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.

(Daily Mail)   Girl, 11, shoots a cougar that was stalking her 14-year old brother, now the brother is pissed because he was ready to lose his virginity   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 120
    More: Scary, tranquilizer gun  
•       •       •

11700 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Feb 2014 at 4:12 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-27 09:54:37 AM
Why didn't they just have their dog run it off?  It is obviously a juvenile and could have easily been discouraged.  Instead they had to have their bad-ass 11 YO daughter shoot it.  Cause she's the MAN.

Not anti-gun in fitting situations, this just seems to be overkill to me, particularly since they hunt other animals to begin with.
 
2014-02-27 09:56:14 AM

Syrrh: This poor defenseless family had to make do with a plain ol' RIFLE, they couldn't wheel out the minigun and call in a daisy-cutter airstrike like you're supposed to do when staring down a wild animal.


You know what you get when you cross a perfectly legal-to-own Gatling Gun with a cordless drill?

Instant minigun.

/And probably a visit from the ATF if they find out about it.
 
2014-02-27 09:56:30 AM

fusillade762: When Thomas White spotted a cougar approaching his teenage son outside their home in rural Washington state last week, there was only one thing to do - hand a gun to his 11-year-old daughter.


I'd have thought the one thing to do would be to SHOOT THE GODDAMN THING YOURSELF


Yeah P*ssy!
 
2014-02-27 09:57:50 AM
I bet their freezer is getting full.
i.cdn.turner.com
 
2014-02-27 09:58:12 AM

Doom MD: Bartman66: jaybeezey: abhorrent1: Shelby's grandfather, William White, revealed that it was a fourth cougar killed on his property in the past several weeks. We're real avid hunters

I moved out into the wilderness so I can kill any wild animal that walks onto my property How dare these wild animals exist in their own habitat!

/seriously
//these ass-hats sound like they just like to kill things

Right, when you have children and live stock around, you also want a preponderance of predator animals creepin gin the shadows.

It's good for keeping the kids alert. Who cares how many get killed!?!!

THIS.
Hate the crying crowd of "you just want to kill everything" kids who probably have never been in the wilderness or have been two times for a campout and therefor they know everything.

I kind of wonder how many of these people want to ban guns "for the children", then get upset an apex predator had to be killed with a gun in order to defend the life of a child. The cognitive dissonance must be unbearable.


Similar to how people can be anti-abortion and pro death penalty I suppose.

You also haven't seen too many pushing for gun control in this thread for a reason: only the most insane ones would question this animal's death.

Unfortunately people like this family get drowned out by the actually insane gun nuts when it comes to any firearms issues.

/the solution to a crazy person with a gun isn't just a sane person with a gun, it's ways to keep the crazy person from having the gun in the first place
 
2014-02-27 10:07:47 AM

mokinokaro: the solution to a crazy person with a gun isn't just a sane person with a gun, it's ways to keep the crazy person from having the gun in the first place


The problem is, how do you do that without seriously affecting the rights of the sane people, who are in the vast majority?
 
2014-02-27 10:13:33 AM
This isn't anything more than grandpa having the kids repeat the line that they were in danger. Guy is a rancher, he has already lost a calf (read $$$) , he makes it open season on predators in the area but the law says he can't do it himself. 

FTA:  "According to William White, there is still one more cougar somewhere on the property that has been threatening his dogs and cattle.
'She is eager to shoot it,' he said of Shelby.  "


These aren't self defense kills, that is just the story to have the kids do the dirty work with a clean conscience/brag about their shooting ability.

FTA: "The rancher explained that until recently, local residents were able to keep the cougar population in check by hunting the predators with dogs, but two years ago, the local Legislature outlawed the practice."

Makes you wonder why exactly the legislature outlawed the practice?
 
2014-02-27 10:20:52 AM
"Shelby was the only one in the family with a tag - a permit to legally kill a cougar"

They don't even have to justify if it's self defense or not. She was already legally cleared to shoot it. No 'stand your ground', no 'coming right for us!', no 'protect the livestock'.
TFA said the family had already killed 4 in the past few weeks, including one shot by her brother. I'm guessing each family member got a permit, and they're cashing them in by shooting cats on their property instead of going out and hunting down others that they have no reason to care about.
 
2014-02-27 10:32:25 AM

dittybopper: mokinokaro: the solution to a crazy person with a gun isn't just a sane person with a gun, it's ways to keep the crazy person from having the gun in the first place

The problem is, how do you do that without seriously affecting the rights of the sane people, who are in the vast majority?


1. Put actual funding into mental health programs. It'll also cut down on suicides which are the primary deaths involving guns
2. Proper enforcement of gun restrictions already in place in many states when it comes to guns and the mentally ill

Having to get a background check to buy a tool primarily designed for killing isn't infringing on anyone's rights.

/against gun registration programs. It's too late to implement them with how many guns are already out there.
 
2014-02-27 10:33:14 AM

dittybopper: mokinokaro: the solution to a crazy person with a gun isn't just a sane person with a gun, it's ways to keep the crazy person from having the gun in the first place

The problem is, how do you do that without seriously affecting the rights of the sane people, who are in the vast majority?


How does regular mental health screening that should be an integral part of healthcare in the first damned place affect anysanebody's rights?
 
2014-02-27 10:35:31 AM

thehobbes: This isn't anything more than grandpa having the kids repeat the line that they were in danger. Guy is a rancher, he has already lost a calf (read $$$) , he makes it open season on predators in the area but the law says he can't do it himself.


Ok, that make no sense.  A rancher has every right to kill any predator that is attacking his livestock, except for ones that are listed as Endangered Species.  Even at that they are typically given kill permits where they can.

Also, don't forget that is is cougar season in Washington right now.
 
2014-02-27 10:40:42 AM
thehobbes:
These aren't self defense kills, that is just the story to have the kids do the dirty work with a clean conscience/brag about their shooting ability.


Maybe. But the truth is that a cougar is more likely to attack a kid than an adult. I can understand the concern, it's not irrational. So if it is an excuse it is a good one.
 
2014-02-27 10:44:17 AM

thehobbes: Makes you wonder why exactly the legislature outlawed the practice?


Many folks don't like the practice of using hounds to chase cougar and more and more states are outlawing it.  It has less to do with cougar populations and more to do with the practice itself and it is one of HSUS's biggest pet peeves.  IIRC, there are about 15 states left that still allow hound hunting.

When cougar hunting, it is typically much easier to have a successful hunt when you can use dogs to tree a cougar.  Outside of that it is very difficult to find them at all unless you start baiting them (finding a kill, baiting them directly or owning a ranch)  Sounds like they are having quite a cougar population spike, which very well could be tied to the recent decision of Washington to outlaw hound hunting.
 
2014-02-27 10:51:28 AM

Cold_Sassy: Why didn't they just have their dog run it off?  It is obviously a juvenile and could have easily been discouraged.  Instead they had to have their bad-ass 11 YO daughter shoot it.  Cause she's the MAN.

Not anti-gun in fitting situations, this just seems to be overkill to me, particularly since they hunt other animals to begin with.


Want to know how I know that you have never read Where the Red Fern Grows?

Several reasons 1) they own a ranch and one less cougar is one less chance for you calves to end up as cat chow; 2) cougars will attack humans every once in a while; 3) she had a tag for one; 4) they make nice jerky and rugs; 5) they didn't want their dog to go to the vet
 
2014-02-27 11:08:31 AM

mokinokaro: Having to get a background check to buy a tool primarily designed for killing isn't infringing on anyone's rights.


Ever hear of the term "prior restraint"?

If you have to get prior government permission just to exercise a right, it ceases to be any kind of a meaningful, substantive right, and it becomes a government granted privilege.
 
2014-02-27 11:13:53 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: How does regular mental health screening that should be an integral part of healthcare in the first damned place affect anysanebody's rights?


What if you don't want a mental health screening by the government?  Should you be required to get one?

Also, how would the determination of a person's mental health be affected by their refusal to submit to such a screening?  Would it be a Catch-22, where anyone who refuses obviously has some mental condition they want to hide?

Then, of course, we have the long, sad, and sordid history of governments both here and abroad abusing the rights of individuals under the guise of "mental health".
 
2014-02-27 11:19:31 AM

dittybopper: mokinokaro: Having to get a background check to buy a tool primarily designed for killing isn't infringing on anyone's rights.

Ever hear of the term "prior restraint"?

If you have to get prior government permission just to exercise a right, it ceases to be any kind of a meaningful, substantive right, and it becomes a government granted privilege.


Lets just give every two year old a handgun then! Every felon too!

You're seriously arguing it should be a free for all?

/pure insanity
 
2014-02-27 11:22:14 AM

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: How does regular mental health screening that should be an integral part of healthcare in the first damned place affect anysanebody's rights?

What if you don't want a mental health screening by the government?  Should you be required to get one?

Also, how would the determination of a person's mental health be affected by their refusal to submit to such a screening?  Would it be a Catch-22, where anyone who refuses obviously has some mental condition they want to hide?

Then, of course, we have the long, sad, and sordid history of governments both here and abroad abusing the rights of individuals under the guise of "mental health".


"Gubmint after mah guns"

Take the tinfoil hat off. It's cooking your faculties
 
2014-02-27 11:28:05 AM

mokinokaro: Lets just give every two year old a handgun then! Every felon too!


You're seriously arguing it should be a free for all?


So.... Strawman?
 
2014-02-27 11:30:10 AM

HeadLever: mokinokaro: Lets just give every two year old a handgun then! Every felon too!

You're seriously arguing it should be a free for all?


So.... Strawman?


Not really. He IS arguing for no restrictions because it's a right in the Constitution.

Never mind the fact that the wording of the 2nd does allow the government to restrict gun ownership.
 
2014-02-27 11:33:07 AM

mokinokaro: "Gubmint after mah guns"


There are several in 'gubmint' that would defiantly like to take our guns.  I take it you missed the Feinstein quote"  "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."

Of course right now, they don't have the votes, but that is because many resist these folks at every chance.
 
2014-02-27 11:35:16 AM

mokinokaro: He IS arguing for no restrictions because it's a right in the Constitution.


BS - just because it is in the Constitution does not mean no restrictions.  There are always restrictions on rights.  Seriously, where did he ever say there should be no restrictions?

You can't point to anywhere that he said that, hence you point is a strawman.
 
2014-02-27 11:38:29 AM

mokinokaro: Never mind the fact that the wording of the 2nd does allow the government to restrict gun ownership.


No one here said that the wording allowed unfettered and universal ownership of arms.  Do you actually think that anyone here advocates that a violent felon should be allowed to own a firearm?
 
2014-02-27 11:39:40 AM

HeadLever: mokinokaro: "Gubmint after mah guns"

There are several in 'gubmint' that would defiantly like to take our guns.  I take it you missed the Feinstein quote"  "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."

Of course right now, they don't have the votes, but that is because many resist these folks at every chance.


I'd be more interested in how many others share that opinion. You can find one shiathead attached to any cause, doesn't mean they have any hope of ever getting it near legal implementation.

/pro-gun
//anti-hysteria, on either side
 
2014-02-27 11:40:58 AM

HeadLever: Cold_Sassy: Why didn't they just have their dog run it off?  It is obviously a juvenile and could have easily been discouraged.  Instead they had to have their bad-ass 11 YO daughter shoot it.  Cause she's the MAN.

Not anti-gun in fitting situations, this just seems to be overkill to me, particularly since they hunt other animals to begin with.

Want to know how I know that you have never read Where the Red Fern Grows?

Several reasons 1) they own a ranch and one less cougar is one less chance for you calves to end up as cat chow; 2) cougars will attack humans every once in a while; 3) she had a tag for one; 4) they make nice jerky and rugs; 5) they didn't want their dog to go to the vet


Well I guess you don't know too much about dogs because i have a copy of the 1974 version of Where the Red Fern Grows and it is one of my all-time favorite movies.  Did you even see "The Yearling" where two mountain cur dogs (which I have) run off a full-grown bear?  That was definitely in the pre-animal rights days and those dogs tore up that bear.  I don't approve of dog pack hunting of any animal, but most any predator will gladly run off, if given the chance.
 
2014-02-27 11:41:04 AM

mokinokaro: dittybopper: mokinokaro: Having to get a background check to buy a tool primarily designed for killing isn't infringing on anyone's rights.

Ever hear of the term "prior restraint"?

If you have to get prior government permission just to exercise a right, it ceases to be any kind of a meaningful, substantive right, and it becomes a government granted privilege.

Lets just give every two year old a handgun then! Every felon too!

You're seriously arguing it should be a free for all?

/pure insanity


Nice hit on that strawman you erected.  Kudos to you!
 
2014-02-27 11:44:17 AM

Syrrh: I'd be more interested in how many others share that opinion. You can find one shiathead attached to any cause, doesn't mean they have any hope of ever getting it near legal implementation.


They are getting pretty close in New York.  Very difficult to own a legal firearm there and I feel time is ripe for a good ol' judicial review of some of their laws.
 
2014-02-27 11:48:08 AM

dittybopper: mokinokaro: Having to get a background check to buy a tool primarily designed for killing isn't infringing on anyone's rights.

Ever hear of the term "prior restraint"?

If you have to get prior government permission just to exercise a right, it ceases to be any kind of a meaningful, substantive right, and it becomes a government granted privilege.


You think that there's a constitutional right to sell or transfer a firearm to a person who is forbidden by law from possessing it?
Because that's what background checks are for - to ensure that the buyer isn't prohibited from having a firearm.
 
2014-02-27 11:52:07 AM

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: How does regular mental health screening that should be an integral part of healthcare in the first damned place affect anysanebody's rights?

What if you don't want a mental health screening by the government?  Should you be required to get one?
Also, how would the determination of a person's mental health be affected by their refusal to submit to such a screening?  Would it be a Catch-22, where anyone who refuses obviously has some mental condition they want to hide?
Then, of course, we have the long, sad, and sordid history of governments both here and abroad abusing the rights of individuals under the guise of "mental health".


Tough crap. Do I think that basic health care screening for all members of the militia should be mandatory? Absofarkinglutely.
Failure to obey lawful orders is punishable under the UCMJ as a court martial may direct.
And the Supreme Court has addressed those abuses.
 
2014-02-27 11:53:21 AM

Cold_Sassy: Well I guess you don't know too much about dogs because i have a copy of the 1974 version of Where the Red Fern Grows and it is one of my all-time favorite movies.


Then you know how well that turns out for them if you sic a 20 pound domestic dog (that is likely a cow dog and not a hound) on a mountain lion that is several times that weight.  If the mountain lion decides to run and the dog does not give extended chase then no harm, no foul.  If the lion decides to fight or if you dog does not give up the chase, you will be lucky to get your dog back alive.

 Did you even see "The Yearling" where two mountain cur dogs (which I have) run off a full-grown bear?

Nope, but I have ran both lions and bears with dogs and I know what each are capable of.  Rule number one - you never hunt with just one dog when going after these two species.  That is pretty much a death order if not a very expensive vet bill.  A cougar or bear will always be able to overwhelm a single dog.  If you can divide their attention, the advantage shifts completely.
 
2014-02-27 11:59:15 AM

HeadLever: Cold_Sassy: Well I guess you don't know too much about dogs because i have a copy of the 1974 version of Where the Red Fern Grows and it is one of my all-time favorite movies.

Then you know how well that turns out for them if you sic a 20 pound domestic dog (that is likely a cow dog and not a hound) on a mountain lion that is several times that weight.  If the mountain lion decides to run and the dog does not give extended chase then no harm, no foul.  If the lion decides to fight or if you dog does not give up the chase, you will be lucky to get your dog back alive.

 Did you even see "The Yearling" where two mountain cur dogs (which I have) run off a full-grown bear?

Nope, but I have ran both lions and bears with dogs and I know what each are capable of.  Rule number one - you never hunt with just one dog when going after these two species.  That is pretty much a death order if not a very expensive vet bill.  A cougar or bear will always be able to overwhelm a single dog.  If you can divide their attention, the advantage shifts completely.


Good, at least you know what you're doing.  Did  I mention two mountain curs?
 
2014-02-27 12:00:44 PM

mokinokaro: HeadLever: mokinokaro: Lets just give every two year old a handgun then! Every felon too!

You're seriously arguing it should be a free for all?


So.... Strawman?

Not really. He IS arguing for no restrictions because it's a right in the Constitution.

Never mind the fact that the wording of the 2nd does allow the government to restrict gun ownership.


Wrong.

I'm arguing against *PRIOR RESTRAINT*, something that is generally frowned upon when it comes to rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

And yes, all rights have limits.  You can't falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, as a famous example, but the law doesn't require you to wear a ball gag in a theater to prevent you from doing so until you can prove that you probably aren't going to cause a panic.  That's the difference.

I have no problem with laws making it illegal for, say, violent felons* or the adjudicated mentally ill to possess firearms.  Nor do I have problems with most laws limiting the age at which a person can purchase a firearm and ammunition.

I don't like the background check that's done for every gun sold by an FFL, as I think it's a relatively easy way for the government to build up a list of gun owners if they were so inclined, but a universal background check flips the presumption around from "OK, you can own a gun until you've shown through your actions that you aren't responsible enough" to "You can't have one until you prove to us that you probably aren't a felon".

Not that it's ever stopped anyone.

Plus, you can buy parts kits with no background check, then build a receiver from an aluminum 80% casting, or brass plates, or plastic, or even wood, and have an AR-15 without any background check.  And it's becoming a popular thing to make such "ghost guns" (ie., guns that have no serial number and have never been reported to the government).

Hell, we're on the verge of being able to *PRINT* practical guns now.  How are you going to background check that?

*I do have a problem with non-violent felons not being able to own them, though.  No one has yet been able to explain to me why someone like Martha Stewart is such a danger to society that she can't be trusted with a gun.
 
2014-02-27 12:05:27 PM

dittybopper: mokinokaro: dittybopper: mokinokaro: Having to get a background check to buy a tool primarily designed for killing isn't infringing on anyone's rights.

Ever hear of the term "prior restraint"?

If you have to get prior government permission just to exercise a right, it ceases to be any kind of a meaningful, substantive right, and it becomes a government granted privilege.

Lets just give every two year old a handgun then! Every felon too!

You're seriously arguing it should be a free for all?

/pure insanity

Nice hit on that strawman you erected.  Kudos to you!


Simple question: should insane or suicidal people have guns?

If not, how do you prevent them from getting guns they may use to harm themselves or others?

And remember the crazy people who do get a hold of guns are the ones causing the " gun grabbers" in the first place.
 
2014-02-27 12:09:41 PM

Cold_Sassy: Did  I mention two mountain curs?


Sure, but that was not the context of your original argument of "Why didn't they just have their dog run it off" As in one single dog that was not likely a mountain cur.  In this regard, can you now see why telling your border collie to go sic a mountain lion may be a very, very bad idea?
 
2014-02-27 12:13:28 PM

Cold_Sassy: Did  I mention two mountain curs?


And you must really like mountain curs.  I am not familiar with them.  Off to the searches......
 
2014-02-27 12:13:45 PM
Am I the only one who finds it sick when people pose with the dead animal?  Okay, you shot the cougar.....good for you.  Do we need to have a photograph of you holding up its lifeless head?  Same with the deer.  I just don't understand that at all.  If you're a hunter, that's nice.....but shoot your kill, then get on with the day.  Don't stand there holding the antlers while Billy Joe Jim Bob takes a picture of you.
 
2014-02-27 12:15:08 PM

HeadLever: mokinokaro: "Gubmint after mah guns"

There are several in 'gubmint' that would defiantly like to take our guns.  I take it you missed the Feinstein quote"  "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."

Of course right now, they don't have the votes, but that is because many resist these folks at every chance.


You mean that quote she said a couple of decades ago, after having witnessed two of her fellow lawmakers get assassinated in front of her?
 
2014-02-27 12:15:51 PM

HeadLever: Cold_Sassy: Did  I mention two mountain curs?

And you must really like mountain curs.  I am not familiar with them.  Off to the searches......


Good for you.  These are not particularly beautiful dogs, but they are very tough and very faithful and healthy animals.
 
2014-02-27 12:40:32 PM

Latinwolf: You mean that quote she said a couple of decades ago, after having witnessed two of her fellow lawmakers get assassinated in front of her?


Yep, but show me where this leopard has changed her spots. . .
 
2014-02-27 12:51:13 PM

Cold_Sassy: These are not particularly beautiful dogs, but they are very tough and very faithful and healthy animals.


They look to be a pretty cool breed.  The closest that I am familiar with would probably be my cousin that has a bluetick as their favorite family pet.  He is loud and obnoxious, but very smart and an excellent with their kids.
 
2014-02-27 01:00:26 PM

HeadLever: Cold_Sassy: These are not particularly beautiful dogs, but they are very tough and very faithful and healthy animals.

They look to be a pretty cool breed.  The closest that I am familiar with would probably be my cousin that has a bluetick as their favorite family pet.  He is loud and obnoxious, but very smart and an excellent with their kids.


Thanks, mine have been nothing but a pleasure to have.  Even tho I don't have any children, my brothers do and they are very good with their kids; I have one cat for vermin control and one of the curs actually grooms the cat and the cat grooms her back.  Pretty amazing for such rough dogs.
 
2014-02-27 01:13:48 PM

HeadLever: Latinwolf: You mean that quote she said a couple of decades ago, after having witnessed two of her fellow lawmakers get assassinated in front of her?

Yep, but show me where this leopard has changed her spots. . .


truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com
 
2014-02-27 01:25:26 PM

Cold_Sassy: Even tho I don't have any children, my brothers do and they are very good with their kids; I have one cat for vermin control and one of the curs actually grooms the cat and the cat grooms her back.


That is different than this bluetick then.  He does not like cats at all. Or maybe he likes them too much...  Either way, they don't mix.
 
2014-02-27 01:33:43 PM
Funny how my family managed to survive 30 years on about 10 acres in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by forest and river, with wild animals of various sizes and threat-levels coming onto our property all the time, and we never once felt the need to shoot any of them.

People who use 'the animal was on my property' as an excuse are just jerks who want to kill things. The animal has more right to be there than we do, and animals have no idea where your property line is. They're just passing through on their way to food or water, most likely.

Just admit you like to kill things. Don't say you were defending your property. These are animals; Not home invaders.
 
2014-02-27 01:33:50 PM
She doesn't know how to hold a gun. My bet is she cracked it on the head with that chin.
 
2014-02-27 01:36:58 PM

dittybopper: No one has yet been able to explain to me why someone like Martha Stewart is such a danger to society that she can't be trusted with a gun.


*facepalm*
You want to give her a break because she's a criminal who netted a shiat-ton  more than another criminal who knocked over the corner 7/11?
 
2014-02-27 01:41:48 PM

HeadLever: Cold_Sassy: Even tho I don't have any children, my brothers do and they are very good with their kids; I have one cat for vermin control and one of the curs actually grooms the cat and the cat grooms her back.

That is different than this bluetick then.  He does not like cats at all. Or maybe he likes them too much...  Either way, they don't mix.


I like Blue ticks though, pretty dogs.   Thinking about one the next time I have to adopt another.  I bet I could teach a young dog to respect kitty.  The cat is a 16 pounder, and no softie himself ;)
 
2014-02-27 01:45:13 PM

Nix Nightbird: Funny how my family managed to survive 30 years on about 10 acres in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by forest and river, with wild animals of various sizes and threat-levels coming onto our property all the time, and we never once felt the need to shoot any of them.


Did you have livestock on said land?  Do you depend upon those livestock for your livelihood?
 
2014-02-27 01:50:21 PM

Latinwolf: HeadLever: mokinokaro: "Gubmint after mah guns"

There are several in 'gubmint' that would defiantly like to take our guns.  I take it you missed the Feinstein quote"  "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."

Of course right now, they don't have the votes, but that is because many resist these folks at every chance.

You mean that quote she said a couple of decades ago, after having witnessed two of her fellow lawmakers get assassinated in front of her?


He's already touted that mental health exams for potential gun owners is unnecessary control.

Don't bother. People like him can't be reasoned with. They're irrational when it comes to government and guns.
 
2014-02-27 01:53:21 PM

Cold_Sassy: I bet I could teach a young dog to respect kitty.


Yeah, I understand that you can oftentimes get them to live together if you start young.

The cat is a 16 pounder, and no softie himself ;)

Do you own a bobcat or something?  That is a big cat.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report