Holds Barred

by **Ziner** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:39 am

isn't that what I am supposed to take away?

Just checking.

by **Triple-S** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:14 pm

I just thought that was amusing, like within seconds, olbermann and co. are all out in full force claiming it's beck's/palin's/o'reilly's fault.

How exactly? The guy whom shot up the place listed as one of his favorite books on his youtube profile as "The communist manifesto". You see any teabagger having that in their library? let alone listing it as their "favorite" of anything. Dude volunteered for Kerry in 04 too and was a pothead. Last I check the far right is very much against the legalization of marijuana. He also DESPISED the bush administration, and from his classmates words rambled on about that.

typical though, they have to find a scapegoat. Like the columbine kids, the guys who killed themselves listening to judas priest, etc. It can't just be a common sense answer like "Well, they were whackjobs", or "no one else was paying attention to them". Nope.

And shame on them for trying to politicize such a thing and further their stupid agenda. 6 PEOPLE DIED and yet I havn't heard one damn peep about it, it's all about trying to blame someone for this, and not about mourning the loss of this tragedy and making sure this scumbag ever sees natural sunlight for the rest of his life.

by **GodHatesClevelandSport** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:44 pm

Since the nutjob wasn't following Palin's wishes, it's OK for Palin, Angle, et al, to continue with their gun imagery directed toward their political opponents. Ramp up the rhetoric!

That is all.

by **Triple-S** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:48 pm

GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:Since the nutjob wasn't following Palin's wishes, it's OK for Palin, Angle, et al, to continue with their gun imagery directed toward their political opponents. Ramp up the rhetoric!

That is all.

When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"—it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop

by **gotribe31** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:55 pm

When the left finally admits that Ft. Hood was an act of Islamic terrorism, then we can talk about whether a pothead who hated Bush and volunteered for the Kerry campaign committed an act of conservative terrorism (spoiler alert: he didn't). Until then, I refuse to even have an "argument."

It would be like talking about Schumur as the next head coach with someone who is arguing for Romeo Crenell to keep his job.

by **Ziner** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:00 pm

GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:Since the nutjob wasn't following Palin's wishes, it's OK for Palin, Angle, et al, to continue with their gun imagery directed toward their political opponents. Ramp up the rhetoric!

That is all.

Surely a map with frowning faces instead of gun sights would have prevented this tragedy.

The only issue with the rhetoric is that is prevents real things from being done and people could probably work together if they didn't have to defend their compromises to their bases, not that it incites violence.

Any violence that occurs because of any of the rhetoric should be blamed directly on the mentally deranged idiot that thinks murdering a 9-year old is something that should be done, no one else.

by **gotribe31** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:09 pm

Ziner wrote:
GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:Since the nutjob wasn't following Palin's wishes, it's OK for Palin, Angle, et al, to continue with their gun imagery directed toward their political opponents. Ramp up the rhetoric!

That is all.

Surely a map with frowning faces instead of gun sights would have prevented this tragedy.

The only issue with the rhetoric is that is prevents real things from being done and people could probably work together if they didn't have to defend their compromises to their bases, not that it incites violence.

Any violence that occurs because of any of the rhetoric should be blamed directly on the mentally deranged idiot that thinks murdering a 9-year old is something that should be done, no one else.

Maybe he listend to rock music. Or played video games. Clearly its someones fault besides the person who actually did it.

Pass the buck, pass the blame. The liberal way. Complete lack of personal responsibility and accountability. Why do something yourself when you can get the government to do it for you in twice the time and for 10 times the cost?

by **GodHatesClevelandSport** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:10 pm

I understand. You believe politicians should ramp up their rhetoric and continue with their murder analogies while campaigning. Understood.

by **gotribe31** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:12 pm

GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:I understand. You believe politicians should ramp up their rhetoric and continue with their murder analogies while campaigning. Understood.

Yup, thats exactly what we are saying. Carry on.

by **Ziner** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:19 pm

GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:I understand. You believe politicians should ramp up their rhetoric and continue with their murder analogies while campaigning. Understood.

I don't give a shit what they do as long as they don't screw things up worse. They can say what they want on campaigns, any use of the word reload, battle or sights during a campaign is figurative not literal. Anyone who takes it literally is a moron.

by **GodHatesClevelandSport** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:26 pm

Ziner wrote:
GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:I understand. You believe politicians should ramp up their rhetoric and continue with their murder analogies while campaigning. Understood.

I don't give a shit what they do as long as they don't screw things up worse. They can say what they want on campaigns, any use of the word reload, battle or sights during a campaign is figurative not literal. Anyone who takes it literally is a moron.

Unfortunately, there are many morons.

I believe our politicians should be leaders. Those with national platforms need to stand up and speak out against this nonsense.

Sadly, we've been lacking in political leadership for some time. Especially in Ohio.

by **Ziner** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:01 pm

Does anyone see the irony of the debate started over rhetoric and the use of words when this kid's question to Giffords three years ago was

"What's government if words don't have meaning?"

Not even sure what to think about it or how to lay it out in my head, but certainly interesting.

by **Cerebral_DownTime** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:19 pm

There is no one to blame but the person who pulled the trigger. You cannot stop crazy people from doing crazy things.

by **Erie Warrior** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:41 pm

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:There is no one to blame but the person who pulled the trigger. You cannot stop crazy people from doing crazy things.

But we could outlaw handguns, you Heston-loving, gun-toting vigilante. Easier to see a gun walking in with a shotty/rifle than a Glock.

by **Cerebral_DownTime** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:43 pm

Erie Warrior wrote:
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:There is no one to blame but the person who pulled the trigger. You cannot stop crazy people from doing crazy things.

But we could outlaw handguns, you Heston-loving, gun-toting vigilante. Easier to see a gun walking in with a shotty/rifle than a Glock.

Yes. We could do that. Or we could not be reduced to sniveling panic mongers because one nutjob who was pissed because daddy didn't hug him enough.

by **Ziner** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:50 pm

Erie Warrior wrote:
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:There is no one to blame but the person who pulled the trigger. You cannot stop crazy people from doing crazy things.

But we could outlaw handguns, you Heston-loving, gun-toting vigilante. Easier to see a gun walking in with a shotty/rifle than a Glock.

Yeah, just like Chicago, handguns are illegal there and they haven't had a single handgun related death since enacted.

by **Cerebral_DownTime** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:56 pm

How can you ban handguns? What right does a city have to tell me, a responsible gun owner, how I can protect myself?

Banning handguns doesn't change anything. Criminals don't get guns from gunshops, they get them illegaly.......because they're fucking criminals.

by **Ziner** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:03 pm

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:How can you ban handguns? What right does a city have to tell me, a responsible gun owner, how I can protect myself?

Banning handguns doesn't change anything. Criminals don't get guns from gunshops, they get them illegaly.......because they're fucking criminals.

It was recently overturned by the SCOTUS, but it was in effect for 28 years. I believe they went from not allowing it to making it extremely expensive and a huge pain in the ass.

They did it because the 2nd amendment is not applicable in Chicago... clearly.

by **exiledbuckeye** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:14 pm

Triple-S wrote:The guy whom shot up the place listed as one of his favorite books on his youtube profile as "The communist manifesto".

He also listed Ayn Rand's We the Living as a favorite. He's not leftwing or rightwing...he's just fucking nuts.

by **Ziner** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:27 pm

Nancy Pelosi and friends are not going to like this

http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-heath-shu ... 4076.story

ASHEVILLE, N.C. (AP) — A North Carolina congressman says he'll carry a gun when he attends public events in his district's mountain communities after last weekend's assassination attempt on one of his colleagues.

U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler tells WLOS-TV he'll pack heat for self-protection after the shooting of fellow Democrat Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona.

The Waynesville lawmaker says he's carried a concealed weapon periodically since someone made a serious threat on his life in 2009.

But Shuler says he'll now make it a practice to carry the permitted handgun when he is away from Capitol Hill, where lawmakers rely on Capitol Police for security.

Shuler says his staff members have also gone through the training and background checks needed for the legal permit to carry concealed handguns.

by **Erie Warrior** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:27 pm

Cerebral_DownTime wrote: Criminals don't get guns from gunshops, they get them illegaly.......because they're fucking criminals.

At one point they were purchased legally. If you get rid of them all, then it becomes much more difficult to steal them in the first place. If the numbers Ziner was quoting from Chicago are correct, seems like pretty solid evidence to me.

I'm just stirring the pot. Bad things will always happen, but we can reduce the chances in most cases.

Really, what else does someone need a handgun for but to conceal it and shoot people?

by **Ziner** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:52 pm

Erie Warrior wrote:
Cerebral_DownTime wrote: Criminals don't get guns from gunshops, they get them illegaly.......because they're fucking criminals.

At one point they were purchased legally. If you get rid of them all, then it becomes much more difficult to steal them in the first place. If the numbers Ziner was quoting from Chicago are correct, seems like pretty solid evidence to me.

I'm just stirring the pot. Bad things will always happen, but we can reduce the chances in most cases.

Really, what else does someone need a handgun for but to conceal it and shoot people?

Haha, I was being a jackass. Chicago's murder rate is 15.6 per 100,000, LA is 13.4 per 100K and NYC is 7 per 100K. Sorry I should have thrown in an emoticon or something to show my sarcasm.

While not the highest, Chicago is certainly up there even after 28 years of prohibiting handguns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... crime_rate

Are you serious with the last comment? My dad is finally getting around to bringing the handgun he got for me out in a few months. I couldn't have it in Chicago when be bought it, but I am certainly excited to have it and take it out to the range and shoot it. No real intentions to conceal it and certainly none to shoot someone. When not in use it will be locked up...though probably in my nightstand.

by **FUDU** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:20 pm

Erie Warrior wrote:
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:There is no one to blame but the person who pulled the trigger. You cannot stop crazy people from doing crazy things.

But we could outlaw handguns, you Heston-loving, gun-toting vigilante. Easier to see a gun walking in with a shotty/rifle than a Glock.

Banning handguns wouldn't prevent this type of person from accomplishing their goal. The fact of the matter is the guy has some legit mental issues, you might say he is crazy, crazy people are not stopped by these absurd boundaries and limits that a handgun banning would implement. I don't mean to sound cold or unsympathetic to the innocent victims here but maybe we should be glad he could get his hands on a gun, b/c if he couldn't it is scary to think of what alternatives he might have used (and how many more victims there might be). Banning handguns would make it more difficult for people like you and I to commit a crime like this, but people like you and I don't commit crimes like this 99.99% of the time.

So Erie, with all do respect, keep things in the correct context.

by **FUDU** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:23 pm

Erie Warrior wrote:Really, what else does someone need a handgun for but to conceal it and shoot people?

To also reveal it and shoot people, when they enter a home or try to take somebody's stuff.

by **Erie Warrior** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:05 pm

Ziner wrote: Are you serious with the last comment?

I mostly trying to get a rise out of you guys, but I am serious about the last comment. I see no reason for the average citizen to have a handgun.

I know that banning them wouldn't stop it from happening. I said that.

I'm of the opinion that if you want to stop people from coming into your house at night, get an alarm system and some dogs. In fact, keep a loaded shotgun leaning up in the corner if it makes you sleep better at night.

We've hashed this out a few times before, so I won't go into a diatribe on the subject. It's just a real bad thing that happened, and while not caused by handguns, they certainly played an integral part.

by **Ziner** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:53 pm

Handguns are fun to shoot, have you ever shot one? Find a range, you can most likely rent one there, give it a try. Something very cool about it even shooting at a stationary bullseye.

I do believe that a shotgun is probably a better home defense tool other than that fact you cant slip it in to a drawer. For some reason my wife is against just leaving my shotgun in the corner of our bedroom... guess it messes with the feng shui or something.

I will tell you another use that I plan for my gun. Ever hike in the rocky mountains? A few stories about bears or mountain lions will make you much more cautious. Can't hardly hike with a shotgun on my hip.

by **Fire Marshall Bill** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:54 pm

lol

CDT is a rookie

Imagine the carnage if one of these bitches is used

There's at least 100 rounds in the first one.....

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. ... ent=188154

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos. ... ent=216081

Scary, eh?

by **Erie Warrior** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:02 pm

Ziner wrote:I will tell you another use that I plan for my gun. Ever hike in the rocky mountains? A few stories about bears or mountain lions will make you much more cautious. Can't hardly hike with a shotgun on my hip.

How about a cow bell and some bear mace? Or a .30-.30 on a sling? I get it, I really do. I like guns too, but the cons seem to outweigh the pros for me.

FMB, that full auto pistol is some kinda sweet.

by **FUDU** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:07 pm

357 is faster than 911

by **Fire Marshall Bill** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:11 pm

Hit a bear with a shotgun and yir just gonna piss him off

That kind of hike screams Winchester & .44 magnum

by **Cerebral_DownTime** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:40 pm

Anyone who shoots an animal from a helicopter is a stupid cunt. So Sarah Palin is a stupid cunt.

And the reason I want to own a handgun is because I love to target shoot and I have the right to.

If someone breaks into my house i'd rather fire a 9mm at him than a .308, i'd really prefer not to kill my neighbor because a high caliber rifle round went through my wall like a hot knife thru butter.

How many people are killed by people who can't drive for shit? Well i'd bet if we banned cars DUI and other car related deaths would drop.

by **Erie Warrior** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:12 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/201101 ... co/47477_1

Who writes her stuff, Bush? And some of you humps want her as president.

by **leadpipe** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:38 pm

Erie Warrior wrote:
Ziner wrote: Are you serious with the last comment?

I mostly trying to get a rise out of you guys, but I am serious about the last comment. I see no reason for the average citizen to have a handgun.

I know that banning them wouldn't stop it from happening. I said that.

I'm of the opinion that if you want to stop people from coming into your house at night, get an alarm system and some dogs. In fact, keep a loaded shotgun leaning up in the corner if it makes you sleep better at night.

We've hashed this out a few times before, so I won't go into a diatribe on the subject. It's just a real bad thing that happened, and while not caused by handguns, they certainly played an integral part.

If everyone was an average citzen, I might buy into that argument.

But each and every day there are many more people who are not "average citizens"

The right to protect yourself, protect who you love and protect what you work for....that onus on the individual at an ever increasing rate.

It's better to be proactive in dealing with those that have no value for life.

by **Orenthal** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:01 pm

I'm not a Moderate Republican, but a full out Neo-Con Conservative Hack and I hate Palin. If she runs against Obama I just can't vote. I'm going Robert Redford did on Bush winning a second term.

The elites are right on this one... She is a moron, and a populist of the moment. Her and Beck should be much less "seen". <-Keeping down that rhetoric and hyperbole in case that Arizona Sheriff is watching...

by **Cerebral_DownTime** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:53 pm

The media has just taken this shit to a whole new low (if that's possible). They need to blame someone, my suggestion would be the prick that pulled the trigger. He fired 31 shots that either means he re-loaded or he had the super extended mag.

This nutjub was all over the political map, blaming one side for it is pretty stupid.

Crazy people do crazy shit.

by **Ziner** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:38 am

The thread clearly states that Sarah Palin shot the congresswoman. That is what was told to me by Olbermann, Thom Hartman, and Chris Matthews.

I was listening to some liberal talk radio from my way back skiing today (I am also a cutter) and it was hilarious to hear how delusional these people are. Every god damn thing they try to put on Limbaugh and Palin's lap was the same damn thing they were doing. This doesnt even include the host's being completely incorrect on some facts and continually presenting them as truth (The judge wasn't jewish) or the callers who bring up the most randomly absurd things and present them as facts and they run with them. I used to at least have the perception that on the whole the far left made the argument more intelligently than the far right, but today was nothing but gutter radio as have been the majority of the left pundits for since the shooting.

Rhetoric doesn't kill, crosshairs don't kill, guns don't kill, Jared Loughner killed.

by **Cerebral_DownTime** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Pawlenty is on The Daily Show tonight, if anyone is interested.

by **Ziner** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:09 am

In class or I would be... might be able to catch it with this bullshit mountain standard time that I hate virtually anytime I want to watch a sporting event live.

I did catch Stewarts Monologue on the whole situation, kinda pathetic when one of the most reasoned response comes from Comedy Central.

by **Erie Warrior** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:15 am

Ziner wrote:I did catch Stewarts Monologue on the whole situation, kinda pathetic when one of the most reasoned response comes from Comedy Central.

Where have you been, it's been like that for almost a decade now.

by **Ziner** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:46 am

Erie Warrior wrote:
Ziner wrote:I did catch Stewarts Monologue on the whole situation, kinda pathetic when one of the most reasoned response comes from Comedy Central.

Where have you been, it's been like that for almost a decade now.

Hardly ever watch the show, not really sure why, I like him. I do usually check out his opinion on during the big political current events.

by **exiledbuckeye** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:12 pm

Ziner wrote:The thread clearly states that Sarah Palin shot the congresswoman. That is what was told to me by Olbermann, Thom Hartman, and Chris Matthews.

No one would believe this unless the congresswoman was wearing antlers.

by **Ziner** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:31 pm

exiledbuckeye wrote:
Ziner wrote:The thread clearly states that Sarah Palin shot the congresswoman. That is what was told to me by Olbermann, Thom Hartman, and Chris Matthews.

No one would believe this unless the congresswoman was wearing antlers.

Now THAT would be a story.

by **danwismar** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:59 pm

From listening to lefty commentators like Paul Krugman, George Packer, and Jonathan Chait among others, you'd think the "incivility" they lament began on 1/20/09.

Memories are short, and denial ain't just a river in Egypt, however.

Set aside for now the fact that the most prominent liberal blogger in the world, Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) used identical target images on his website (even targeting Giffords' district as one of his targets (she's too moderate a Dem to suit him), and that the DLC used the same exact map with crosshairs image on their website. (Both have removed those images since the AZ shooting, but we have screenshots of them). No one on the right that I'm aware of has been twisted enough to blame them for the AZ shootings. But it is evidence of their mind-numbing hypocrisy, their selective outrage, and their disgusting exploitation of tragedy, and so is worth noting.

It is amazing that these folks can express outrage over the ubiquitous martial references in political language (battleground states...targeted districts...campaigns) and twist them into incitements to violence to score political points before the bodies are even cold....but somehow, the very real, actual incitements to violence that were all the rage from 2000-2008 are washed down the memory hole, failing as they do to support the preferred leftist narrative of conservatives as haters.

Could you imagine, for example, a feature film getting wide national release (143 theaters) fantasizing about the assassination of our current president? Or dozens of signs at political protest events in America calling explicitly for him to be killed? Or photos and bumper stickers depicting Obama with his head in a noose? Or mock-ups of a guillotine, with Obama's severed head in a basket?

Right...it's almost unimaginable, and it hasn't happened.

But these two links should serve to refresh the memory. Remember the outrage from Paul Krugman at the time? Me neither.

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/th ... 2000-2010/

http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death ... sts-i.html

Somehow no conservative has pointed to these many many explicit expressions of leftist hatred and unmistakable incitement to violence to suggest they inspired the AZ shooter. Because that would be stupid and illogical. He looks to be a classic case of paranoid schizophrenia. To the extent he has a political ideology, it is incoherent.

But to proclaim, as Krugman and others have done, that the climate of violence has been fed "overwhelmingly from the right" is a demonstrable and/or delusional lie.

Where, I would ask, is the conservative counterpart to the open hatred and calls for direct violence to political leaders demonstrated at those two links?

by **Cerebral_DownTime** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:31 pm

I do love the notion that Palin keeps using the phrase "blood libel", implying that she has any clue whatsoever as he origins of that phrase is.

Where, I would ask, is the conservative counterpart to the open hatred and calls for direct violence to political leaders demonstrated at those two links?

Do you really want to do the "he said, she said" bullshit? Do you want to go down that road? I can dig up link after link of violent rhetoric used by the Right......... But it has nothing to with this incident. And you're saying a Michell Malkin site doesn't have pictures of some of the awful signs carried at every Tea Party rally? NO EFFIN WAY!

Just who are you trying to convince?

You're only repsonse is to point the finger just like those you denounce. Instead both parties should admit they say piles of stupid shit and try to tone it down.

I get the feeling that Republicans want to be blamed so they can play the victim.

by **Cease** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:46 pm

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I get the feeling that Republicans want to be blamed so they can play the victim.

DING DING DING!

Actually, I'd take it back a step and say Republican honks want to be blamed... And Democrat honks play along, suppling the insinuation of the forbidden thought, just to shine in the light of controversy.

The honks take turns. It's the oldest play in the book. It's shameless, but unfortunately it works.

by **danwismar** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:31 pm

It was media voices from the left blaming the shootings on the rhetoric of the right, not the other way around...and I didn't engage in any of that in tit-for-tat fashion. I think we'll see it die down after Obama's fine and proper speech last night...and after conservatives stood up and showed how incoherent and unfounded the charge was.

I stand by my point that when it comes to violent rhetoric and incitement to violence against political leaders, the political left takes a back seat to no one...in terms of volume and in terms of degree. I believe I have demonstrated that, and that's all I wanted to do.

"I am only one, but I am one...."

by **hermanfontenot** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:58 pm

It's kind of funny that Sarah Palin gets accused of fostering a "climate of hate" considering some of the unbelievably vile, vicious and yes, hateful things that have been directed at her since she came onto the scene.

I get the feeling there are some on one side of the spectrum who believe anyone who says anything they disagree with is fostering a "climate of hate."

by **Cerebral_DownTime** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:50 pm

And the reactionaries in Congress are already at full force.

In response to Saturday's shooting spree in Tucscon, Rep. Peter King (R, N.Y.) has announced that he's planning on introducing legislation to make it illegal for American citizens to knowingly carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rep ... 33495.html

Define "Knowingly".

And some other dingbat wants to make it illegal to use crosshairs on members of congress in posters or pictures. I belive the guy backing that is a Dem.

by **FUDU** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:39 am

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:And the reactionaries in Congress are already at full force.

In response to Saturday's shooting spree in Tucscon, Rep. Peter King (R, N.Y.) has announced that he's planning on introducing legislation to make it illegal for American citizens to knowingly carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rep ... 33495.html

Define "Knowingly".

And some other dingbat wants to make it illegal to use crosshairs on members of congress in posters or pictures. I belive the guy backing that is a Dem.

...and people wonder where the us verse them mentality comes from.

It isn't even funny how far apart our two worlds are.

by **motherscratcher** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:29 am

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:And the reactionaries in Congress are already at full force.

In response to Saturday's shooting spree in Tucscon, Rep. Peter King (R, N.Y.) has announced that he's planning on introducing legislation to make it illegal for American citizens to knowingly carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rep ... 33495.html

Define "Knowingly".

And some other dingbat wants to make it illegal to use crosshairs on members of congress in posters or pictures. I belive the guy backing that is a Dem.

Shit, that's a hell of an idea. If they'd have thought of it sooner this whole tragedy could have been prevented. If it had been illegal to get within 1000 feet of the congresswoman, that batshit crazy asshole who shot the place up would have never been able to get close enough to begin with. I mean, it would have been illegal, so there's no way he could do it. Right?

No Holds Barred

Who is online

Who is online