Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we live in a city. A beautiful city. Do we have crime, yes. All cities do. Do people flock here to work, yes they do. If DC was such a hell scape, then why do Trump's wealthiest cabinet members live in DC. Hell, Stephen Miller lives in DC. If it was so dangerous you would think he'd live in VA. DC is one of the most educated cities in the country. Logic should tell you that people do not live in fear here.

The places with the most crime is seeing very few federal troops. Make that make sense.

Pro tip: “Beautiful” cities do not look up dish soap behind cages.

Y’all have been living with high levels of crime so long you don’t even see it anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well then you can kindly STFU about solving crime in DC since you are responsible for it.

Are you ignorant to the fact that Democrats routinely contribute to the demise of gun control legislation, or are you purposely being dishonest?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a really stupid way to think about it. No wonder the right is so completely
lost on the matter. There would be fewer crimes and the supply would dry up over time. I mean, how much of that NRA BS are you willing to chug?

Apparently math isn’t a strength of yours. There are 400,000,000+ guns in civilian hands. That’s the available inventory for criminals to steal.

As an aside, I’ll mention the pesky, but very real 2nd Amendment that would stand in the way of a ban.

Other than being completely delusional, your plan almost makes sense, in a detached from reality, mentally ill bag lady type of way.

Listen Cletus, we don’t have to have a complete ban. Australia doesn’t have a complete ban. The second amendment is already subject to restriction. Of course, it seems to have outlived its usefulness. There was this argument that we needed it to rise up to fight government tyranny, but it appears that the big tough boys have decided to just lube up and assume the position for government tyranny.

While I do appreciate your childlike view of the world, a better and more restrictive firearms purchase and ownership system would reduce the number of gun-related deaths. This is not arguable.

Being a pants pissing coward that needs to carry a gun everywhere isn’t a disability that we have cater to.

It must really bother you to know that you likely walk by a person carrying a gun at least once every day of your life.

Well then you can kindly STFU about solving crime in DC since you are responsible for it.

Apportion some blame to Obama and Biden for not ramming through substantive gun control when they had the chance.

Anonymous wrote:we live in a city. A beautiful city. Do we have crime, yes. All cities do. Do people flock here to work, yes they do. If DC was such a hell scape, then why do Trump's wealthiest cabinet members live in DC. Hell, Stephen Miller lives in DC. If it was so dangerous you would think he'd live in VA. DC is one of the most educated cities in the country. Logic should tell you that people do not live in fear here.

The places with the most crime is seeing very few federal troops. Make that make sense.

Anonymous wrote:Well then you can kindly STFU about solving crime in DC since you are responsible for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a really stupid way to think about it. No wonder the right is so completely
lost on the matter. There would be fewer crimes and the supply would dry up over time. I mean, how much of that NRA BS are you willing to chug?

Apparently math isn’t a strength of yours. There are 400,000,000+ guns in civilian hands. That’s the available inventory for criminals to steal.

As an aside, I’ll mention the pesky, but very real 2nd Amendment that would stand in the way of a ban.

Other than being completely delusional, your plan almost makes sense, in a detached from reality, mentally ill bag lady type of way.

Listen Cletus, we don’t have to have a complete ban. Australia doesn’t have a complete ban. The second amendment is already subject to restriction. Of course, it seems to have outlived its usefulness. There was this argument that we needed it to rise up to fight government tyranny, but it appears that the big tough boys have decided to just lube up and assume the position for government tyranny.

While I do appreciate your childlike view of the world, a better and more restrictive firearms purchase and ownership system would reduce the number of gun-related deaths. This is not arguable.

Being a pants pissing coward that needs to carry a gun everywhere isn’t a disability that we have cater to.

It must really bother you to know that you likely walk by a person carrying a gun at least once every day of your life.

Well then you can kindly STFU about solving crime in DC since you are responsible for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a really stupid way to think about it. No wonder the right is so completely
lost on the matter. There would be fewer crimes and the supply would dry up over time. I mean, how much of that NRA BS are you willing to chug?

Apparently math isn’t a strength of yours. There are 400,000,000+ guns in civilian hands. That’s the available inventory for criminals to steal.

As an aside, I’ll mention the pesky, but very real 2nd Amendment that would stand in the way of a ban.

Other than being completely delusional, your plan almost makes sense, in a detached from reality, mentally ill bag lady type of way.

Listen Cletus, we don’t have to have a complete ban. Australia doesn’t have a complete ban. The second amendment is already subject to restriction. Of course, it seems to have outlived its usefulness. There was this argument that we needed it to rise up to fight government tyranny, but it appears that the big tough boys have decided to just lube up and assume the position for government tyranny.

While I do appreciate your childlike view of the world, a better and more restrictive firearms purchase and ownership system would reduce the number of gun-related deaths. This is not arguable.

Being a pants pissing coward that needs to carry a gun everywhere isn’t a disability that we have cater to.

It must really bother you to know that you likely walk by a person carrying a gun at least once every day of your life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a really stupid way to think about it. No wonder the right is so completely
lost on the matter. There would be fewer crimes and the supply would dry up over time. I mean, how much of that NRA BS are you willing to chug?

Apparently math isn’t a strength of yours. There are 400,000,000+ guns in civilian hands. That’s the available inventory for criminals to steal.

As an aside, I’ll mention the pesky, but very real 2nd Amendment that would stand in the way of a ban.

Other than being completely delusional, your plan almost makes sense, in a detached from reality, mentally ill bag lady type of way.

Listen Cletus, we don’t have to have a complete ban. Australia doesn’t have a complete ban. The second amendment is already subject to restriction. Of course, it seems to have outlived its usefulness. There was this argument that we needed it to rise up to fight government tyranny, but it appears that the big tough boys have decided to just lube up and assume the position for government tyranny.

While I do appreciate your childlike view of the world, a better and more restrictive firearms purchase and ownership system would reduce the number of gun-related deaths. This is not arguable.

Being a pants pissing coward that needs to carry a gun everywhere isn’t a disability that we have cater to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s a really stupid way to think about it. No wonder the right is so completely
lost on the matter. There would be fewer crimes and the supply would dry up over time. I mean, how much of that NRA BS are you willing to chug?

Apparently math isn’t a strength of yours. There are 400,000,000+ guns in civilian hands. That’s the available inventory for criminals to steal.

As an aside, I’ll mention the pesky, but very real 2nd Amendment that would stand in the way of a ban.

Other than being completely delusional, your plan almost makes sense, in a detached from reality, mentally ill bag lady type of way.

Anonymous wrote:That’s a really stupid way to think about it. No wonder the right is so completely
lost on the matter. There would be fewer crimes and the supply would dry up over time. I mean, how much of that NRA BS are you willing to chug?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they should just … do gun control

Fifteen year old gangbangers don’t go through a background check to buy a gun on the street.

The guns on the street come from straw purchasers in states where it is easy, usually the South.

How can gun control prevent a straw purchase?

By banning guns so there are no guns to purchase, straw or otherwise. I am VERY tired of y’all playing dumb about this.

Yes. Because, of course, all the criminals are going to turn in their guns.

That’s a really stupid way to think about it. No wonder the right is so completely
lost on the matter. There would be fewer crimes and the supply would dry up over time. I mean, how much of that NRA BS are you willing to chug?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they should just … do gun control

Fifteen year old gangbangers don’t go through a background check to buy a gun on the street.

The guns on the street come from straw purchasers in states where it is easy, usually the South.

How can gun control prevent a straw purchase?

By banning guns so there are no guns to purchase, straw or otherwise. I am VERY tired of y’all playing dumb about this.

Yes. Because, of course, all the criminals are going to turn in their guns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they should just … do gun control

Fifteen year old gangbangers don’t go through a background check to buy a gun on the street.

The guns on the street come from straw purchasers in states where it is easy, usually the South.

How can gun control prevent a straw purchase?

By banning guns so there are no guns to purchase, straw or otherwise. I am VERY tired of y’all playing dumb about this.

Yes. Because, of course, all the criminals are going to turn in their guns.