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.

(Talking Points Memo)   NRA: We can't catch every criminal out there, so why bother with background checks at all?   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 382
    More: Dumbass, NRA, Wayne LaPierre, waste of time, background checks, crimes  
•       •       •

2884 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jan 2013 at 5:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-29 06:27:07 PM

Geotpf: gilgigamesh: Of course, if the gun is stolen, a police report showing you reported the gun as stolen would be an absolute defense.

That's not an absolute defense, since you could have lied about it being stolen.


Que?

How do you lie about having a police report?
 
2013-01-29 06:27:11 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: I explained upthread how to handle these checks without registration, which I would support. Registration? no farking way.


No you didn't. You asked how a universal background check would be enforced. Registration/Tort Liability would be a start. You suggested you don't need to register a car if you only keep it on your property--attempting an analogy to a firearm. I told you even if that was true that no one in hell would buy a gun and NOT TAKE IT OFF YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT'S COMPLETE IDIOCY. A transfer of ownership includes a transfer to a new space. I'm not going to move in to your spare bedroom to access the gun I just bought from you anymore than I would do that with a car I bought from you. I don't care how you 'feel' about registration--you need to provide some objective reason that stands up better than "I'll keep the firearm/car I sold you at my place so we don't have to register it." The Founders and their state governments registered firearms. There is no reason I can think of to not do it now.
 
2013-01-29 06:27:32 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Dave Lister: MyEnamine: In apposing background checks the NRA is showing their hand. This is clear proof that they only care about gun sales. They don't care about gun owners, only the manufacturers.

I have never understood this argument. Used firearms are transacted at many times the rate of new ones (no I don't have evidence, simply an observation), but the NRA's only purpose is to sell new ones.

None of my firearms were purchased new, to the direct benefit of no manufacturer.

Ever known someone to sell a gun in order to buy a gun?


Yup. Inlaws. To get $$ for the more expensive gun.
 
2013-01-29 06:27:54 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Tigger:

You are required to notify the government about ownership of lots of things. What's different about a gun.

(HINT: Because 2nd Amendment is not a valid answer)

I am? Vehicles if I use a public roadway, I guess, what else am I required to notify the government about owning?


Houses, slaves, explosives, radioactive materials (depending on type and amount), shares in a company, income...

Oh you were being facetious. I missed that.
 
2013-01-29 06:28:09 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Dave Lister: MyEnamine: In apposing background checks the NRA is showing their hand. This is clear proof that they only care about gun sales. They don't care about gun owners, only the manufacturers.

I have never understood this argument. Used firearms are transacted at many times the rate of new ones (no I don't have evidence, simply an observation), but the NRA's only purpose is to sell new ones.

None of my firearms were purchased new, to the direct benefit of no manufacturer.

Ever known someone to sell a gun in order to buy a gun?


Nah. That guy at the gun show with 200 guns NEVER replenishes his stock. And none of those guns were ever bought directly from a manufacturer/dealer.
 
2013-01-29 06:28:34 PM
reason.com
 
2013-01-29 06:29:36 PM
gilgigamesh

No, the fire arm is registered to you.

No, I declined to register.

You sell it to me, and when you do, you notify the state of the sale. Your failure to do so is a crime if the gun later turns up as a murder weapon. Also, the victims can sue you for wrongful death.

This all supposes I register the weapon, which I haven't in the scenario. Having not done so, I would be unlikely to sell it to you if you insisted on the proper paperwork.

You suggested that the solution to registry noncompliance was to "establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime."

I'm asking how that even makes sense, considering that you couldn't trace the weapon to me if I chose not to register the weapon to begin with. I don't even think your idea is terrible in theory, I just can't see how it would work in practice. What am I missing?
 
2013-01-29 06:29:40 PM

gilgigamesh: Geotpf: gilgigamesh: Of course, if the gun is stolen, a police report showing you reported the gun as stolen would be an absolute defense.

That's not an absolute defense, since you could have lied about it being stolen.

Que?

How do you lie about having a police report?


Oh, I see.  You sell the gun under the table and then file a false police report.

Well, that's pretty silly, since that is obviously a crime in and of itself along the lines of faking a traffic accident for insurance purposes.  That'd carry a pretty hefty risk of getting caught.
 
2013-01-29 06:30:26 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Only if I take said vehicle on a public roadway. I don't need to register it if it never leaves my property. Kinda like it works now with firearm possession and concealed carry.


You're confusing registration with the title. One thing's got nothing to do with the other. You don't need to register it to own it. The title-holder is a matter of government record, it's tracked by VIN. Why would that be so hard with firearms and their serial numbers? Title transfer of vehicles due to a private sale is common in all fifty states, I don't hear anyone complaining.
 
2013-01-29 06:31:12 PM

gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?


This is where it gets fun. And by fun, I mean crazy.
 
2013-01-29 06:31:12 PM

gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?


Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.
 
2013-01-29 06:31:47 PM

Facetious_Speciest: gilgigamesh

No, the fire arm is registered to you.

No, I declined to register.

You sell it to me, and when you do, you notify the state of the sale. Your failure to do so is a crime if the gun later turns up as a murder weapon. Also, the victims can sue you for wrongful death.

This all supposes I register the weapon, which I haven't in the scenario. Having not done so, I would be unlikely to sell it to you if you insisted on the proper paperwork.

You suggested that the solution to registry noncompliance was to "establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime."

I'm asking how that even makes sense, considering that you couldn't trace the weapon to me if I chose not to register the weapon to begin with. I don't even think your idea is terrible in theory, I just can't see how it would work in practice. What am I missing?


How do we prove drug dealers sold drugs?
 
2013-01-29 06:33:32 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: How do we prove drug dealers sold drugs?


Because they usually have more than one customer. And when a customer or two get caught and point there finger at .... well, that's pretty much going to implicate the dealer.
 
2013-01-29 06:34:16 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.


So the rule of law means nothing to you. OK. Why should we believe you will follow laws banning the use of your weapon in the furtherance of a crime or to commit murder?
 
2013-01-29 06:36:08 PM

justtray: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

This is where it gets fun. And by fun, I mean crazy.


And by crazy you mean specific examples where registration led to and facilitated confiscation, in New York City and California. Guns that while registered were never reported to be used in a crime.
 
2013-01-29 06:36:16 PM
Ah yes, the perfect solution fallacy. Where would conservatives be without it?
 
2013-01-29 06:36:52 PM

Facetious_Speciest: gilgigamesh

No, the fire arm is registered to you.

No, I declined to register.

You sell it to me, and when you do, you notify the state of the sale. Your failure to do so is a crime if the gun later turns up as a murder weapon. Also, the victims can sue you for wrongful death.

This all supposes I register the weapon, which I haven't in the scenario. Having not done so, I would be unlikely to sell it to you if you insisted on the proper paperwork.

You suggested that the solution to registry noncompliance was to "establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime."

I'm asking how that even makes sense, considering that you couldn't trace the weapon to me if I chose not to register the weapon to begin with. I don't even think your idea is terrible in theory, I just can't see how it would work in practice. What am I missing?


A gun comes from a manufacturer to a gun shop.  That transfer is registered.  The gun shop sells to you.  That sale is registered.  You sell it to me under the table without registering it, and I shoot my biatch of a wife with it.  When I do, that gun is still on record as owned by you.  So you are criminally liable for the crime of failing to register the sale of a gun that is later used in a crime.

Of course, for the 270 million-odd existing guns out there, you'd have to think of some other solution.  But time and entropy would eventually take care of those.
 
2013-01-29 06:37:06 PM
The NRA is a terrorist organization.
 
2013-01-29 06:37:25 PM
Philip Francis Queeg

How do we prove drug dealers sold drugs?

Do we? I think we usually get people on intent to distribute, due to volume, if we're talking about "dealers." I have the impression it usually involves a lot of work on the part of police and/or luck. At the least, you'd have to have a cop pose as a buyer, which could work equally well for firearms, but we're going to need a metric farkton more police to try and tease out the people who didn't register but are intent on sales.

Could work to a very limited degree, though, I suppose.
 
2013-01-29 06:38:51 PM
For those saying we should be enforcing the laws we already have:

There Goes the Boom

President Obama proposes gun legislation, the NRA goes avant-garde, and the ATF searches for a full-time director.


That I had to get this information from The Daily Show saddens me.
 
2013-01-29 06:39:09 PM
gilgigamesh

Of course, for the 270 million-odd existing guns out there, you'd have to think of some other solution. But time and entropy would eventually take care of those.

Ah. I didn't get you referring exclusively to new sales with your idea. My fault.
 
2013-01-29 06:39:42 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Ah yes, the perfect solution fallacy. Where would conservatives be without it?


Quite possibly the White House
 
2013-01-29 06:40:02 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.

So the rule of law means nothing to you. OK. Why should we believe you will follow laws banning the use of your weapon in the furtherance of a crime or to commit murder?


Wat? How does "I'm opposed to firearm registration" become "I'm against the rule of law?"
 
2013-01-29 06:40:34 PM
Well, that's a lot of Nirvana fallacy going on there. This doesn't 100% solve the problem of crime, so we should instead make crime as easy and convenient as possible for criminals.

Speaking as a citizen gun-owner and not the craziest dude in the bag of crazy that is the NRA, background checks are one of the things that we're doing unarguably right as far as crime mitigation goes, and it has nothing to do with the criminals as such. It's a huge favor to gun sellers.

See, selling a gun to a felon or other ineligible person is a felony, either through negligence or knowingly. Without the background checks, a gun-seller has to do his own investigative work, running the risk of later being found not to have done his due diligence and getting some jail time and (because he sells guns, and can no longer possess guns legally) losing his livelihood. However, with background checks, there is a definitive, quantitative test: did you call in the background check? Yes? Then you've done your due diligence, and if the person you're selling to was misrepresenting themselves its definitely on them, not on you for failing to realize it, or on the feds if they gave you an incorrect check.

Background checks are great for the people doing actual, legit selling that isn't intentionally grey/black market. They're one of the greatest legal protections they have.

//No one has suggested registration because it's constiutionality is questionable at best and it is in the practical sense impossible. I'm not sure how that idiot idea came up in this thread.
 
2013-01-29 06:40:45 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.


Well, no, I'm not interested in name calling, and I think the point is valid.  But I think you have to balance what is the greater, more extant problem here.
 
2013-01-29 06:40:46 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Philip Francis Queeg: Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.

So the rule of law means nothing to you. OK. Why should we believe you will follow laws banning the use of your weapon in the furtherance of a crime or to commit murder?

Wat? How does "I'm opposed to firearm registration" become "I'm against the rule of law?"


Will you register your firearms if a registration law is passed?
 
2013-01-29 06:41:27 PM
Just think.
If a concealed carry holder had been in that Kroger in Charlottesville and blown that idiot with the AR-15 into the next world, when the cops came he would be hailed as a hero for taking out an active shooter.
Just think.
 
2013-01-29 06:41:30 PM
Prohibition didn't stop accidents caused by Drunk Driving.

But then, no-one suggested the solution being everyone drinking more.
 
2013-01-29 06:41:56 PM

Shaggy_C: Funny, this same "banning things doesn't work" argument gets used time and time again in marijuana legalization threads. I guess it all depends on whether the potentially banned item is near and dear to your heart or not, eh?


We're not talking banning. We're talking about registration..
 
2013-01-29 06:42:21 PM

Wyalt Derp: enry: We've beeen able to make cars safer without banning them.

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a car is a good guy with a car.


cache.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-01-29 06:42:45 PM

Somacandra: Ow! That was my feelings!: I explained upthread how to handle these checks without registration, which I would support. Registration? no farking way.

No you didn't. You asked how a universal background check would be enforced. Registration/Tort Liability would be a start. You suggested you don't need to register a car if you only keep it on your property--attempting an analogy to a firearm. I told you even if that was true that no one in hell would buy a gun and NOT TAKE IT OFF YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT'S COMPLETE IDIOCY. A transfer of ownership includes a transfer to a new space. I'm not going to move in to your spare bedroom to access the gun I just bought from you anymore than I would do that with a car I bought from you. I don't care how you 'feel' about registration--you need to provide some objective reason that stands up better than "I'll keep the firearm/car I sold you at my place so we don't have to register it." The Founders and their state governments registered firearms. There is no reason I can think of to not do it now.


It's possible, at this point, I'm regretting the vehicle analogy.
 
2013-01-29 06:43:21 PM
Jim_Callahan

No one has suggested registration because it's constiutionality is questionable at best and it is in the practical sense impossible. I'm not sure how that idiot idea came up in this thread.

Um...I don't know how to tell you this...
 
2013-01-29 06:43:27 PM

justtray: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

This is where it gets fun. And by fun, I mean crazy.


Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.


Amazing simulpost.
 
2013-01-29 06:43:54 PM

Facetious_Speciest: gilgigamesh

Of course, for the 270 million-odd existing guns out there, you'd have to think of some other solution. But time and entropy would eventually take care of those.

Ah. I didn't get you referring exclusively to new sales with your idea. My fault.


I wasn't clear.  And obviously this is a complex issue that would require a multi-pronged approach.  That would be just one aspect.
 
2013-01-29 06:44:21 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Ow! That was my feelings!: Philip Francis Queeg: Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.

So the rule of law means nothing to you. OK. Why should we believe you will follow laws banning the use of your weapon in the furtherance of a crime or to commit murder?

Wat? How does "I'm opposed to firearm registration" become "I'm against the rule of law?"

Will you register your firearms if a registration law is passed?


Undecided. Devil's in the details on those kinda laws.
 
2013-01-29 06:44:46 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.



So if the US government were to outlaw a specific gun that you happened to own, rather than turn it in, you're going to break the new law and risk jail time?

Man people sure do love their guns.
 
2013-01-29 06:46:19 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Facetious_Speciest: gilgigamesh

No, the fire arm is registered to you.

No, I declined to register.

You sell it to me, and when you do, you notify the state of the sale. Your failure to do so is a crime if the gun later turns up as a murder weapon. Also, the victims can sue you for wrongful death.

This all supposes I register the weapon, which I haven't in the scenario. Having not done so, I would be unlikely to sell it to you if you insisted on the proper paperwork.

You suggested that the solution to registry noncompliance was to "establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime."

I'm asking how that even makes sense, considering that you couldn't trace the weapon to me if I chose not to register the weapon to begin with. I don't even think your idea is terrible in theory, I just can't see how it would work in practice. What am I missing?

How do we prove drug dealers sold drugs?


Criminals have their straw purchasers and so do the police.
 
2013-01-29 06:46:37 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Will you register your firearms if a registration law is passed?

Undecided. Devil's in the details on those kinda laws.


Wow, so you'd break that law too. Holy fark I had no idea how much gun owners loved their guns. I mean, you don't hear people biatching about how you have to register your newborn baby with the government nearly as much as you do about guns. And I would argue people are more important than guns. It seems you might disagree with that.
 
2013-01-29 06:46:55 PM

justtray: justtray: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

This is where it gets fun. And by fun, I mean crazy.

Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.

Amazing simulpost.


Wow, you're right.  Same post at the same instant.  That may be a Fark first.

Cigarette?
 
2013-01-29 06:47:56 PM

violentsalvation: justtray: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

This is where it gets fun. And by fun, I mean crazy.

And by crazy you mean specific examples where registration led to and facilitated confiscation, in New York City and California. Guns that while registered were never reported to be used in a crime.


New York I have no idea what you're talking about, but in California they never confiscated any legally registered firearms. The only ones done via forced buyback occurred on items purchased after they were illegal. This was discussed just yesterday.
 
2013-01-29 06:48:40 PM
He never said they shouldn't be done.
He just said there is no point (this isn't the solution you are looking for) because criminals won't follow the law anyway.

but go ahead, keep pretending.

he does want to do something to make the background check more effective: "the group's call for loosen privacy laws the group says keep mental health records from being included in the extisting background check system. "

ohh, the monster!
 
2013-01-29 06:48:47 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?


No but how about every seller?


If you can't sell alcohol, tobacco, prescription medications, etc without a licenses why should you be able to sell firearms?
 
2013-01-29 06:49:29 PM

gilgigamesh: justtray: justtray: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

This is where it gets fun. And by fun, I mean crazy.

Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.

Amazing simulpost.

Wow, you're right.  Same post at the same instant.  That may be a Fark first.

Cigarette?


I know I need one =)

It was goooooood.
 
2013-01-29 06:51:39 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.

So the rule of law means nothing to you. OK. Why should we believe you will follow laws banning the use of your weapon in the furtherance of a crime or to commit murder?


Do you whine so much about people who don't follow the rule of law when it comes to other things, say smoking pot or drugs?
 
2013-01-29 06:51:49 PM
Eshman: Can one of our conservative friends please explain something to me? Like I'm 5 years old please:

How is creating a registry of gun ownership any more intrusive/ineefective than the system we currently have in place for automobiles?

Well any explanation would be overly simplistic but here you go little kid-

"The people who demand a gun registry are liars who want to, by and large, confiscate guns. So a registry is just a first step towards that. There hasn't been any movement to ban cars so it's hard to compare the two."

Most gun control legislation gets friction because gun control advocates tend to be liars who just want to shift the Overton window.
 
2013-01-29 06:51:52 PM
I view it a bit like registration laws.

1. The regulation costs money, whether it's registration or background check
2. Said money could be spent elsewhere, such as hiring more cops, if it wasn't being done.
3. If the amount of crime preventable by hiring more cops(or equipping them better) exceeds the amount of crime that would be prevented by background checks, it's better to put the money into 'more cops'.

oldass31: Criminals have two main methods of acquiring guns. The first is they purchase privately from an unaware, but law-abiding citizen. The second is they purchase their gun from another criminal.


You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.
Beck et al. 1993, interview of imprisoned felons:
31% 'Family and friends' - Whether straw or actual 'gifting', it's still a felony to knowingly provide a firearm to a known felon.
28% 'Black Market', drug dealer or fence - Straw, stolen, etc...
27% Bought at store - either NICS failed, they didn't have a felony record yet, or the gunstore committed a felony
9% Theft.

Private sellers aren't even listed. Neither are gun shows.

Thus, LaPierre's response is a lot more nuanced than your - "In conclusion, Wayne LaPierre is an asshole."
 
2013-01-29 06:54:25 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: He never said they shouldn't be done.
He just said there is no point (this isn't the solution you are looking for) because criminals won't follow the law anyway.


Sweet. So then he isn't against background checks and we can enact legislation with universal background checks then. I mean, he'll think we're wasting our time but that's all.
 
2013-01-29 06:54:42 PM

lennavan: I mean, you don't hear people biatching about how you have to register your newborn baby with the government


You have to register a new born baby with the government?
Which government is that?
 
2013-01-29 06:55:52 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: He never said they shouldn't be done.
He just said there is no point (this isn't the solution you are looking for) because criminals won't follow the law anyway.

but go ahead, keep pretending.

he does want to do something to make the background check more effective: "the group's call for loosen privacy laws the group says keep mental health records from being included in the extisting background check system. "

ohh, the monster!


He wants to make the pointless background checks more effective? Seems silly in the confines of his argument.
 
2013-01-29 06:57:03 PM
Apparently the NRA won't be happy until all firearms are banned.

The only thing that is keeping some really bad firearm laws from being passed is the really bad gerrymandering by the GOP. That gerrymandering will eventually get undone (as it's a much greater evil), then the pro-gun side is going to lose big.
 
Displayed 50 of 382 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report