If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RamblingBeachCat.com)   Four reasons that both sides of the current gun control debate in this country are in danger of going full potato   (ramblingbeachcat.com) divider line 304
    More: Interesting, Sandy Hook, gun culture, due processes, Newtown  
•       •       •

3677 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Dec 2012 at 1:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



304 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-18 10:07:53 AM
3. Pro Gun People: The Constitution was written during a very different time...and you are not an action movie hero.

This is one of the hardest nuts to crack when you try to discuss reasonable arms restrictions. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, no one had any notion of the sorts of firearms available today. If you have a period gun, or a similar single shot modern equivalent, you can't murder 20 children. You can murder one, perhaps two before staff tackles you. That I have a single shot 12 gauge in my home I feel is reasonable. That I am within my rights to procure a semi-automatic rifle capable of firing 30 rounds in 15 second is NOT.
 
2012-12-18 10:10:34 AM
Wow, that was actually moderate and reasonable. Though I don't like the 'it's too hard to control guns, so we shouldn't try' line of thinking. But it's perfectly true that it probably ain't gonna happen.
 
2012-12-18 10:28:16 AM
Did that article have any point whatsoever? I sure couldn't find one.
 
2012-12-18 10:30:05 AM

nekom: 3. Pro Gun People: The Constitution was written during a very different time...and you are not an action movie hero.

This is one of the hardest nuts to crack when you try to discuss reasonable arms restrictions. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, no one had any notion of the sorts of firearms available today. If you have a period gun, or a similar single shot modern equivalent, you can't murder 20 children. You can murder one, perhaps two before staff tackles you. That I have a single shot 12 gauge in my home I feel is reasonable. That I am within my rights to procure a semi-automatic rifle capable of firing 30 rounds in 15 second is NOT.


The founding fathers did put in place a process to change the constitution. If you feel that the time has come to change it, then start a petition to do so. Until then there really isn't much that can be done legally. We on the right won the gun control war back in 2008 via SCOTUS. Until the constitution is changed then it shall stay that way
 
2012-12-18 10:30:43 AM
This guy is trying waaaay too hard to feel superior to both sides.

2. Anti-Gun People: Stop pointing at other countries with anti-gun laws (and a fraction of the United States' population) as examples of why outlawing citizen ownership of firearms works.

The amount of people actually making this argument could fit together in a booth at Denny's with room for coats.

4. Anti-Gun People: Stop saying that the Sandy Hook tragedy wouldn't have happened if stricter gun laws were in place.

Nobody is making this argument.
 
2012-12-18 10:32:01 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Did that article have any point whatsoever? I sure couldn't find one.


The important takeaway here is that the article writer has found a way to feel superior to all sides of the argument.
 
2012-12-18 10:34:05 AM

quatchi: Marcus Aurelius: Did that article have any point whatsoever? I sure couldn't find one.

The important takeaway here is that the article writer has found a way to feel superior to all sides of the argument.


He started with potato, and it went downhill from there.
 
2012-12-18 10:36:00 AM
He forgot to mention that giving chimpanzees an assault rifle is also a bad idea.

How could someone miss low hanging fruit like that?
 
2012-12-18 10:38:16 AM

quatchi:

4. Anti-Gun People: Stop saying that the Sandy Hook tragedy wouldn't have happened if stricter gun laws were in place.

Nobody is making this argument.


Calling for stricter gun control laws would imply their beliefs. That is just my opinion, and I probably am full of shiat, but that is how many view it.
 
2012-12-18 10:42:07 AM

cman: The founding fathers did put in place a process to change the constitution. If you feel that the time has come to change it, then start a petition to do so. Until then there really isn't much that can be done legally. We on the right won the gun control war back in 2008 via SCOTUS. Until the constitution is changed then it shall stay that way


Quite frankly, I'd rather see the 2nd amendment re-written and a little more specific. The way it's written now, why can't I go buy an RPG? It's a form of arms, which I have the right to bear, no? Because the courts have had to step in and decide what is what, it's quite wonky. I realize that's not likely to happen any time soon. A constitutional amendment is quite a tall order, especially when you have relatively empty but red states standing in the way of anything of the sort.
 
2012-12-18 10:44:41 AM

nekom: The way it's written now, why can't I go buy an RPG? It's a form of arms, which I have the right to bear, no?


Pro-gun people have created this nice little semantic divide. They call the weapons they think people should have 'arms' and the weapons they think are too dangerous 'ordinance'. It makes it easier to convince themselves that it's okay for the government to control some weapons.
 
2012-12-18 10:44:41 AM

nekom: cman: The founding fathers did put in place a process to change the constitution. If you feel that the time has come to change it, then start a petition to do so. Until then there really isn't much that can be done legally. We on the right won the gun control war back in 2008 via SCOTUS. Until the constitution is changed then it shall stay that way

Quite frankly, I'd rather see the 2nd amendment re-written and a little more specific. The way it's written now, why can't I go buy an RPG? It's a form of arms, which I have the right to bear, no? Because the courts have had to step in and decide what is what, it's quite wonky. I realize that's not likely to happen any time soon. A constitutional amendment is quite a tall order, especially when you have relatively empty but red states standing in the way of anything of the sort.


You are right, it is hard to change the constitution. Best to try it during active war time when partisanship subsides to low levels.
 
2012-12-18 10:48:14 AM

cman: Calling for stricter gun control laws would imply their beliefs. That is just my opinion, and I probably am full of shiat, but that is how many view it.


It's a false absolutist argument.

Most absolutist arguments are crap.

/There are no absolutes.
//Do I really believe this?
///Abso-friggin'lutely.
 
2012-12-18 10:49:14 AM

quatchi: cman: Calling for stricter gun control laws would imply their beliefs. That is just my opinion, and I probably am full of shiat, but that is how many view it.

It's a false absolutist argument.

Most absolutist arguments are crap.

/There are no absolutes.
//Do I really believe this?
///Abso-friggin'lutely.


Can you dumb down your reply to a moran like me? Danke
 
2012-12-18 10:49:34 AM

hillbillypharmacist: Wow, that was actually moderate and reasonable. Though I don't like the 'it's too hard to control guns, so we shouldn't try' line of thinking. But it's perfectly true that it probably ain't gonna happen.


It boils down to this: this is the wrong debate to be having.

Gun control, on both sides, boils down to safety and crime. Plain and simple. BOTH sides want safety and less crime. They disagree on how guns play into this.

We want less crime? Less violence? Then we need to stop focusing on the tools used in the commission of these crimes, and instead focus on why folks turn to these crimes in the first place. That means better education, better economic stability, better social cohesion and equality in the markets, and more opportunities for folks to get ahead, and a better safety net both for economic and in health care--mental as well as physical. These are harder discussions to have, so folks tend to focus on the tools, because that's easier to talk about. It is also pretty much useless.

When we look at other nations' crime statistics, we also have to factor in other things than just their access to weapons. We have to look at why folks turn to violent crime. That means looking at the social safety net. That means looking at economic stability. That means looking at their culture and demographics, as well as social mobility, and history. That means having a real discussion into the social ills that face the nation, and that is something we are loathe to do, because we are all hooked on the idea that this is a nation of opportunity. And it is, but only for folks who have the right connections, who are willing to do a LOT of hard work, and even then luck plays a heavy hand.

Our drug policy is one place to look at improving things. Education is another. Not just in raw numbers of arrests or raw cash thrown to education, but how are we applying those dollars. How much cash are we wasting in arrests for pot? How much court time, and costs are going to those arrests? What do our current drug enforcement policies cost us as a society? What are our education goals, and how are we applying those dollars? When we talk about welfare, what do we really mean? Corporate subsidies seem to be off the table in this discussion, but play into how we apply dollars to that social safety net, as we only have so much tax revenue to split up. What does corporate malfeasance and fraud really cost us? We need to have a better discussion than we are currently having, and the finger pointing, while ignoring the bigger issues, the difficult ones, that isn't helping.

There will always be heinous crimes. People who simply fall over the edge. We can reduce the conditions that cause folks to snap though, and we can improve our ability to catch folks before they get to that snapping point. We can reduce these numbers of folks, and we can improve not just our economic conditions by careful investment--not just in Wall Street, but on Main Street, which is where we are failing as a nation. We are investing in things that simply do not benefit the nation as a whole to appease folks who, simply put, don't care about the cost to the rest of the nation. This is part of that larger discussion that we need to be having.

I know that folks like this issue, or rather, they like to pontificate upon it because they are sure that they have the answer. But no matter which "solution" they are advocating, they are simply advocating for a different type of band aid that hides the real wounds that we have as a nation, and this sort of discussion side tracks us, both with time and money spent, in looking at these larger issues.
 
2012-12-18 10:51:23 AM

hillbillypharmacist: Pro-gun people have created this nice little semantic divide. They call the weapons they think people should have 'arms' and the weapons they think are too dangerous 'ordinance'. It makes it easier to convince themselves that it's okay for the government to control some weapons.


Exactly, it's all semantics. Even though an RPG wasn't a thing ever conceived of by the authors of the bill of rights, it's still a weapon like any other. I think even the most hardened gun nut would agree that RPGs should not be available to the general public, and we can't each start our own nuclear weapons program. That's reasonable. The only real debate, then, is exactly how far we should go in banning certain kinds of weapons.

The right to arm yourself being enshrined in our very Constitution is an anachronism, but one we're stuck with for better or for worse. No militia is going to take down the government, and the King of England isn't all up in my face at all.
 
2012-12-18 10:59:16 AM

hubiestubert: We want less crime? Less violence? Then we need to stop focusing on the tools used in the commission of these crimes, and instead focus on why folks turn to these crimes in the first place. That means better education, better economic stability, better social cohesion and equality in the markets, and more opportunities for folks to get ahead, and a better safety net both for economic and in health care--mental as well as physical. These are harder discussions to have, so folks tend to focus on the tools, because that's easier to talk about. It is also pretty much useless.

When we look at other nations' crime statistics, we also have to factor in other things than just their access to weapons. We have to look at why folks turn to violent crime. That means looking at the social safety net. That means looking at economic stability. That means looking at their culture and demographics, as well as social mobility, and history. That means having a real discussion into the social ills that face the nation, and that is something we are loathe to do, because we are all hooked on the idea that this is a nation of opportunity. And it is, but only for folks who have the right connections, who are willing to do a LOT of hard work, and even then luck plays a heavy hand.

Our drug policy is one place to look at improving things. Education is another. Not just in raw numbers of arrests or raw cash thrown to education, but how are we applying those dollars. How much cash are we wasting in arrests for pot? How much court time, and costs are ...


Oh, you're perfectly right. Prosperity and community solves most of the crime problem, and that's what we need to work towards. I'm just not very optimistic. So many people think that poverty is a mechanism by which God dispenses judgement. Or are simply xenophobic. Or are making lots of money by keeping the status quo. Or think that an effective government is necessarily an oppressive one.
 
2012-12-18 11:08:30 AM

cman: Can you dumb down your reply to a moran like me? Danke


Saying that people are saying that new regulations would eliminate violent gun deaths is false.

People are saying that tighter regulations might decrease the number of deaths not eliminate them altogether.

Same with the article writer's insistence that there are significant numbers of people seriously arguing for the elimination of all gun rights.

He's making fun of ridiculous arguments nobody is actually making and then patting himself on the back for his efforts.

Does that help?
 
2012-12-18 11:20:31 AM
Is it because idiots write "two sides" like there are opposing hardline ideologies that must battle, instead of a complex issue we need to resolve?
 
2012-12-18 11:21:54 AM

LasersHurt: Is it because idiots write "two sides" like there are opposing hardline ideologies that must battle, instead of a complex issue we need to resolve?


Pretty much. And it distracts from the real issues.
 
2012-12-18 11:22:04 AM

hillbillypharmacist: nekom: The way it's written now, why can't I go buy an RPG? It's a form of arms, which I have the right to bear, no?

Pro-gun people have created this nice little semantic divide. They call the weapons they think people should have 'arms' and the weapons they think are too dangerous 'ordinance'. It makes it easier to convince themselves that it's okay for the government to control some weapons.


"Arms" refers very, very broadly to weapons. "Ordinance" is a type of law or regulation. "Ordnance" refers to ammunition. For example, an RPG fires a certain type of ordnance - a rocket-propelled grenade. If it fired "ordinance," that would be, I guess, quite literally a "paper bomb."
 
2012-12-18 11:26:24 AM

Nabb1: "Ordinance" is a type of law or regulation. "Ordnance" refers to ammunition.


I had no idea those words were spelled differently. I guess I learned something today.
 
2012-12-18 11:29:10 AM

hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: "Ordinance" is a type of law or regulation. "Ordnance" refers to ammunition.

I had no idea those words were spelled differently. I guess I learned something today.


One hopes that any of those involved in drafting any proposed legislation is aware of the difference. That could lead to some real quandaries with implementation and enforcement. And lots of billable hours for someone. Hmm...
 
2012-12-18 11:54:26 AM

Nabb1: hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: "Ordinance" is a type of law or regulation. "Ordnance" refers to ammunition.

I had no idea those words were spelled differently. I guess I learned something today.

One hopes that any of those involved in drafting any proposed legislation is aware of the difference. That could lead to some real quandaries with implementation and enforcement. And lots of billable hours for someone. Hmm...


I think you kenn why this is an issue that keeps getting brought up, because a lot of folks can profit from it, even if it doesn't really do much. It's better to manage and issue, than solve it....
 
2012-12-18 12:01:29 PM
As the chart makes depressingly apparent, we are the violent outlier of the world. But gun violence in the U.S. has also been greatly declining since the 1960's, while the country's population continues to grow at a very rapid pace.

Our population isn't growing at a very rapid pace and even it it were it would be foolish to place a statement like that beneath a chart showing gun deaths per 100k population.
 
2012-12-18 12:31:12 PM
These types of weapons have existed since the First World War, why have the mass shootings picked up in the past twenty years?
 
2012-12-18 12:37:26 PM

nekom:
The right to arm yourself being enshrined in our very Constitution is an anachronism, but one we're stuck with for better or for worse. No militia is going to take down the government, and the King of England isn't all up in my face at all.



Those two reasons are myths, but there is an outdated reason just the same. Try slave control.
 
2012-12-18 12:40:38 PM

duffblue: These types of weapons have existed since the First World War, why have the mass shootings picked up in the past twenty years?


Something something God?
 
2012-12-18 12:52:54 PM

duffblue: These types of weapons have existed since the First World War, why have the mass shootings picked up in the past twenty years?


You mean why have they done the exact opposite?
 
2012-12-18 12:56:46 PM

Nickster79: duffblue: These types of weapons have existed since the First World War, why have the mass shootings picked up in the past twenty years?

You mean why have they done the exact opposite?


"Mass Shootings" not "all gun violence."
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-18 01:06:35 PM

quatchi: cman: Can you dumb down your reply to a moran like me? Danke

Saying that people are saying that new regulations would eliminate violent gun deaths is false.

People are saying that tighter regulations might decrease the number of deaths not eliminate them altogether.

Same with the article writer's insistence that there are significant numbers of people seriously arguing for the elimination of all gun rights.

He's making fun of ridiculous arguments nobody is actually making and then patting himself on the back for his efforts.

Does that help?


I think he is trying to see both sides but that the gun lobby has controlled the narrative to such an extent that he really does accept some of their derp as fact, not just about learning from other countries, but about what anti-gun people think.

He is pretty much the typical pro gun control person, he just doesn't know it because he thinks that gun control is about banning and seizing all guns because that's been said by gun nuts so much.
 
2012-12-18 01:08:54 PM
hubiestubert:

I agree completely about the need for less poverty, more education, better mental health resources, etc, etc. People who snap are going to snap no matter what.

And yet...he could have made a bomb. He could have grabbed a knife. He chose guns, like every shooter before him, because they were there and they were easy and they could inflict the most death. Guns are still very much part of the issue.
 
2012-12-18 01:23:03 PM
What pisses me off most about all of the vigilante-hero fantasizing gun nuts is that their limited view of heroism involves... killing a bad guy. If you want to be a hero, there are plenty of ways to step up and be one every day. Unless your fantasy isn't about heroism at all, just killing.
 
2012-12-18 01:23:25 PM

cman: We on the right won the gun control war back in 2008 via SCOTUS. Until the constitution is changed then it shall stay that way


Yup. 20 dead children is just the price the rest of us get to pay so you can play with your penis extenders.
 
2012-12-18 01:24:36 PM

LasersHurt: Is it because idiots write "two sides" like there are opposing hardline ideologies that must battle, instead of a complex issue we need to resolve?


Agreed! I own guns but I think the regulations around purchase and ownership could be managed better and crimes like this are too hard to sit back and say there is no need for change.
 
2012-12-18 01:25:41 PM
That article makes me want to hurt someone. BAN SH*TTY ARTICLE MAKERS!!!
 
2012-12-18 01:27:06 PM
Too late: the debate has gone into our very public Idaho.
 
2012-12-18 01:28:55 PM
I don't assume more gun control will prevent 100% of gun violence.

I'd just like to turn down the frequency to, I dunno, less than TOO GOD DAMN OFTEN?
 
2012-12-18 01:30:30 PM
i love how the fright wing wants to arm the liberal union thugs at the schools, soon we will be hearing about "communism being taught at gunpoint"
 
2012-12-18 01:31:26 PM
Never mind the fact that our population far exceeds almost all of these countries both in sheer quantity...

This writer is a teacher? Fer God's sake I hope it's not in basic math where these crazy things called ratios appear.
 
2012-12-18 01:33:56 PM
I always likened the 2nd amendment, in conjunction with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, was intended for the states to maintain militias for the purpose of national defense. You come of age, you join the state militia which trains you and will call you into service if necessary. For the purpose of being ready at a moment's notice to come to the defense of your state/country, you are guaranteed the right to keep a firearm in your house.

In other words, remarkably similar to the Swiss militia model. You come of age, you join the militia, you're given training and a gun.

There is nothing in the constitution that suggests people have the right to hoard weapons of any type for any reason. There is nothing about carrying guns at all times. There is nothing about non-militia persons owning guns. The point is that each state was responsible for its first-line own defense and the Federal government should not be allowed to undermine that. If you aren't part of "a well regulated militia" (and being in a gun club that calls itself a militia doesn't count as "well regulated") then I see no constitutional basis for your right to own a gun.

Not that I'm at all in favor of banning guns, but I don't see any constitutional grounds for private gun ownership as it exists today.
=Smidge=
 
2012-12-18 01:35:53 PM

aug3: i love how the fright wing wants to arm the liberal union thugs at the schools, soon we will be hearing about "communism being taught at gunpoint"


you can take my tenure from my cold dead hands
 
2012-12-18 01:36:46 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Wow, that was actually moderate and reasonable. Though I don't like the 'it's too hard to control guns, so we shouldn't try' line of thinking. But it's perfectly true that it probably ain't gonna happen.


Sorry that you don't like it, but his argument was different from what you imagined. His argument was that gun control in the form of a complete ban was too hard in the US, not that ALL forms of gun control would be too hard to implement.
 
2012-12-18 01:37:14 PM

cman: nekom: 3. Pro Gun People: The Constitution was written during a very different time...and you are not an action movie hero.

This is one of the hardest nuts to crack when you try to discuss reasonable arms restrictions. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, no one had any notion of the sorts of firearms available today. If you have a period gun, or a similar single shot modern equivalent, you can't murder 20 children. You can murder one, perhaps two before staff tackles you. That I have a single shot 12 gauge in my home I feel is reasonable. That I am within my rights to procure a semi-automatic rifle capable of firing 30 rounds in 15 second is NOT.

The founding fathers did put in place a process to change the constitution. If you feel that the time has come to change it, then start a petition to do so. Until then there really isn't much that can be done legally. We on the right won the gun control war back in 2008 via SCOTUS. Until the constitution is changed then it shall stay that way


Yep, and dozens of dead children is a small price for society to pay so you can have a penis extender.
 
2012-12-18 01:40:43 PM

ghare: cman: nekom: 3. Pro Gun People: The Constitution was written during a very different time...and you are not an action movie hero.

This is one of the hardest nuts to crack when you try to discuss reasonable arms restrictions. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, no one had any notion of the sorts of firearms available today. If you have a period gun, or a similar single shot modern equivalent, you can't murder 20 children. You can murder one, perhaps two before staff tackles you. That I have a single shot 12 gauge in my home I feel is reasonable. That I am within my rights to procure a semi-automatic rifle capable of firing 30 rounds in 15 second is NOT.

The founding fathers did put in place a process to change the constitution. If you feel that the time has come to change it, then start a petition to do so. Until then there really isn't much that can be done legally. We on the right won the gun control war back in 2008 via SCOTUS. Until the constitution is changed then it shall stay that way

Yep, and dozens of dead children is a small price for society to pay so you can have a penis extender.


What is with your obsession of his penis?
 
2012-12-18 01:43:57 PM
Oh joy. Another chance to post the obligatory template again...

www.thenation.com 

/Yes, over and over again, apparently.
 
2012-12-18 01:49:34 PM

nekom:
Quite frankly, I'd rather see the 2nd amendment re-written and a little more specific. The way it's written now, why can't I go buy an RPG?


Because one is "small arms" and the other is ordnance. It's the same reason you can't go out an buy dynamite at Wal*Mart.

Also - just because I'm so farking tired of that argument, I'm going point out that you sound just like idiot Republicans who think that if gay marriage is allowed, then the next thing that will happen is dudes will try to marry a horse!
 
2012-12-18 01:54:36 PM

Smidge204: I always likened the 2nd amendment, in conjunction with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, was intended for the states to maintain militias for the purpose of national defense. You come of age, you join the state militia which trains you and will call you into service if necessary. For the purpose of being ready at a moment's notice to come to the defense of your state/country, you are guaranteed the right to keep a firearm in your house.

In other words, remarkably similar to the Swiss militia model. You come of age, you join the militia, you're given training and a gun.

There is nothing in the constitution that suggests people have the right to hoard weapons of any type for any reason. There is nothing about carrying guns at all times. There is nothing about non-militia persons owning guns. The point is that each state was responsible for its first-line own defense and the Federal government should not be allowed to undermine that. If you aren't part of "a well regulated militia" (and being in a gun club that calls itself a militia doesn't count as "well regulated") then I see no constitutional basis for your right to own a gun.

Not that I'm at all in favor of banning guns, but I don't see any constitutional grounds for private gun ownership as it exists today.
=Smidge=



This will all be re-visited. After the next one, this will become a steamroller.
 
2012-12-18 01:55:04 PM

cman: nekom: 3. Pro Gun People: The Constitution was written during a very different time...and you are not an action movie hero.

This is one of the hardest nuts to crack when you try to discuss reasonable arms restrictions. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, no one had any notion of the sorts of firearms available today. If you have a period gun, or a similar single shot modern equivalent, you can't murder 20 children. You can murder one, perhaps two before staff tackles you. That I have a single shot 12 gauge in my home I feel is reasonable. That I am within my rights to procure a semi-automatic rifle capable of firing 30 rounds in 15 second is NOT.

The founding fathers did put in place a process to change the constitution. If you feel that the time has come to change it, then start a petition to do so. Until then there really isn't much that can be done legally. We on the right won the gun control war back in 2008 via SCOTUS. Until the constitution is changed then it shall stay that way


Yes because precedents are never overruled or distiguished or in fact ignored by SCOTUS

See: Bush v Gore
 
2012-12-18 01:56:49 PM

cman: nekom: 3. Pro Gun People: The Constitution was written during a very different time...and you are not an action movie hero.

This is one of the hardest nuts to crack when you try to discuss reasonable arms restrictions. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, no one had any notion of the sorts of firearms available today. If you have a period gun, or a similar single shot modern equivalent, you can't murder 20 children. You can murder one, perhaps two before staff tackles you. That I have a single shot 12 gauge in my home I feel is reasonable. That I am within my rights to procure a semi-automatic rifle capable of firing 30 rounds in 15 second is NOT.

The founding fathers did put in place a process to change the constitution. If you feel that the time has come to change it, then start a petition to do so. Until then there really isn't much that can be done legally. We on the right won the gun control war back in 2008 via SCOTUS. Until the constitution is changed then it shall stay that way


So you feel the same way about the right to vote right? There shouldn't be restrictions on voting like there shouldn't be on owning guns ?

Why do righties feel it should be harder to vote then to buy gun
 
Displayed 50 of 304 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report