Gun culture or parenting culture?

[Pogo]

Oh but we absolutely do.

Having a sick culture doesn't mean every last person subscribes to it. Nor does it mean those who do will always act on it.

But it does mean when some loser feels powerless and seeks revenge for it, everything they've been taught since birth tells them, grab an AK and mow down some children or some shoppers or some random crowd. Once in a while, they follow through on it.

Wait a minute, who is teaching them to grab an AK and kill everybody in sight? I live in this country, and I don't feel that way; none of my friends feel that way; none of my family feels that way!

We have over 315 million people in this country, and once a year or so, one of our 315 million people goes nuts and kills a bunch of people. You call that a culture? I call it an anomaly.

Again ---- as I just posted ---- it doesn't mean literally everybody does it.

What it means, plain and simple, is that everybody's encouraged to do it. By treating Almighty Gun as a god instead of a weapon.

No.....we do not encourage it. The only one close to encouraging it is the MSM, and I wouldn't even charge them with doing it.

When we get a nut with a gun, our police respond. They kill the suspect in many cases, or the kook realizes that he has no way out and kills himself. How is that encouraging more of that kind of activity?

If they are taken alive, they are locked up in prison or a mental facility the rest of their lives. Some like Dylann Roof are sentenced to death.

Saying we encourage mass killings is like saying we promote recreational drug usage. And in fact, we do promote recreational narcotics more than killing people with guns.

Yes "we" DO encourage it. You may not consider yourself personally involved but "we" means the culture --- the values of death taught from birth by endless war toys, endless TV shows and movies, endless hero worship comic books etc etc etc. I certainly don't encourage it either but that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to the sensory blitz that exists and thrives without (and despite) my influence.

So again --- if the mother isn't giving the kid this idea... and let's stipulate for the sake of argument that the father is not present........... from where exactly is he going to derive this conclusion, if not the myriad sources I have cited? Where? This is I believe your whole question in your title.

In this particular case, she almost did condone her kid carrying a gun. She certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

When I was a child, we used to watch westerns. The old west and people who lived and died by the gun. Yet never a problem with kids and guns like we have today. We used to watch the Three Stooges. They used to take hammers and hit each other over the heads with them. That doesn't mean we were encouraging kids to be hammer murderers.

Television and movies have minimal (if any) influence on young criminals. Knowing they can get away with something is encouragement.

Kids are influenced by a lot of things--mostly their peers. But it's up to the parents to make sure that their children don't act on those influences. Sitting back and saying "They have to learn their own lessons" is just completely irresponsible. A father in the home willing to kick your ass for even the thought of having a gun is a very strong deterrent.

Your fantasy that "we never had a problem with kids and guns like we have today" is flat wrong. I can remember my whole high school being turned upside down because one kid inexplicably came to school armed. This isn't new.

The TV westerns you mention, however, are exactly part of that culture I described. They then led to, and were reinforced by, the accompanying TV commercials:

​

Is all this implanting the idea "go out and strafe some innocent bystanders"? No it's not. Subliminal seduction is far more subtle and indirect than that. It's merely implanting the idea that "shooting shit is cool". That leaves the next step up to the developing mind. If that mind is beset by anxiety circumstances ------ it's going to reflect back to the values it was taught from infancy.

Not at all unlike the way some admired movie character seen being "cool" by casually smoking cigarettes is not directly telling the viewer "go forth and buy cigarettes". It's the power of suggestion that closes that deal. Again the viewer is left to think, "well I want to be cool, and cigarettes are apparently cool, so how can I get some? I have to buy them". And voilà.

Then after the commercial makes its implant it's back to the TV program where the whole morality play teaches, in every single episode, that the good guy with a gun vanquishes the bad guy with a gun, and that's how it works, and the earth smells of roses forevermore, hallelujah. And be sure to tune in tomorrow where we'll reinforce this same lesson all over again, and sell you more guns.

Now that --- is a gun culture.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Wait a minute, who is teaching them to grab an AK and kill everybody in sight? I live in this country, and I don't feel that way; none of my friends feel that way; none of my family feels that way!

We have over 315 million people in this country, and once a year or so, one of our 315 million people goes nuts and kills a bunch of people. You call that a culture? I call it an anomaly.

Again ---- as I just posted ---- it doesn't mean literally everybody does it.

What it means, plain and simple, is that everybody's encouraged to do it. By treating Almighty Gun as a god instead of a weapon.

No.....we do not encourage it. The only one close to encouraging it is the MSM, and I wouldn't even charge them with doing it.

When we get a nut with a gun, our police respond. They kill the suspect in many cases, or the kook realizes that he has no way out and kills himself. How is that encouraging more of that kind of activity?

If they are taken alive, they are locked up in prison or a mental facility the rest of their lives. Some like Dylann Roof are sentenced to death.

Saying we encourage mass killings is like saying we promote recreational drug usage. And in fact, we do promote recreational narcotics more than killing people with guns.

Yes "we" DO encourage it. You may not consider yourself personally involved but "we" means the culture --- the values of death taught from birth by endless war toys, endless TV shows and movies, endless hero worship comic books etc etc etc. I certainly don't encourage it either but that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to the sensory blitz that exists and thrives without (and despite) my influence.

So again --- if the mother isn't giving the kid this idea... and let's stipulate for the sake of argument that the father is not present........... from where exactly is he going to derive this conclusion, if not the myriad sources I have cited? Where? This is I believe your whole question in your title.

In this particular case, she almost did condone her kid carrying a gun. She certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

When I was a child, we used to watch westerns. The old west and people who lived and died by the gun. Yet never a problem with kids and guns like we have today. We used to watch the Three Stooges. They used to take hammers and hit each other over the heads with them. That doesn't mean we were encouraging kids to be hammer murderers.

Television and movies have minimal (if any) influence on young criminals. Knowing they can get away with something is encouragement.

Kids are influenced by a lot of things--mostly their peers. But it's up to the parents to make sure that their children don't act on those influences. Sitting back and saying "They have to learn their own lessons" is just completely irresponsible. A father in the home willing to kick your ass for even the thought of having a gun is a very strong deterrent.

Your fantasy that "we never had a problem with kids and guns like we have today" is flat wrong. I can remember my whole high school being turned upside down because one kid inexplicably came to school armed. This isn't new.

He doesn't know Billy the Kid was a kid

 

[BULLDOG]

I found a local gun story that I wanted to share because the accused is a minor. Kids with guns are not all that unusual (especially here in Cleveland) but what I found most telling is the response of the mother.

In short, this kid was arrested for having BB gun in a public park (very similar to the Tamir Rice situation) a year earlier. The judge went easy on the kid, but now the 16 year old was busted having a real loaded gun. Here are some quotes from the mother:

"He has to learn the right way. I can't stop him." When the I TEAM asked where he got the gun this time, his mother said, "I don't know. Don't know. He was using it for protection. He was walking down the street and people would shoot at him. Nowadays, that's what you need for protection. I don't consider it a good thing."

That mom says she did talk to her son before the Parma BB gun incident and after it. Didn’t matter. She said, “Kids these days need to learn their own lessons. He's learning his lessons."

Teen caught with BB gun at Parma park now busted with gun; mom says she can’t stop him

With the path this kid is on, it's more than likely he'll be dead or in prison for murder the next decade. Then the left will blame the guns.

Another thing that struck me: she said "I don't know, and I can't stop him." Not "We can't stop him" as if there was a father figure around. This woman practically justified her son illegally carrying a likely stolen gun underage. When he gets older and arrested for shooting somebody, I'm sure the mother will once again respond to a news interview by saying "My baby didn't do nutting wrong, he's a good boy." If he gets gunned down in the street, well........then I guess he "learned his own lessons."

There is more to it than a parenting problem. There's a society problem.

In what world do kids think they need weapons to protect themselves? Well, in a society that is failing to protect people, to instill morals into kids and all of that.

The right love to say how it's the parents' fault. The problem is that the right will also push the very same parents to work 80 hours a week so the rich can get richer. They also don't place any responsibility on schools to help deal with all the issues out there. So, the right essentially like to create the environment for this kind of thing, and then bitch and moan that the parents aren't doing anything about it.

Really? You mean it was the right that promoted single-parent families? It was the right that told women to give up their husband for a job? The right promoted that???

Well if it's a society problem and the mother was correct in saying he needed the gun for protection, why not give every 16 year old in the ghetto a gun for protection? After all, it's not a parenting issue now is it?

Maybe.......just maybe if this kid had a father around, he might not be in trouble today. Maybe.....just maybe, with a husband and father, they would be able to afford a nicer area to live with two incomes.

So you don't want 16 year old kids to have a gun. How long before you want then to have one? I thought more guns made people safer.

Typical liberal who can't use common sense. I suppose you think a 12 year old driving is the same as an 18 year old? No, and neither is carrying a gun. Dummy.

I didn't say what I think a proper age might be. I'm just trying to find out what you think, given your previous writings.

 

[Dragonlady]

The only thing that can stop bad kids with guns, are good kids woth guns

But are good kids going to walk around in gangs with guns pretending to be the world's police and not become that bad kids?

in your world only the police (government) and criminals would have guns. Would you feel safe? Part of the reason for the 2nd amendment is so that citizens can protect themselves from the government. They saw the results of over-powerful governments in Europe, that's why they put the 2nd in the constitution.

A little American history might do wonders for your understanding of this country.

That is my world and I feel perfectly safe.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The only thing that can stop bad kids with guns, are good kids woth guns

But are good kids going to walk around in gangs with guns pretending to be the world's police and not become that bad kids?

in your world only the police (government) and criminals would have guns. Would you feel safe? Part of the reason for the 2nd amendment is so that citizens can protect themselves from the government. They saw the results of over-powerful governments in Europe, that's why they put the 2nd in the constitution.

A little American history might do wonders for your understanding of this country.

That is my world and I feel perfectly safe.

Until Redfish takes up arms against the government

 

[Auld Phart]

Again ---- as I just posted ---- it doesn't mean literally everybody does it.

What it means, plain and simple, is that everybody's encouraged to do it. By treating Almighty Gun as a god instead of a weapon.

No.....we do not encourage it. The only one close to encouraging it is the MSM, and I wouldn't even charge them with doing it.

When we get a nut with a gun, our police respond. They kill the suspect in many cases, or the kook realizes that he has no way out and kills himself. How is that encouraging more of that kind of activity?

If they are taken alive, they are locked up in prison or a mental facility the rest of their lives. Some like Dylann Roof are sentenced to death.

Saying we encourage mass killings is like saying we promote recreational drug usage. And in fact, we do promote recreational narcotics more than killing people with guns.

Yes "we" DO encourage it. You may not consider yourself personally involved but "we" means the culture --- the values of death taught from birth by endless war toys, endless TV shows and movies, endless hero worship comic books etc etc etc. I certainly don't encourage it either but that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to the sensory blitz that exists and thrives without (and despite) my influence.

So again --- if the mother isn't giving the kid this idea... and let's stipulate for the sake of argument that the father is not present........... from where exactly is he going to derive this conclusion, if not the myriad sources I have cited? Where? This is I believe your whole question in your title.

In this particular case, she almost did condone her kid carrying a gun. She certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

When I was a child, we used to watch westerns. The old west and people who lived and died by the gun. Yet never a problem with kids and guns like we have today. We used to watch the Three Stooges. They used to take hammers and hit each other over the heads with them. That doesn't mean we were encouraging kids to be hammer murderers.

Television and movies have minimal (if any) influence on young criminals. Knowing they can get away with something is encouragement.

Kids are influenced by a lot of things--mostly their peers. But it's up to the parents to make sure that their children don't act on those influences. Sitting back and saying "They have to learn their own lessons" is just completely irresponsible. A father in the home willing to kick your ass for even the thought of having a gun is a very strong deterrent.

Your fantasy that "we never had a problem with kids and guns like we have today" is flat wrong. I can remember my whole high school being turned upside down because one kid inexplicably came to school armed. This isn't new.

He doesn't know Billy the Kid was a kid

18 when he killed his first man.

Not exactly a kid

 

[TheOldSchool]

No.....we do not encourage it. The only one close to encouraging it is the MSM, and I wouldn't even charge them with doing it.

When we get a nut with a gun, our police respond. They kill the suspect in many cases, or the kook realizes that he has no way out and kills himself. How is that encouraging more of that kind of activity?

If they are taken alive, they are locked up in prison or a mental facility the rest of their lives. Some like Dylann Roof are sentenced to death.

Saying we encourage mass killings is like saying we promote recreational drug usage. And in fact, we do promote recreational narcotics more than killing people with guns.

Yes "we" DO encourage it. You may not consider yourself personally involved but "we" means the culture --- the values of death taught from birth by endless war toys, endless TV shows and movies, endless hero worship comic books etc etc etc. I certainly don't encourage it either but that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to the sensory blitz that exists and thrives without (and despite) my influence.

So again --- if the mother isn't giving the kid this idea... and let's stipulate for the sake of argument that the father is not present........... from where exactly is he going to derive this conclusion, if not the myriad sources I have cited? Where? This is I believe your whole question in your title.

In this particular case, she almost did condone her kid carrying a gun. She certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

When I was a child, we used to watch westerns. The old west and people who lived and died by the gun. Yet never a problem with kids and guns like we have today. We used to watch the Three Stooges. They used to take hammers and hit each other over the heads with them. That doesn't mean we were encouraging kids to be hammer murderers.

Television and movies have minimal (if any) influence on young criminals. Knowing they can get away with something is encouragement.

Kids are influenced by a lot of things--mostly their peers. But it's up to the parents to make sure that their children don't act on those influences. Sitting back and saying "They have to learn their own lessons" is just completely irresponsible. A father in the home willing to kick your ass for even the thought of having a gun is a very strong deterrent.

Your fantasy that "we never had a problem with kids and guns like we have today" is flat wrong. I can remember my whole high school being turned upside down because one kid inexplicably came to school armed. This isn't new.

He doesn't know Billy the Kid was a kid

18 when he killed his first man.

Not exactly a kid

Still committed crimes and carried a gun before 18

 

[Auld Phart]

Yes "we" DO encourage it. You may not consider yourself personally involved but "we" means the culture --- the values of death taught from birth by endless war toys, endless TV shows and movies, endless hero worship comic books etc etc etc. I certainly don't encourage it either but that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to the sensory blitz that exists and thrives without (and despite) my influence.

So again --- if the mother isn't giving the kid this idea... and let's stipulate for the sake of argument that the father is not present........... from where exactly is he going to derive this conclusion, if not the myriad sources I have cited? Where? This is I believe your whole question in your title.

In this particular case, she almost did condone her kid carrying a gun. She certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

When I was a child, we used to watch westerns. The old west and people who lived and died by the gun. Yet never a problem with kids and guns like we have today. We used to watch the Three Stooges. They used to take hammers and hit each other over the heads with them. That doesn't mean we were encouraging kids to be hammer murderers.

Television and movies have minimal (if any) influence on young criminals. Knowing they can get away with something is encouragement.

Kids are influenced by a lot of things--mostly their peers. But it's up to the parents to make sure that their children don't act on those influences. Sitting back and saying "They have to learn their own lessons" is just completely irresponsible. A father in the home willing to kick your ass for even the thought of having a gun is a very strong deterrent.

Your fantasy that "we never had a problem with kids and guns like we have today" is flat wrong. I can remember my whole high school being turned upside down because one kid inexplicably came to school armed. This isn't new.

He doesn't know Billy the Kid was a kid

18 when he killed his first man.

Not exactly a kid

Still committed crimes and carried a gun before 18

and carried a gun before 18

got a link of him using them?

 

[TheOldSchool]

In this particular case, she almost did condone her kid carrying a gun. She certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

When I was a child, we used to watch westerns. The old west and people who lived and died by the gun. Yet never a problem with kids and guns like we have today. We used to watch the Three Stooges. They used to take hammers and hit each other over the heads with them. That doesn't mean we were encouraging kids to be hammer murderers.

Television and movies have minimal (if any) influence on young criminals. Knowing they can get away with something is encouragement.

Kids are influenced by a lot of things--mostly their peers. But it's up to the parents to make sure that their children don't act on those influences. Sitting back and saying "They have to learn their own lessons" is just completely irresponsible. A father in the home willing to kick your ass for even the thought of having a gun is a very strong deterrent.

Your fantasy that "we never had a problem with kids and guns like we have today" is flat wrong. I can remember my whole high school being turned upside down because one kid inexplicably came to school armed. This isn't new.

He doesn't know Billy the Kid was a kid

18 when he killed his first man.

Not exactly a kid

Still committed crimes and carried a gun before 18

and carried a gun before 18

got a link of him using them?

Maybe he didn't. I just looked it up and it turns out towns in the Wild West had the toughest gun control laws in the nation, and so there actually wasn't much gun crime.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I found a local gun story that I wanted to share because the accused is a minor. Kids with guns are not all that unusual (especially here in Cleveland) but what I found most telling is the response of the mother.

In short, this kid was arrested for having BB gun in a public park (very similar to the Tamir Rice situation) a year earlier. The judge went easy on the kid, but now the 16 year old was busted having a real loaded gun. Here are some quotes from the mother:

"He has to learn the right way. I can't stop him." When the I TEAM asked where he got the gun this time, his mother said, "I don't know. Don't know. He was using it for protection. He was walking down the street and people would shoot at him. Nowadays, that's what you need for protection. I don't consider it a good thing."

That mom says she did talk to her son before the Parma BB gun incident and after it. Didn’t matter. She said, “Kids these days need to learn their own lessons. He's learning his lessons."

Teen caught with BB gun at Parma park now busted with gun; mom says she can’t stop him

With the path this kid is on, it's more than likely he'll be dead or in prison for murder the next decade. Then the left will blame the guns.

Another thing that struck me: she said "I don't know, and I can't stop him." Not "We can't stop him" as if there was a father figure around. This woman practically justified her son illegally carrying a likely stolen gun underage. When he gets older and arrested for shooting somebody, I'm sure the mother will once again respond to a news interview by saying "My baby didn't do nutting wrong, he's a good boy." If he gets gunned down in the street, well........then I guess he "learned his own lessons."

There is more to it than a parenting problem. There's a society problem.

In what world do kids think they need weapons to protect themselves? Well, in a society that is failing to protect people, to instill morals into kids and all of that.

The right love to say how it's the parents' fault. The problem is that the right will also push the very same parents to work 80 hours a week so the rich can get richer. They also don't place any responsibility on schools to help deal with all the issues out there. So, the right essentially like to create the environment for this kind of thing, and then bitch and moan that the parents aren't doing anything about it.

Really? You mean it was the right that promoted single-parent families? It was the right that told women to give up their husband for a job? The right promoted that???

Well if it's a society problem and the mother was correct in saying he needed the gun for protection, why not give every 16 year old in the ghetto a gun for protection? After all, it's not a parenting issue now is it?

Maybe.......just maybe if this kid had a father around, he might not be in trouble today. Maybe.....just maybe, with a husband and father, they would be able to afford a nicer area to live with two incomes.

So you don't want 16 year old kids to have a gun. How long before you want then to have one? I thought more guns made people safer.

Typical liberal who can't use common sense. I suppose you think a 12 year old driving is the same as an 18 year old? No, and neither is carrying a gun. Dummy.

I didn't say what I think a proper age might be. I'm just trying to find out what you think, given your previous writings.

Our rights have limitations like anything else, one of them being limited to adults. That's what I think.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your fantasy that "we never had a problem with kids and guns like we have today" is flat wrong. I can remember my whole high school being turned upside down because one kid inexplicably came to school armed. This isn't new.

He doesn't know Billy the Kid was a kid

18 when he killed his first man.

Not exactly a kid

Still committed crimes and carried a gun before 18

and carried a gun before 18

got a link of him using them?

Maybe he didn't. I just looked it up and it turns out towns in the Wild West had the toughest gun control laws in the nation, and so there actually wasn't much gun crime.

There wasn't much gun crime because everybody else had guns.

 

[TheOldSchool]

He doesn't know Billy the Kid was a kid

18 when he killed his first man.

Not exactly a kid

Still committed crimes and carried a gun before 18

and carried a gun before 18

got a link of him using them?

Maybe he didn't. I just looked it up and it turns out towns in the Wild West had the toughest gun control laws in the nation, and so there actually wasn't much gun crime.

There wasn't much gun crime because everybody else had guns.

Not according to history. Strictest gun control in the entire nation. I guess the Wild West wasn't so wild.

 

[Pogo]

He doesn't know Billy the Kid was a kid

18 when he killed his first man.

Not exactly a kid

Still committed crimes and carried a gun before 18

and carried a gun before 18

got a link of him using them?

Maybe he didn't. I just looked it up and it turns out towns in the Wild West had the toughest gun control laws in the nation, and so there actually wasn't much gun crime.

There wasn't much gun crime because everybody else had guns.

Aaaand it's right back to the TV Western indoctrination lessons again. You just demonstrated how effective they were.

 

[Auld Phart]

18 when he killed his first man.

Not exactly a kid

Still committed crimes and carried a gun before 18

and carried a gun before 18

got a link of him using them?

Maybe he didn't. I just looked it up and it turns out towns in the Wild West had the toughest gun control laws in the nation, and so there actually wasn't much gun crime.

There wasn't much gun crime because everybody else had guns.

Not according to history. Strictest gun control in the entire nation. I guess the Wild West wasn't so wild.

Strictest gun control in the entire nation.

in town.

out of town, free to carry.

and I seem to remember 1 of the Earp brothers was killed and another crippled by firearms in one of those 'gun-free' towns.

So much for strict gun control.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Still committed crimes and carried a gun before 18

and carried a gun before 18

got a link of him using them?

Maybe he didn't. I just looked it up and it turns out towns in the Wild West had the toughest gun control laws in the nation, and so there actually wasn't much gun crime.

There wasn't much gun crime because everybody else had guns.

Not according to history. Strictest gun control in the entire nation. I guess the Wild West wasn't so wild.

Strictest gun control in the entire nation.

in town.

out of town, free to carry.

and I seem to remember 1 of the Earp brothers was killed and another crippled by firearms in one of those 'gun-free' towns.

So much for strict gun control.

Kept crime down though. But I know that's not your goal so meh.

 

[Auld Phart]

got a link of him using them?

Maybe he didn't. I just looked it up and it turns out towns in the Wild West had the toughest gun control laws in the nation, and so there actually wasn't much gun crime.

There wasn't much gun crime because everybody else had guns.

Not according to history. Strictest gun control in the entire nation. I guess the Wild West wasn't so wild.

Strictest gun control in the entire nation.

in town.

out of town, free to carry.

and I seem to remember 1 of the Earp brothers was killed and another crippled by firearms in one of those 'gun-free' towns.

So much for strict gun control.

Kept crime down though. But I know that's not your goal so meh.

what kept crime down was that most of the business owners in towns were veterans of the recent war, and kept their firearms out of sight during the business day, or at home.

the 'gun control' was preventing people from carrying them while they were in town.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Maybe he didn't. I just looked it up and it turns out towns in the Wild West had the toughest gun control laws in the nation, and so there actually wasn't much gun crime.

There wasn't much gun crime because everybody else had guns.

Not according to history. Strictest gun control in the entire nation. I guess the Wild West wasn't so wild.

Strictest gun control in the entire nation.

in town.

out of town, free to carry.

and I seem to remember 1 of the Earp brothers was killed and another crippled by firearms in one of those 'gun-free' towns.

So much for strict gun control.

Kept crime down though. But I know that's not your goal so meh.

what kept crime down was that most of the business owners in towns were veterans of the recent war, and kept their firearms out of sight during the business day, or at home.

the 'gun control' was preventing people from carrying them while they were in town.

Typical morning commute in the Wild West:

 

[Divine Wind]

While I agree that all of this is cultural, disagreed that the mother justified anything

I disagree with your disagreement. She said this:

He was using it for protection. He was walking down the street and people would shoot at him. Nowadays, that's what you need for protection.

That's what you need for protection? That sure sounds like justification to me. If I were caught with a gun as a kid, my mother sure as hell would never say that, and my dad would have kicked my as from one end of the house to the other.

True, she said that. I was looking more at her statement "I don't consider it a good thing."

The bottom line here is that, IMO, she seems to have given up on her son and is abdicating her responsibilities as a parent for his behavior.

This just supports my contention that the Republicans are wrong to be against abortion since, obviously, some people shouldn't be parents. Usually the least qualified have the most kids. That's quite a dilemma!

"I don't consider it a good thing" sounds like she's almost on the fence about it.

I don't know if abortion is the answer. After all, it's been legal in this country for decades, and we still have quite a problem.

Abortion has been legal for decades and the crime rate has gone down. Something must be working. As a taxpayer, I'm willing to help all women living in gang-infested, high crime areas have abortions at cost. Furthermore, if it was up to me, I'd require becoming a parent to go through everything the Democrats want to enact for citizens to become gun owners. For the children, of course.

 

[Divine Wind]

Yes, we all know what his conclusion is. I thought we''re trying to move past that.
As in ---- what drove him TO that conclusion.

We? Does that mean you have a tapeworm or just a mouse in your pocket?

 

[Divine Wind]

So you agree that going by the original wording of the constitution is goofy.

Only a fucking moron reads a paragraph and totally disregards the original intent behind it. Thank God SCOTUS is smarter.