| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: << 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 |
|
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by BunnyWife
Posted by Ophelia
I'm sorry if this is harsh but this is the reality. I saw one little boy who had a cloth covering the side of his head that was blasted off the same boy whos hand and lower arms was GONE by another bullet...... These babies were RIPPED TO SHREDS.
.
This is truth. Right here. This is what these weapons are made for. To rip people to shreds. Read this again and then try to argue with me why someone outside of active duty military needs a semi automatic weapon.
Horrific, and sorry, how anyone could read what happened to those children and NOT want to ban these types of weapons- I just don't get it. Noah Ponzer was shot ELEVEN times. I still can't get my head around that. Twenty six people in less than ten minutes. And now some people think the solution is armed guards at movie theaters, guns for teachers, more weapons on the street. That's life in Syria, people, not the allegedly "greatest" country in the world. If Australia can accomplish what they did, there's no reason why we can't do it too, unless we don't want to.
|
Posted 1/11/13 9:34 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
Ayne11
Yep
Member since 1/09 18021 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by EatingMyVeggies
Legit question: if the assault weapons were to ever be banned, what happens if you currently own one?
I'm too tired to Google through any more gun stuff tonight. Anyone know off-hand?
Good question because in Connecticut assault weapons were banned in 1995 I think, and she still had it.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 9:37 PM |
| |
|
HeathKernandez
Our Ron is an awesome Ron
Member since 4/07 9091 total posts
Name:
baby fish mouth
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Summergrl73
He would have bought it anyway from a black market gun dealer.
sorry but you DON'T KNOW THAT..
you DON'T KNOW what would have happen had this kid no access to guns.
you DON'T. so that argument is null & void.
sure- sociopaths will do WHATEVER... but we DON'T KNOW what could have been prevented if laws were tighter, stricter.
NO CIVILIAN SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO MILITARY ARTILLERY. PERIOD.
NOT NANCY LANZA --NO ONE....
THAT would have prevented TWENTY BABIES from being RIPPED APART...
|
| Posted 1/11/13 9:40 PM |
| |
|
HeathKernandez
Our Ron is an awesome Ron
Member since 4/07 9091 total posts
Name:
baby fish mouth
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Ayne11
Posted by EatingMyVeggies
Legit question: if the assault weapons were to ever be banned, what happens if you currently own one?
I'm too tired to Google through any more gun stuff tonight. Anyone know off-hand?
Good question because in Connecticut assault weapons were banned in 1995 I think, and she still had it.
hopefully- going forward we can prevent this from happening...
|
| Posted 1/11/13 9:41 PM |
| |
|
Kitten1929
LIF Adult
Member since 1/13 6040 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Ayne11
Posted by EatingMyVeggies
Legit question: if the assault weapons were to ever be banned, what happens if you currently own one?
I'm too tired to Google through any more gun stuff tonight. Anyone know off-hand?
Good question because in Connecticut assault weapons were banned in 1995 I think, and she still had it.
I suppose they'd be grandfathered in? I think if they're banned, people should have to give them up plain and simple. Those guns should not ever be owned by civilians.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 9:41 PM |
| |
|
HeathKernandez
Our Ron is an awesome Ron
Member since 4/07 9091 total posts
Name:
baby fish mouth
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Ayne11
Posted by EatingMyVeggies
Legit question: if the assault weapons were to ever be banned, what happens if you currently own one?
I'm too tired to Google through any more gun stuff tonight. Anyone know off-hand?
Good question because in Connecticut assault weapons were banned in 1995 I think, and she still had it.
I suppose they'd be grandfathered in? I think if they're banned, people should have to give them up plain and simple. Those guns should not ever be owned by civilians.
IMO they should be taken away..
NO REASON to own one.
none at all... not for sport ... hobby WHATEVER.
the risk is too much...
|
| Posted 1/11/13 9:42 PM |
| |
|
jellybean78
:)
Member since 8/06 13103 total posts
Name:
Mommy
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by MrsProfessor
Posted by BunnyWife
Posted by Ophelia
I'm sorry if this is harsh but this is the reality. I saw one little boy who had a cloth covering the side of his head that was blasted off the same boy whos hand and lower arms was GONE by another bullet...... These babies were RIPPED TO SHREDS.
.
This is truth. Right here. This is what these weapons are made for. To rip people to shreds. Read this again and then try to argue with me why someone outside of active duty military needs a semi automatic weapon.
Horrific, and sorry, how anyone could read what happened to those children and NOT want to ban these types of weapons- I just don't get it. Noah Ponzer was shot ELEVEN times. I still can't get my head around that. Twenty six people in less than ten minutes. And now some people think the solution is armed guards at movie theaters, guns for teachers, more weapons on the street. That's life in Syria, people, not the allegedly "greatest" country in the world. If Australia can accomplish what they did, there's no reason why we can't do it too, unless we don't want to.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 9:42 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by MrsProfessor
Posted by BunnyWife
Posted by Ophelia
I'm sorry if this is harsh but this is the reality. I saw one little boy who had a cloth covering the side of his head that was blasted off the same boy whos hand and lower arms was GONE by another bullet...... These babies were RIPPED TO SHREDS.
.
This is truth. Right here. This is what these weapons are made for. To rip people to shreds. Read this again and then try to argue with me why someone outside of active duty military needs a semi automatic weapon.
Horrific, and sorry, how anyone could read what happened to those children and NOT want to ban these types of weapons- I just don't get it. Noah Ponzer was shot ELEVEN times. I still can't get my head around that. Twenty six people in less than ten minutes. .
This is actually EXACTLY what I can NOT understand. And I try - I really try to hear the other side, the opposing view - and not to change my own mind, but just to comprehend the thinking. Like I need some sort of logical reasoning, even if I don't agree. I still have come up short...and not for lack of trying.
Because to me, it's like someone talking to me in Chinese and expecting me to understand.....and honestly - I'm more fascinated with how THEY still don't see an issue with assault weapons after such a preventable tragedy.
I mean, this one man I know - he has a gaggle of children. Great father, gaggle of kids. He has tons of guns, thinks Newtown was a shame, and yet every Facebook post from him has been some link to "Here's why no one should take assault weapons away" and the like.
I just find it baffling, to be honest with you.
What happened in CT couldn't have been any worse. Something about little kids. Babies. Before the holidays, nonetheless. It's just something that propels you to want massive change....and I question the sanity of anyone who doesn't want change or reform.
It makes me look at people differently. It's like they're not in my world.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 9:50 PM |
| |
|
Kitten1929
LIF Adult
Member since 1/13 6040 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
I truly think its because the "American Way" has been one in which people don't want ANYONE telling them they can't say/do/own whatever, even if its something that will ultimately benefit us as a whole.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 9:51 PM |
| |
|
Ayne11
Yep
Member since 1/09 18021 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by HeathKernandez
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Ayne11
Posted by EatingMyVeggies
Legit question: if the assault weapons were to ever be banned, what happens if you currently own one?
I'm too tired to Google through any more gun stuff tonight. Anyone know off-hand?
Good question because in Connecticut assault weapons were banned in 1995 I think, and she still had it.
I suppose they'd be grandfathered in? I think if they're banned, people should have to give them up plain and simple. Those guns should not ever be owned by civilians.
IMO they should be taken away..
NO REASON to own one.
none at all... not for sport ... hobby WHATEVER.
the risk is too much...
I agree with you both.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 9:51 PM |
| |
|
MrsA1012
love my little girl !
Member since 9/10 5777 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
First, I find the self-righteous, nasty tone on this thread very unappealing. Posters are being bullied for expressing a less popular opinion. Not right, imo.
Second, I have no problem with loopholes being closed and some tightened/stricter laws. However, I believe that man's drive toward destruction and violence is too great to be stopped by these measures alone.. Look at the Middle East and the death and horror caused by suicide bombers...no guns there, just easy to make explosives strapped to the body. 911: two planes shoved into buildings. There are dozens of similar examples throughout human history.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't make an effort. It is a good to take reasonable steps so the unstable and irresponsible are not armed. That said, I understand and agree with those who feel such steps won't be a panacea that stops these types of tragedies from occurring in the future.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 9:52 PM |
| |
|
Chatham-Chick
*********************
Member since 5/05 10311 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by MrsA1012
First, I find the self-righteous, nasty tone on this thread very unappealing. Posters are being bullied for expressing a less popular opinion. Not right, imo.
Second, I have no problem with loopholes being closed and some tightened/stricter laws. However, I believe that man's drive toward destruction and violence is too great to be stopped by these measures alone.. Look at the Middle East and the death and horror caused by suicide bombers...no guns there, just easy to make explosives strapped to the body. 911: two planes shoved into buildings. There are dozens of similar examples throughout human history.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't make an effort. It is a good to take reasonable steps so the unstable and irresponsible are not armed. That said, I understand and agree with those who feel such steps won't be a panacea that stops these types of tragedies from occurring in the future.
Timothy McVeigh comes to mind.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 9:57 PM |
| |
|
|
|
The argument is not
Things will still happen- I don't think anyone disagrees unless they are very naive. Another Oklahoma City could happen, someone could get on a city bus tomorrow with explosives strapped to him/herself. But why not get rid of this ONE thing that's clearly a problem? Why are people willing to be felt up to get on a plane, but don't want to even discuss ideas about limiting access to certain kinds of guns?
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:06 PM |
| |
|
Celt
~~~~~~~~~~
Member since 4/08 7758 total posts
Name:
colette
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Whew ok I'm back and thanks to those who are talking, even if you're not speaking as one voice. This issue is not a consensus one, it's one of improving what's broken, at least through my vision of it.
A complex problem faces us. 30,000 dead from gun violence every year.
For context, that's just about 1 9/11 in body count every month.
But. The big fat but...
No one's trying to reach 0 deaths by gun. Certainly a great goal, but not one anyone has taken on kwim?
That 30,000 can be broken down to roughly 1/3 of each of these
Homicides, Accidents, and Suicides.
The #s are about equal.
Drilling down, to just homicides, of COURSE the "deaths by spree killer" are going to be nominal, almost insignificant out of that 11,000.
But now you must isolate your date even further, to focus on the problem that's driving this. In my case Sandy Hook, but all the other ones you either forgot or didn't even hear about.
Since 1982 there have been enough mass murders in this country (62) to make some conclusions, and hopefully, some changes.
We are dealing 1 VERY SPECIFIC type of national tragedy. And if there's even one thing we can do to make it HARDER to repeat then we are duty bound to do it, kwim?
62 spree killings as defined by FBI, since 1982. And if last year's # holds, you're looking at 1.7 every week. Every WEEK.
In the United States of America.
it is shocking and unacceptable.
One more bit of b/g as to why this is not political - you probably won't find a bigger defender of the civilian militia than me on this board. My parents grew up in Ireland in the 30s-50s before they emigrated here. So yeah, I'm a pretty big fan of having the *ability* to at least attempt it. But I identify as "democrat" so I'm not SUPPOSED to have that opinion right? I just give that as an example of how my ideology is not a straight shot here, REP v DEM. It's much more complicated. Also pls note the original intention of the 2A was to engender a civilian militia because there was NO STANDING ARMY to defend our new nation. None. No military, organized or not. It was civic duty. The citizen militia idea has been warped and abused a bit by those who would seek to use it in a way anathema to that intent.
But now the rub: historically speaking that was possible. Civilian militias pretty much matched the government's in terms of weapons. And even then, rebellions were squashed pretty handily, and so far in the favor of our Federal govt. Whiskey's Rebellion. Shay's Rebellion.
In current day, it simply is not. The government is so militarized, so organized, and so tech-advanced, that you will be PINK DUST, and your AK-47 too, before long.
People are entitled to any fantasy they want, be it the Red Dawn Fantasy, the snuff film fantasy, or the Wyatt Earp fantasy. Good on ya'. But fantasy it is. And it's absolutely in the best interest of the good old boys running the gun industry to keep that front and center. Note the sales spike after every single newsmaking tragedy. They are a $12billion dollar industry. They do not take kindly to legislation.
NOW go one step further - in 2005 a bill was passed prohibiting victims of the gun industry's negligent practices from filing lawsuits. No other industry in the country benefits from such special legal protection.
See anything wrong with that? Mass killing. Shouts for gun control (which gun owners hear every time as "they're taking my guns!!! I better go buy MORE GUNS!!!").
NRA stokes the panic, retail sales go up, politicians state their gun rights stance, or nothing at all, and the gun makers get rich rich richer. Fox. Henhouse. See?
The banning of assault weapons and the ancillary talking points that groups like Demand a Plan, the Brady Campaign and the one I'm associated with are about isolating the moment where the most deadly weapon ends up in the hands of the most unqualified owner. That's it. The nexus of that weapon, with that mind. That's it. So to make it a guns v. no guns debate is really a disservice to anyone trying to make things better. And there are a lot of those people - including a majority of gun owners actually.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:07 PM |
| |
|
MrsA1012
love my little girl !
Member since 9/10 5777 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Chatham-Chick
Posted by MrsA1012
First, I find the self-righteous, nasty tone on this thread very unappealing. Posters are being bullied for expressing a less popular opinion. Not right, imo.
Second, I have no problem with loopholes being closed and some tightened/stricter laws. However, I believe that man's drive toward destruction and violence is too great to be stopped by these measures alone.. Look at the Middle East and the death and horror caused by suicide bombers...no guns there, just easy to make explosives strapped to the body. 911: two planes shoved into buildings. There are dozens of similar examples throughout human history.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't make an effort. It is a good to take reasonable steps so the unstable and irresponsible are not armed. That said, I understand and agree with those who feel such steps won't be a panacea that stops these types of tragedies from occurring in the future.
Timothy McVeigh comes to mind.
Yes, exactly.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:11 PM |
| |
|
Kitten1929
LIF Adult
Member since 1/13 6040 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by MrsProfessor
Things will still happen- I don't think anyone disagrees unless they are very naive. Another Oklahoma City could happen, someone could get on a city bus tomorrow with explosives strapped to him/herself. But why not get rid of this ONE thing that's clearly a problem? Why are people willing to be felt up to get on a plane, but don't want to even discuss ideas about limiting access to certain kinds of guns?
I agree. I don't understand the obsession, fascination or need to have firearms. I truly don't, and I think it makes perfect sense to question the inherent hypocrisy. Why are some things OK but not others? No one has a crystal ball, and I'm sure there will be other tragedies in the future but wouldn't people want to everything in their power to prevent it?
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:11 PM |
| |
|
Celt
~~~~~~~~~~
Member since 4/08 7758 total posts
Name:
colette
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Kitten1929
Posted by Ayne11
Posted by EatingMyVeggies
Legit question: if the assault weapons were to ever be banned, what happens if you currently own one?
I'm too tired to Google through any more gun stuff tonight. Anyone know off-hand?
Good question because in Connecticut assault weapons were banned in 1995 I think, and she still had it.
I suppose they'd be grandfathered in? I think if they're banned, people should have to give them up plain and simple. Those guns should not ever be owned by civilians.
Correct they were grandfathered as part of the 1994 AWB which took most of the "bite" out of that ban.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:12 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by MrsProfessor
Things will still happen- I don't think anyone disagrees unless they are very naive. Another Oklahoma City could happen, someone could get on a city bus tomorrow with explosives strapped to him/herself. But why not get rid of this ONE thing that's clearly a problem? Why are people willing to be felt up to get on a plane, but don't want to even discuss ideas about limiting access to certain kinds of guns?
I do not, for my life, understand the "it can happen another way" argument.
that gets a big "NO SHIT" from me.
but there have been a hell of a lot more shooting sprees than OKlahoma City bombings. and I am pretty sure buying more than 5lbs of fertilizer if you don't own a farm gets you on the radar of the FBI.
we can't just say "oh, he'll find another way so HERE, just do it this way"
everything in me just rejects that argument-intellectually, emotionally-it even physically makes me itch.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:14 PM |
| |
|
MrsA1012
love my little girl !
Member since 9/10 5777 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by MrsProfessor
Things will still happen- I don't think anyone disagrees unless they are very naive. Another Oklahoma City could happen, someone could get on a city bus tomorrow with explosives strapped to him/herself. But why not get rid of this ONE thing that's clearly a problem? Why are people willing to be felt up to get on a plane, but don't want to even discuss ideas about limiting access to certain kinds of guns?
I do not, for my life, understand the "it can happen another way" argument.
that gets a big "NO SHIT" from me.
but there have been a hell of a lot more shooting sprees than OKlahoma City bombings. and I am pretty sure buying more than 5lbs of fertilizer if you don't own a farm gets you on the radar of the FBI.
we can't just say "oh, he'll find another way so HERE, just do it this way"
everything in me just rejects that argument-intellectually, emotionally-it even physically makes me itch.
What led to more deaths in the last 30 years? 911 and the Oklahoma city bombing combined OR the deaths from the these lone shooter tragedies? If anyone has the statistics, I would be curious to look at them.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:17 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by colette
Correct they were grandfathered as part of the 1994 AWB which took most of the "bite" out of that ban.
I would love to see a total ban and a buy back. let the military take them
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:18 PM |
| |
|
Celt
~~~~~~~~~~
Member since 4/08 7758 total posts
Name:
colette
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
OK.
A few points to speak to.
This idea that bad things happen anyway.
Okay, er, yes. Yes they do. Yes they will. But, generally speaking, do you support doing NOTHING to prevent them? Like if terrorists are going to hit us again do we just say F*ck it and disband the CIA, the FBI, and DHS? That just seems odd to me, truly.
And, narrowly interpreting it, people die in car accidents every single day. With seatbelts, without them, so I suppose we should ignore all scientific evidence, ALL of it, and just stop using seatbelts. Carseats too for that matter. F*ck it. It won't change anything. Odd right?
Fact is a lot of truly tragic, truly horrible dying can be prevented. And I don't know what you consider "a lot".
For me, it's 20. If we can say stop 20 deaths with better legislation it's worth it.
I want better laws, better enforcement including NICS universal and gunshows. Not more laws. Better ones.
And get the NRA the hell out of my congress, just like Big Tobacco was driven out FINALLY when public pressure became a tsunami.
So that's what I hope happens. A tsunami.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:18 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by colette
Correct they were grandfathered as part of the 1994 AWB which took most of the "bite" out of that ban.
I would love to see a total ban and a buy back. let the military take them
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:22 PM |
| |
|
MrsA1012
love my little girl !
Member since 9/10 5777 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by MrsProfessor
Things will still happen- I don't think anyone disagrees unless they are very naive. Another Oklahoma City could happen, someone could get on a city bus tomorrow with explosives strapped to him/herself. But why not get rid of this ONE thing that's clearly a problem? Why are people willing to be felt up to get on a plane, but don't want to even discuss ideas about limiting access to certain kinds of guns?
I do not, for my life, understand the "it can happen another way" argument.
that gets a big "NO SHIT" from me.
but there have been a hell of a lot more shooting sprees than OKlahoma City bombings. and I am pretty sure buying more than 5lbs of fertilizer if you don't own a farm gets you on the radar of the FBI.
we can't just say "oh, he'll find another way so HERE, just do it this way"
everything in me just rejects that argument-intellectually, emotionally-it even physically makes me itch.
I don't know if you are referring to my post. If you are, read it carefully. I clearly say that we should NOT give up and it is prudent to do more to keep guns out of the hands of certain members of the population. However, I have serious doubts about whether such action will do much to stop violence given man's drive towards it. Essentially, when there is a will there is a way. For example, Israel has some of the most sophisticated intelligence/security in the world and they have historically been plagued by constantly attacks from suicide bombers. It doesn't mean you stop fighting, but I am not too hopeful about the outcome.
ETA: My argument doesn't concern what action should be taken. I agree that changes have to be made. I am speaking more to my thought about a potential decrease in violence/ my hopes for changes in human behavior.
Message edited 1/11/2013 11:03:19 PM.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:22 PM |
| |
|
maybebaby
LIF Adult
Member since 11/05 6870 total posts
Name:
Maureen
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by MrsProfessor
Things will still happen- I don't think anyone disagrees unless they are very naive. Another Oklahoma City could happen, someone could get on a city bus tomorrow with explosives strapped to him/herself. But why not get rid of this ONE thing that's clearly a problem? Why are people willing to be felt up to get on a plane, but don't want to even discuss ideas about limiting access to certain kinds of guns?
I do not, for my life, understand the "it can happen another way" argument.
that gets a big "NO SHIT" from me.
but there have been a hell of a lot more shooting sprees than OKlahoma City bombings. and I am pretty sure buying more than 5lbs of fertilizer if you don't own a farm gets you on the radar of the FBI.
we can't just say "oh, he'll find another way so HERE, just do it this way"
everything in me just rejects that argument-intellectually, emotionally-it even physically makes me itch.
I can't understand the argument either...I honestly do NOT GET IT. Like a pp said, its like someone is speaking chinese to me.
It is true that crimes are committed on other ways BUT if a gun is readily available to someone who has the intent to kill, it makes it THAT MUCH EASIER. I don't want to hear "well they will find another way". These weapons Adam Lanza (and others) have used had to ability to murder all these people in such a short amount of time. Would he have built a bomb and wiped out the school? Who knows. But had the guns not been available to him, would he still have caused this destruction?? We'll never know. I am just amazed at how there is even an argument, its so unsettling to me...
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:23 PM |
| |
|
2BadSoSad
LIF Adult
Member since 8/12 6791 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The argument is not "GUNS" vs. "NO GUNS"
For those (not on this board) who use the right to bear arms, do we also not have a right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
I cannot understand why EVERYTHING in this country has to be so black and white (in terms of the govt), why its has to be REP vs DEM. Why cannot we not manage AS HUMAN BEINGS, to put HUMAN LIFE, HUMAN DECENCY, QUALITY OF LIFE, SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN ahead of our rhetoric. THE STATE OF OUR GOVERNMENT SICKENS ME, SICKENS!
In this instance specifically, our government needs to stop bending over for money (ahem, NRA), they are whores, ALL OF THEM , for the almighty dollar. Our government is a BUSINESS and nothing more. It is not FOR us, it is NOT about US, it hasn't been in a LONG time. It is disgusting.
|
| Posted 1/11/13 10:24 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: << 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 |
