Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you people arguing for the status quo sound insane. moreover, you sound like losers who are going to find themselves out of office as soon as these kids come of age.

but please, by all means, keep on shouting. keep on being unreasonable. keep on not listening.

your assh*le in chief goes to nightclubs while kids go to funerals. you've read about marie antoinette, i assume?

I don't get the reference, or the meaning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you people arguing for the status quo sound insane. moreover, you sound like losers who are going to find themselves out of office as soon as these kids come of age.

but please, by all means, keep on shouting. keep on being unreasonable. keep on not listening.

your assh*le in chief goes to nightclubs while kids go to funerals. you've read about marie antoinette, i assume?

I don't get the reference, or the meaning.

There is an out of touch government that is focused on its own comfort and pleasure, and this will be its downfall. I thought the reference was pretty clear.

When I looked at Hillary, I saw someone who could walk on kittens to keep her shoes from getting muddy. Her whole campaign was "I'm with Her." Yeah, that's great. Trump's was making America great, not having people worship him. And since he's been in office that's what he's been doing, putting ordinary Americans first instead of taking orders from Citibank:
https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton

Trump isn't out of touch, you are. You can't understand why there are 400 million guns in this country. It's unfathomable to you. Or why people voted for a guy who said he was going to put them first. That's out of touch.

Okey doke. Well I guess we'll see whose interpretation of the current situation is right, in November!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you people arguing for the status quo sound insane. moreover, you sound like losers who are going to find themselves out of office as soon as these kids come of age.

but please, by all means, keep on shouting. keep on being unreasonable. keep on not listening.

your assh*le in chief goes to nightclubs while kids go to funerals. you've read about marie antoinette, i assume?

I don't get the reference, or the meaning.

There is an out of touch government that is focused on its own comfort and pleasure, and this will be its downfall. I thought the reference was pretty clear.

When I looked at Hillary, I saw someone who could walk on kittens to keep her shoes from getting muddy. Her whole campaign was "I'm with Her." Yeah, that's great. Trump's was making America great, not having people worship him. And since he's been in office that's what he's been doing, putting ordinary Americans first instead of taking orders from Citibank:
https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton

Trump isn't out of touch, you are. You can't understand why there are 400 million guns in this country. It's unfathomable to you. Or why people voted for a guy who said he was going to put them first. That's out of touch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you people arguing for the status quo sound insane. moreover, you sound like losers who are going to find themselves out of office as soon as these kids come of age.

but please, by all means, keep on shouting. keep on being unreasonable. keep on not listening.

your assh*le in chief goes to nightclubs while kids go to funerals. you've read about marie antoinette, i assume?

I don't get the reference, or the meaning.

There is an out of touch government that is focused on its own comfort and pleasure, and this will be its downfall. I thought the reference was pretty clear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you people arguing for the status quo sound insane. moreover, you sound like losers who are going to find themselves out of office as soon as these kids come of age.

but please, by all means, keep on shouting. keep on being unreasonable. keep on not listening.

your assh*le in chief goes to nightclubs while kids go to funerals. you've read about marie antoinette, i assume?

I don't get the reference, or the meaning.

Anonymous wrote:you people arguing for the status quo sound insane. moreover, you sound like losers who are going to find themselves out of office as soon as these kids come of age.

but please, by all means, keep on shouting. keep on being unreasonable. keep on not listening.

your assh*le in chief goes to nightclubs while kids go to funerals. you've read about marie antoinette, i assume?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is just one list of mass shooters on psychotropic drugs:
https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

Didn't I read in this very thread about a correlation between gun ownership and killing people or something? Doesn't the same apply when you can show an obvious connection between mass shooters and psychotropic drugs? But of course the left doesn't want to talk about that, because it doesn't accomplish their dual goals of banning guns and poking a stick in the eye of people who don't share their beliefs. You'd literally rather have more dead kids than try to actually solve the problem.

oh come OFF it. which side advocates for more access to mental health care (beyond medication)? which side fights for better drug approval regulations? which side supports the right to access the courts if a medication has harms you?

conversely which side cancelled regulations that tried to keep guns out of the hands of the severely mentally ill?

you are REALLY grasping with a phenominally stupid talking point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is just one list of mass shooters on psychotropic drugs:
https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

Didn't I read in this very thread about a correlation between gun ownership and killing people or something? Doesn't the same apply when you can show an obvious connection between mass shooters and psychotropic drugs? But of course the left doesn't want to talk about that, because it doesn't accomplish their dual goals of banning guns and poking a stick in the eye of people who don't share their beliefs. You'd literally rather have more dead kids than try to actually solve the problem.

oh come OFF it. which side advocates for more access to mental health care (beyond medication)? which side fights for better drug approval regulations? which side supports the right to access the courts if a medication has harms you?

conversely which side cancelled regulations that tried to keep guns out of the hands of the severely mentally ill?

you are REALLY grasping with a phenominally stupid talking point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

You how I know you didn't google it?

The guy's name was Abner Schoenwetter, and he imported some lobsters from Honduras, some of which were measured to be "too short". He was convicted of violating the Lacey Act which required him to follow Honduran law, and imprisoned. And yet Honduras filed an amicus brief disavowing the very law he was convicted on. He spent six and a half years in federal prison because a bureaucrat wanted to show who was boss.

Now tell me how a rifle with a 15.9" barrel is so much more deadly than a rifle with a 16" barrel that mere possession is a felony. Or why scary looking guns are more dangerous than non-scary looking guns that function identically.

The law is about drawing red lines. That's just inherent in the law. Sentencing can be more flexible.

PS the AR 15 is demonstrably more dangerous than other guns. They were designed to kill many people quickly in combat. Any gun that can be used to manu people quickly should be banned. You can keep your 1791 muskets. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/02/15/4-basic-questions-about-the-ar-15/

I'm sure the gun experts at the Washington Post covered all the bases there about guns, but if we can keep our muskets does that mean the print version of their paper is the only protected speech anymore?

The answer to that is yes. These people want to give officials the right to enter homes and remove all guns. They want only one political party to exist in America. They probably also only want one news source that agrees with their line of thinking- alot like the people who only listen to Fox News that they claim to hate.

Obama used the Espionage Act to spy on a Fox News reporter whose reporting he didn't like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Department_of_Justice_investigations_of_reporters

And yet Trump is somehow a threat to the press. Anyone can literally criticize Trump on an platform without fear of repercussion. That's not how dictatorships, or totalitarianism, or "literally Hitler" works. But anyone who praises Trump, look out. The left will come after you and try to ruin your life and your business. (Hint: that is how totalitarianism works)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is just one list of mass shooters on psychotropic drugs:
https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

Didn't I read in this very thread about a correlation between gun ownership and killing people or something? Doesn't the same apply when you can show an obvious connection between mass shooters and psychotropic drugs? But of course the left doesn't want to talk about that, because it doesn't accomplish their dual goals of banning guns and poking a stick in the eye of people who don't share their beliefs. You'd literally rather have more dead kids than try to actually solve the problem.

oh come OFF it. which side advocates for more access to mental health care (beyond medication)? which side fights for better drug approval regulations? which side supports the right to access the courts if a medication has harms you?

conversely which side cancelled regulations that tried to keep guns out of the hands of the severely mentally ill?

you are REALLY grasping with a phenominally stupid talking point.

Anonymous wrote:Here is just one list of mass shooters on psychotropic drugs:
https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

Didn't I read in this very thread about a correlation between gun ownership and killing people or something? Doesn't the same apply when you can show an obvious connection between mass shooters and psychotropic drugs? But of course the left doesn't want to talk about that, because it doesn't accomplish their dual goals of banning guns and poking a stick in the eye of people who don't share their beliefs. You'd literally rather have more dead kids than try to actually solve the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

You how I know you didn't google it?

The guy's name was Abner Schoenwetter, and he imported some lobsters from Honduras, some of which were measured to be "too short". He was convicted of violating the Lacey Act which required him to follow Honduran law, and imprisoned. And yet Honduras filed an amicus brief disavowing the very law he was convicted on. He spent six and a half years in federal prison because a bureaucrat wanted to show who was boss.

Now tell me how a rifle with a 15.9" barrel is so much more deadly than a rifle with a 16" barrel that mere possession is a felony. Or why scary looking guns are more dangerous than non-scary looking guns that function identically.

The law is about drawing red lines. That's just inherent in the law. Sentencing can be more flexible.

PS the AR 15 is demonstrably more dangerous than other guns. They were designed to kill many people quickly in combat. Any gun that can be used to manu people quickly should be banned. You can keep your 1791 muskets. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/02/15/4-basic-questions-about-the-ar-15/

I'm sure the gun experts at the Washington Post covered all the bases there about guns, but if we can keep our muskets does that mean the print version of their paper is the only protected speech anymore?

The answer to that is yes. These people want to give officials the right to enter homes and remove all guns. They want only one political party to exist in America. They probably also only want one news source that agrees with their line of thinking- alot like the people who only listen to Fox News that they claim to hate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

You how I know you didn't google it?

The guy's name was Abner Schoenwetter, and he imported some lobsters from Honduras, some of which were measured to be "too short". He was convicted of violating the Lacey Act which required him to follow Honduran law, and imprisoned. And yet Honduras filed an amicus brief disavowing the very law he was convicted on. He spent six and a half years in federal prison because a bureaucrat wanted to show who was boss.

Now tell me how a rifle with a 15.9" barrel is so much more deadly than a rifle with a 16" barrel that mere possession is a felony. Or why scary looking guns are more dangerous than non-scary looking guns that function identically.

The law is about drawing red lines. That's just inherent in the law. Sentencing can be more flexible.

PS the AR 15 is demonstrably more dangerous than other guns. They were designed to kill many people quickly in combat. Any gun that can be used to manu people quickly should be banned. You can keep your 1791 muskets. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/02/15/4-basic-questions-about-the-ar-15/

I'm sure the gun experts at the Washington Post covered all the bases there about guns, but if we can keep our muskets does that mean the print version of their paper is the only protected speech anymore?