Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"When Nickolas Cruz was not pursued by the FBI..."
Let's be clear.....the FBI was restricted by Obama policies.
a. "The [Obama] Justice Department already has sued school districts in Florida, South Carolina and Mississippi for implementing allegedly racist disciplinary policies."
Holder's Anti-Discipline Push May Threaten Students | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
b. "The Obama-era Departments of Education and Justice – under education secretary Arne Duncan and Attorney General Eric Holder –issued school guidelines in 2014 that claimed students of color are “disproportionately impacted” by suspensions and expulsions, a situation they said leads to a “school-to-prison pipeline” that discriminates against minority and low-income students.
According to the Obama administration’s 2014 “Dear Colleague” guidance, any school district whose disciplinary measures showed “disparate impact” – meaning a disproportionately greater number of minority students are affected – is open to investigation by [Obama] the Departments of Justice and Education, regardless of whether the behavior leading to the discipline is unacceptable."
Broward County Likely ‘Inspiration’ for Obama School Discipline Policy to Report Fewer Arrests, Suspensions | Breitbart
c. "Cruz assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other "red flags."
Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.
Cruz was never arrested. He wasn't referred to law enforcement. He wasn't even expelled."
The School-To-Mass-Murder Pipeline
d. Obama warned schools not to discipline school children, no matter their actions, if they were members of an authorized minority....meaning, the group voted Democrat.
As a result, Nikolas Cruz was given a pass....multiple passes.....and that unblemished record allowed him to avoid being identified as a possible homicidal maniac.
e. Liberals are responsible for
creating Gun Free Zones
prescribing psychotropic medicines to children
and for the moronic idea behind the "school-to-prison pipeline" policy that allowed Nikolas Cruz to remain free and obtain a weapon.
f. This primitive, stone-age thinking was made official Broward County policy in a Nov. 5, 2013, agreement titled "Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline."
The first "whereas" clause of the agreement states that "the use of arrests and referrals to the criminal justice system may decrease a student's chance of graduation, entering higher education, joining the military and getting a job."
The agreement's third "whereas” clause specifically cites "students of color" as victims of the old, racist policy of treating criminal behavior criminally.'"
The School-To-Mass-Murder Pipeline
g. "The new policy resulted from an Obama administration effort begun in 2011 to keep students in school and improve racial outcomes (timeline here)..."
https://www.realclearinvestigations...cipline_policy_and_the_parkland_shooting.html
Gun control folks regularly bring up background checks.
Why?
Obama’s Promise Program resulted in Nikolas Cruz not having an arrest record…..nothing that a background check would reveal.
So…..he could buy weapons legally.
Obama, Liberal policies that favor criminals, was responsible for the massacre....Democrat policies.
Now.....what will happen to the one responsible for 17 deaths....Obama?
At the end of the day, Nickolas Cruz... just like Adam Lanza, the Columbine shooters, Dylan Roof, etc., etc. could have been detected and dealt with early on - and maybe a lot of lives could be saved.
But, the left don't care about saving lives. It's only about gun control.
"It's only about gun control."
Make that 'gun confiscation' and I'm on board with your statement.
One leads to the other.
For me, here is the deal:
Everybody wants to phrase their solutions into a bumper sticker slogan. Control is registration and bans. Then registration becomes confiscation. Meanwhile the left says that they don't want to take our firearms.
For them, their biggest stumbling block is being ignorant of history, totally oblivious to the present and blind to their destiny. They cannot figure it out, how firearms were the insurance policy that allowed America to become the leader of the free world without having fight every foreign country on God's green earth on our soil in order to maintain that position. The left is lazy and stupid. Freedom is maintained by a well armed citizenry and IF the left could outlaw the Second Amendment in the manner they've chosen, then ALL Rights would be subject to the same legal strategy.
Let me prove my point:
Confiscation is exactly what the Democrats/Liberals/Leftists are all about.
That's why they bring up Australia.
Australia used a mandated confiscation.
"Recently, Australia managed to take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can't, why can't we?" a man asked [Hillary] Clinton.
"In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program," Clinton responded. "The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believe, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future … So I think that's worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at."
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-rep...-clinton-and-democrats-want-to-take-your-guns
"Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’"
Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’
"But both she and Barack Obama, along with other prominent Democrats, have invoked England and Australia as models America should consider adopting."
Democrats' "Australian-Style" Solution
You're singing to the choir. The government is currently taking our weapons on the installment plan as is.
Would you like of the proofs that the government has been slowly gearing up for all out confiscations?
My ideas would shrink the size, power and scope of government. It's time that government be held accountable to the same degree that they hold us accountable for. Think about it. When Nickolas Cruz was not pursued by the FBI, those agents got to say oooops we're sorry. If you were working a job and your negligence led to the deaths of 17 people, what would happen to you?
Grand, then let's add in all the numbskulls that knew 9/11 was coming, and dropped the ball too Humorme
and that's just a start.......how many times has the Gub'Mit gone broke?
We've a better chance of seeing slick willy bring hillary to full climax on CNN than actually achieving any real world clarity and accountability from the Gub'Mit
That one 'party' is constantly trying to insist it of the other should be a clue they're playin' us for fools
~S~
Numbskulls you say? Let me tell you something:
In the late 1990s, a major corporation was experimenting with microchips and the bar code. Then, in the winter of 1998, a man went to a Town Hall meeting put on by United States Congressman, John Linder. At the time, I believe that someone recorded the meeting though I don't know how to come up with the video.
This man told of how major corporations were experimenting with bar codes and microchips. Linder laughed; had much the same attitude that you do. Linder thought he was going to"play along" and allow this constituent make an ass of himself. So, when the guy said that the purpose of the project was to put your Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "Social Security Number" along with your Zip plus four on a microchip in order to create a National ID Card, Linder faked being amused and pretended to be holding back laughter.
Polls back then were against National ID by a margin of 87 to 9 percent with the balance of America undecided. So, Linder was watching the crowd act like you do. It'll never happen. Linder gets brave. He asks the man why anyone would want to invest in National ID when more Americans were against it than any political idea going.
Then this man said, within five years, a major terrorist attack would be attempted on U.S. soil. That would usher in a period of where the people would beg for a POLICE STATE and that would be followed by a demand for National ID. Linder accused that man of "dabbling in too many Internet rumors and conspiracy theories." But this guy wasn't on the Internet. What he knew came from sources where he worked.
Forty three months later 9 / 11 happened. On 2 October 2001 the so - called "Patriot Act" was passed. Now, here is what YOU believe:
In less than five weeks, both Houses of Congress researched, wrote, shepardized, and discussed many pages of legislation. They then went back researched, shepardized it until 342 pages of could be presented to the president and most of it able to pass constitutional muster. Bull FREAKING crap! That is impossible. Those same people then came back and passed a National ID Bill with... guess what???? It used the SSN as its unique identifier. It's funny how accurately all of that was predicted. And I know that story to be true because I was the man who said it. But, you already knew that.
How many times has the government gone broke? If you sell all the assets in America TWICE, you could not pay the federal deficit. There is a statistic in the credit industry: If you owe more than six months of your salary in consumer debt (like credit cards) the statistical probability is that you are 97 percent likely to die before that debt is paid off... and we owe more than TWO Americas already. America isn't going broke - they've been broke.
You might want to win the gun control debate on the basis of a popularity contest, but if you check the record, the things you have tried to make fun of was accurately predicted - and not by the shills the left sends in to pretend to be patriots and damn sure not by crackpots.
The left don't want your guns - they only wanted your fully automatic weapons. The right caved. The left don't want your guns, they only want those semi auto imports. The right caved. The left don't want your guns. They only wanted those WWII Garands and carbines sold through the government to civilians via the Civilian Marksmanship program to stop. The right caved. The right caved to the Assault Weapons ban; they compromised by allowing the unconstitutional Lautenberg Amendment. The right caved on the issue of background checks with the Brady Bill (a slap in the face to the Fourth Amendment) the gun lobby is SILENT on bump stocks - the way it's presented is wholly unconstitutional as it is ex post facto (ex post facto laws prohibited by the Constitution.)
In all of that, the left has not compromised with the right one damn time on gun control... then again the Republicans have not introduced legislation that would reduce gun violence without gun control AND they have ignored proposals from the outside that could accomplish that.
I'll tell you what: Don't pee down my neck and tell me it's raining and I won't have to respond with walls of text.
Interesting, and yes i've followed.
so we are essentially a police state , feigning freedom
sad reality....
~S~
A well armed citizenry will eventually tire of the status quo and demand their country back. It's not like it has never happened before.
Not you. You left your gun unsecured and it was stolen.
I see. So we can't speak to what we hear Democrats saying, because you anecdotally don't know any Democrats who say that, but then YOU can tell US what Republicans want, and that's supposed to be gospel.
We don't "know many Republicans". Many of us ARE Republicans, and your little "Learn CPR" remark is 300% more bullshit than the idea that there are Democrats in the nation that you don't personally know, and THEY might actually want something your personal friends haven't mentioned to you.
The problem is you don't actually hear what Democrats and any person that wants responsible gun regulations are saying. You only believe what the gun manufacturers are saying through their mouthpiece, the NRA.
The CPR quote was from former Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Rick Santorum, who then backed away from his Freudian slip.
Canada, being another small penis country, has rational gun regulations. We should copy theirs.
The problem is, every time someone starts to say something you don't like, you go, "NRA shill! NRA shill! Gun manufacturers!
If you've ever actually heard an entire sentence of a gun-rights supporter in your life, I'd be amazed.
Rick Santorum is not "Republicans". He is ONE Republican. If one guy is all Republicans, and we're all collectively responsible for what he says, then YOU get to answer for John Paul Stevens: ". . . the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment."
No double standards allowed, so pick a position.
I call them as I see them.
You're right, Rick Santorum isn't all Republicans, but he did make what all Republicans believe public. You see, to be a Republican you need to be a complete asshole. You don't care about anyone except yourself. If you're generally old you are a textbook sociopath, and most of the time you are a hypocrite. Worst of all, what you believe you can't back-up with facts.
I don't have double standards. I stated many, many times that the number one problems affecting the middle class worker is shitty pay. Everything else is nothing but deception.
Likewise, John Paul Stevens isn't all Democrats, but he did make what all Democrats believe public. You see, to be a Democrat you need to be a lying sack of shit. You don't care about people, just your agenda. If you're generally leftist, you're a pathological liar, and most of the time wouldn't know real hypocrisy if it crawled up your pants leg. Worst of all, what you say is always contradicted with facts.
Now that we have that settled, we can dispense with your bullshit about "No one I know . . ."
As Humorme has proven himself less than a responsible gun owner and less than truthful, we need responsible regulations to protect those of us that are responsible and truthful.
At the end of the day, Nickolas Cruz... just like Adam Lanza, the Columbine shooters, Dylan Roof, etc., etc. could have been detected and dealt with early on - and maybe a lot of lives could be saved.
But, the left don't care about saving lives. It's only about gun control.
"It's only about gun control."
Make that 'gun confiscation' and I'm on board with your statement.
One leads to the other.
For me, here is the deal:
Everybody wants to phrase their solutions into a bumper sticker slogan. Control is registration and bans. Then registration becomes confiscation. Meanwhile the left says that they don't want to take our firearms.
For them, their biggest stumbling block is being ignorant of history, totally oblivious to the present and blind to their destiny. They cannot figure it out, how firearms were the insurance policy that allowed America to become the leader of the free world without having fight every foreign country on God's green earth on our soil in order to maintain that position. The left is lazy and stupid. Freedom is maintained by a well armed citizenry and IF the left could outlaw the Second Amendment in the manner they've chosen, then ALL Rights would be subject to the same legal strategy.
Let me prove my point:
Confiscation is exactly what the Democrats/Liberals/Leftists are all about.
That's why they bring up Australia.
Australia used a mandated confiscation.
"Recently, Australia managed to take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can't, why can't we?" a man asked [Hillary] Clinton.
"In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program," Clinton responded. "The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believe, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future … So I think that's worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at."
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-rep...-clinton-and-democrats-want-to-take-your-guns
"Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’"
Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’
"But both she and Barack Obama, along with other prominent Democrats, have invoked England and Australia as models America should consider adopting."
Democrats' "Australian-Style" Solution
You're singing to the choir. The government is currently taking our weapons on the installment plan as is.
Would you like of the proofs that the government has been slowly gearing up for all out confiscations?
The government stole your gun? Was it the DOJ? Was it the Department of Education? (a roving band of teachers), possibly rogue Park Rangers?
You're a typical gun nut. You want blanket rights but aren't responsible enough to secure your weapon, then lie about the circumstance. You are without doubt the poster child for gun control!
"It's only about gun control."
Make that 'gun confiscation' and I'm on board with your statement.
One leads to the other.
For me, here is the deal:
Everybody wants to phrase their solutions into a bumper sticker slogan. Control is registration and bans. Then registration becomes confiscation. Meanwhile the left says that they don't want to take our firearms.
For them, their biggest stumbling block is being ignorant of history, totally oblivious to the present and blind to their destiny. They cannot figure it out, how firearms were the insurance policy that allowed America to become the leader of the free world without having fight every foreign country on God's green earth on our soil in order to maintain that position. The left is lazy and stupid. Freedom is maintained by a well armed citizenry and IF the left could outlaw the Second Amendment in the manner they've chosen, then ALL Rights would be subject to the same legal strategy.
Let me prove my point:
Confiscation is exactly what the Democrats/Liberals/Leftists are all about.
That's why they bring up Australia.
Australia used a mandated confiscation.
"Recently, Australia managed to take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can't, why can't we?" a man asked [Hillary] Clinton.
"In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program," Clinton responded. "The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believe, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future … So I think that's worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at."
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-rep...-clinton-and-democrats-want-to-take-your-guns
"Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’"
Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’
"But both she and Barack Obama, along with other prominent Democrats, have invoked England and Australia as models America should consider adopting."
Democrats' "Australian-Style" Solution
You're singing to the choir. The government is currently taking our weapons on the installment plan as is.
Would you like of the proofs that the government has been slowly gearing up for all out confiscations?
The government stole your gun? Was it the DOJ? Was it the Department of Education? (a roving band of teachers), possibly rogue Park Rangers?
You're a typical gun nut. You want blanket rights but aren't responsible enough to secure your weapon, then lie about the circumstance. You are without doubt the poster child for gun control!
The government stole the damn thing. Had the government not prohibited the firearm from certain places, it would be on my person.
But nooooo, some places want you to leave the weapon in the car. It's not the only stop I make in the course of the day, so I'm not leaving it at home. Irresponsible would be buying a firearm for self defense and then leaving it locked up in Fort Knox so that idiots can't bitch about it.
The government created the infringement.
.....first.
1. Based on the recent massacre, and the full-court press by the Left, ....
"Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."
Repeal the Second Amendment? Almost Half of Democrats Say Yes | National Review
....one might think that your right to bear arms is first on their list.
Nay, nay......not so.
2. First on the list for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.
Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia
One smart Liberal, huh?
3. With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:
"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.
Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.
Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech
Again???
"it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Here....Fredo Cuomo:
Fredo….I’m not stupid like everybody says….I’m smart.
For the Founders, for Conservatives, for classical liberals.....and for Americans....there is no such thing as
"hate speech."
There is only speech.
And the Liberals are about chipping away at what you can say.
One leads to the other.
For me, here is the deal:
Everybody wants to phrase their solutions into a bumper sticker slogan. Control is registration and bans. Then registration becomes confiscation. Meanwhile the left says that they don't want to take our firearms.
For them, their biggest stumbling block is being ignorant of history, totally oblivious to the present and blind to their destiny. They cannot figure it out, how firearms were the insurance policy that allowed America to become the leader of the free world without having fight every foreign country on God's green earth on our soil in order to maintain that position. The left is lazy and stupid. Freedom is maintained by a well armed citizenry and IF the left could outlaw the Second Amendment in the manner they've chosen, then ALL Rights would be subject to the same legal strategy.
Let me prove my point:
Confiscation is exactly what the Democrats/Liberals/Leftists are all about.
That's why they bring up Australia.
Australia used a mandated confiscation.
"Recently, Australia managed to take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can't, why can't we?" a man asked [Hillary] Clinton.
"In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program," Clinton responded. "The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believe, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future … So I think that's worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at."
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-rep...-clinton-and-democrats-want-to-take-your-guns
"Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’"
Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’
"But both she and Barack Obama, along with other prominent Democrats, have invoked England and Australia as models America should consider adopting."
Democrats' "Australian-Style" Solution
You're singing to the choir. The government is currently taking our weapons on the installment plan as is.
Would you like of the proofs that the government has been slowly gearing up for all out confiscations?
The government stole your gun? Was it the DOJ? Was it the Department of Education? (a roving band of teachers), possibly rogue Park Rangers?
You're a typical gun nut. You want blanket rights but aren't responsible enough to secure your weapon, then lie about the circumstance. You are without doubt the poster child for gun control!
The government stole the damn thing. Had the government not prohibited the firearm from certain places, it would be on my person.
But nooooo, some places want you to leave the weapon in the car. It's not the only stop I make in the course of the day, so I'm not leaving it at home. Irresponsible would be buying a firearm for self defense and then leaving it locked up in Fort Knox so that idiots can't bitch about it.
The government created the infringement.
You didn't do the right thing and it's the government's fault, how liberal of you.
.....first.
1. Based on the recent massacre, and the full-court press by the Left, ....
"Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."
Repeal the Second Amendment? Almost Half of Democrats Say Yes | National Review
....one might think that your right to bear arms is first on their list.
Nay, nay......not so.
2. First on the list for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.
Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia
One smart Liberal, huh?
3. With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:
"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.
Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.
Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech
Again???
"it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Here....Fredo Cuomo:
Fredo….I’m not stupid like everybody says….I’m smart.
For the Founders, for Conservatives, for classical liberals.....and for Americans....there is no such thing as
"hate speech."
There is only speech.
And the Liberals are about chipping away at what you can say.
Firearms will be made available by the freemarket or by the blackmarket - the most powerful police force , the KGB, could not stop the blackmarket.
The blackmarket provides heroin, cocaine and at one time marihuana - there is NOTHING the motherfuckers can do.
Right now, Conservatives are attacking
A free press
The right to vote
The 14th amendment
.....first.
1. Based on the recent massacre, and the full-court press by the Left, ....
"Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."
Repeal the Second Amendment? Almost Half of Democrats Say Yes | National Review
....one might think that your right to bear arms is first on their list.
Nay, nay......not so.
2. First on the list for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.
Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia
One smart Liberal, huh?
3. With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:
"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.
Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.
Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech
Again???
"it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Here....Fredo Cuomo:
Fredo….I’m not stupid like everybody says….I’m smart.
For the Founders, for Conservatives, for classical liberals.....and for Americans....there is no such thing as
"hate speech."
There is only speech.
And the Liberals are about chipping away at what you can say.
Firearms will be made available by the freemarket or by the blackmarket - the most powerful police force , the KGB, could not stop the blackmarket.
The blackmarket provides heroin, cocaine and at one time marihuana - there is NOTHING the motherfuckers can do.
That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.
We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.
But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.
Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.
The truest answer to eliminating gun violence in general is to never let leftists be in charge of ANYTHING. Done.
The truest answer to eliminating gun violence is to raise wages and give people some hope. The fact is if you are 18, the chance of your ever retiring is not good if you don't have the full benefit social security, a fully vested IRA or KEOGH, and $320,000.00 in cash.
So, you're saying the Vegas shooter, that owned at least one apartment complex, which gave him more than $500,000 in annual income, and made $5-6 million in profits from its sale just needed some hope?
Try to keep up. The issue I was answering was school shootings.
FYI Paddocks net assets were at least 10 times what you listed. What would have stopped Paddock would have been a ban on AR-15's plus an NCIC information share with States so his mass purchase would have been detected.
You may want to read your own statement...dumbass.
The truest answer to eliminating gun violence is to raise wages and give people some hope.
In relation to the post about students in school shootings. How many mass shooting did we have in 1956, the last best financial year for the middle class?
.....first.
1. Based on the recent massacre, and the full-court press by the Left, ....
"Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."
Repeal the Second Amendment? Almost Half of Democrats Say Yes | National Review
....one might think that your right to bear arms is first on their list.
Nay, nay......not so.
2. First on the list for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.
Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia
One smart Liberal, huh?
3. With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:
"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.
Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.
Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech
Again???
"it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Here....Fredo Cuomo:
Fredo….I’m not stupid like everybody says….I’m smart.
For the Founders, for Conservatives, for classical liberals.....and for Americans....there is no such thing as
"hate speech."
There is only speech.
And the Liberals are about chipping away at what you can say.
Firearms will be made available by the freemarket or by the blackmarket - the most powerful police force , the KGB, could not stop the blackmarket.
The blackmarket provides heroin, cocaine and at one time marihuana - there is NOTHING the motherfuckers can do.
That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.
We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.
But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.
Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.
Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.
Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.
.
At the end of the day, Nickolas Cruz... just like Adam Lanza, the Columbine shooters, Dylan Roof, etc., etc. could have been detected and dealt with early on - and maybe a lot of lives could be saved.
But, the left don't care about saving lives. It's only about gun control.
"It's only about gun control."
Make that 'gun confiscation' and I'm on board with your statement.
One leads to the other.
For me, here is the deal:
Everybody wants to phrase their solutions into a bumper sticker slogan. Control is registration and bans. Then registration becomes confiscation. Meanwhile the left says that they don't want to take our firearms.
For them, their biggest stumbling block is being ignorant of history, totally oblivious to the present and blind to their destiny. They cannot figure it out, how firearms were the insurance policy that allowed America to become the leader of the free world without having fight every foreign country on God's green earth on our soil in order to maintain that position. The left is lazy and stupid. Freedom is maintained by a well armed citizenry and IF the left could outlaw the Second Amendment in the manner they've chosen, then ALL Rights would be subject to the same legal strategy.
Let me prove my point:
Confiscation is exactly what the Democrats/Liberals/Leftists are all about.
That's why they bring up Australia.
Australia used a mandated confiscation.
"Recently, Australia managed to take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can't, why can't we?" a man asked [Hillary] Clinton.
"In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program," Clinton responded. "The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believe, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future … So I think that's worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at."
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-rep...-clinton-and-democrats-want-to-take-your-guns
"Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’"
Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’
"But both she and Barack Obama, along with other prominent Democrats, have invoked England and Australia as models America should consider adopting."
Democrats' "Australian-Style" Solution
You're singing to the choir. The government is currently taking our weapons on the installment plan as is.
Would you like of the proofs that the government has been slowly gearing up for all out confiscations?
The government stole your gun? Was it the DOJ? Was it the Department of Education? (a roving band of teachers), possibly rogue Park Rangers?
You're a typical gun nut. You want blanket rights but aren't responsible enough to secure your weapon, then lie about the circumstance. You are without doubt the poster child for gun control!
and you are no doubt the Poster Child of making up shit.You are without doubt the poster child for gun control!
.....first.
1. Based on the recent massacre, and the full-court press by the Left, ....
"Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."
Repeal the Second Amendment? Almost Half of Democrats Say Yes | National Review
....one might think that your right to bear arms is first on their list.
Nay, nay......not so.
2. First on the list for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.
Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia
One smart Liberal, huh?
3. With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:
"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.
Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.
Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech
Again???
"it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Here....Fredo Cuomo:
Fredo….I’m not stupid like everybody says….I’m smart.
For the Founders, for Conservatives, for classical liberals.....and for Americans....there is no such thing as
"hate speech."
There is only speech.
And the Liberals are about chipping away at what you can say.
Firearms will be made available by the freemarket or by the blackmarket - the most powerful police force , the KGB, could not stop the blackmarket.
The blackmarket provides heroin, cocaine and at one time marihuana - there is NOTHING the motherfuckers can do.
That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.
We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.
But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.
Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.
Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.
Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.
.
The dissenting opinion is worthless. It is the words of the losers. What scares the Hell out of me is the HOLDING. The holding is the law - period. Here is why Heller was the worst United States Supreme Court decision in my lifetime:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
What the Hell do they mean, "like most rights?" The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT on the individual. What do they mean "most rights?" You mean some rights are unlimited and some aren't? So which ones does the Court think are are unlimited? Did you know that the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this, they said, that Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.
The Right exists; it predates the Constitution; the feds don't have de jure jurisdiction to deny it and the Court had no authority to declare such a thing.
And why is this?...More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."...
"When Nickolas Cruz was not pursued by the FBI..."
Let's be clear.....the FBI was restricted by Obama policies.
a. "The [Obama] Justice Department already has sued school districts in Florida, South Carolina and Mississippi for implementing allegedly racist disciplinary policies."
Holder's Anti-Discipline Push May Threaten Students | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
b. "The Obama-era Departments of Education and Justice – under education secretary Arne Duncan and Attorney General Eric Holder –issued school guidelines in 2014 that claimed students of color are “disproportionately impacted” by suspensions and expulsions, a situation they said leads to a “school-to-prison pipeline” that discriminates against minority and low-income students.
According to the Obama administration’s 2014 “Dear Colleague” guidance, any school district whose disciplinary measures showed “disparate impact” – meaning a disproportionately greater number of minority students are affected – is open to investigation by [Obama] the Departments of Justice and Education, regardless of whether the behavior leading to the discipline is unacceptable."
Broward County Likely ‘Inspiration’ for Obama School Discipline Policy to Report Fewer Arrests, Suspensions | Breitbart
c. "Cruz assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other "red flags."
Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.
Cruz was never arrested. He wasn't referred to law enforcement. He wasn't even expelled."
The School-To-Mass-Murder Pipeline
d. Obama warned schools not to discipline school children, no matter their actions, if they were members of an authorized minority....meaning, the group voted Democrat.
As a result, Nikolas Cruz was given a pass....multiple passes.....and that unblemished record allowed him to avoid being identified as a possible homicidal maniac.
e. Liberals are responsible for
creating Gun Free Zones
prescribing psychotropic medicines to children
and for the moronic idea behind the "school-to-prison pipeline" policy that allowed Nikolas Cruz to remain free and obtain a weapon.
f. This primitive, stone-age thinking was made official Broward County policy in a Nov. 5, 2013, agreement titled "Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline."
The first "whereas" clause of the agreement states that "the use of arrests and referrals to the criminal justice system may decrease a student's chance of graduation, entering higher education, joining the military and getting a job."
The agreement's third "whereas” clause specifically cites "students of color" as victims of the old, racist policy of treating criminal behavior criminally.'"
The School-To-Mass-Murder Pipeline
g. "The new policy resulted from an Obama administration effort begun in 2011 to keep students in school and improve racial outcomes (timeline here)..."
https://www.realclearinvestigations...cipline_policy_and_the_parkland_shooting.html
Gun control folks regularly bring up background checks.
Why?
Obama’s Promise Program resulted in Nikolas Cruz not having an arrest record…..nothing that a background check would reveal.
So…..he could buy weapons legally.
Obama, Liberal policies that favor criminals, was responsible for the massacre....Democrat policies.
Now.....what will happen to the one responsible for 17 deaths....Obama?
At the end of the day, Nickolas Cruz... just like Adam Lanza, the Columbine shooters, Dylan Roof, etc., etc. could have been detected and dealt with early on - and maybe a lot of lives could be saved.
But, the left don't care about saving lives. It's only about gun control.
"It's only about gun control."
Make that 'gun confiscation' and I'm on board with your statement.
One leads to the other.
For me, here is the deal:
Everybody wants to phrase their solutions into a bumper sticker slogan. Control is registration and bans. Then registration becomes confiscation. Meanwhile the left says that they don't want to take our firearms.
For them, their biggest stumbling block is being ignorant of history, totally oblivious to the present and blind to their destiny. They cannot figure it out, how firearms were the insurance policy that allowed America to become the leader of the free world without having fight every foreign country on God's green earth on our soil in order to maintain that position. The left is lazy and stupid. Freedom is maintained by a well armed citizenry and IF the left could outlaw the Second Amendment in the manner they've chosen, then ALL Rights would be subject to the same legal strategy.
Let me prove my point:
Confiscation is exactly what the Democrats/Liberals/Leftists are all about.
That's why they bring up Australia.
Australia used a mandated confiscation.
"Recently, Australia managed to take away tens of thousands, millions of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can't, why can't we?" a man asked [Hillary] Clinton.
"In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program," Clinton responded. "The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns. Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believe, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future … So I think that's worth considering. I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your example is worth looking at."
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-rep...-clinton-and-democrats-want-to-take-your-guns
"Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’"
Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’
"But both she and Barack Obama, along with other prominent Democrats, have invoked England and Australia as models America should consider adopting."
Democrats' "Australian-Style" Solution
You're singing to the choir. The government is currently taking our weapons on the installment plan as is.
Would you like of the proofs that the government has been slowly gearing up for all out confiscations?
"DNC Official Tweets ‘Repeal The Second Amendment
DNC vice chair for civic engagement and voter protection Karen Carter Peterson unleashed the wrath of Twitter when she tweeted “Repeal the Second Amendment” on Tuesday.
The Louisiana state senator tweeted out Justice John Paul Stevens’ op-ed from last week in The New York Times calling for repealing the Second Amendment.
John Cardillo
✔@johncardillo
Well here it is. Finally.
The DNC’s Vice Chair for Civic Engagement is advocating repeal of the Second Amendment.
This is what @TheDemocrats want. Anything else they claim is a lie. https://twitter.com/teamkcp/status/978636439620644866 …"
This DNC Official Got More Than She Bargained For When She Tweeted 'Repeal the Second Amendment'
Some fat fool tweets an anti-2nd, and you paint the whole party the same PChick?
Looks like few took her seriously
Her tweet got only 50 likes and just over 70 retweets, but it conjured up plenty of negative responses.
~S~
The truest answer to eliminating gun violence in general is to never let leftists be in charge of ANYTHING. Done.
The truest answer to eliminating gun violence is to raise wages and give people some hope. The fact is if you are 18, the chance of your ever retiring is not good if you don't have the full benefit social security, a fully vested IRA or KEOGH, and $320,000.00 in cash.
So, you're saying the Vegas shooter, that owned at least one apartment complex, which gave him more than $500,000 in annual income, and made $5-6 million in profits from its sale just needed some hope?
Try to keep up. The issue I was answering was school shootings.
FYI Paddocks net assets were at least 10 times what you listed. What would have stopped Paddock would have been a ban on AR-15's plus an NCIC information share with States so his mass purchase would have been detected.
You may want to read your own statement...dumbass.
The truest answer to eliminating gun violence is to raise wages and give people some hope.[/QUOIfTE]
In relation to the post about students in school shootings. How many mass shooting did we have in 1956, the last best financial year for the middle class?
Did you imagine (I almost said 'think') that there is such as thing as a perennial 'middle class'?
If so, you are truly a dunce.
The fluidity of the American economic system is legendary.
"Bottom Line: It’s a common misperception that earnings or wealth quintiles are static, closed, private clubs with very little turnover, so that once a household finds itself in an earnings quintile or living below the poverty line in a given year, it’s doomed to stay there for life. But the empirical evidence tells a much different story of dynamic change and turnover in the U.S. economy—people and households move up and down the earnings and wealth quintiles throughout their careers and lives. Many of today’s poor are tomorrow’s rich, and many of today’s rich are tomorrow’s middle class, reflecting the significant upward and downward mobility in the U.S. economy."
OneLife: Income Mobility in the Dynamic U.S. Economy
Wise up.
.....first.
1. Based on the recent massacre, and the full-court press by the Left, ....
"Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment, a survey by The Economist and YouGov revealed."
Repeal the Second Amendment? Almost Half of Democrats Say Yes | National Review
....one might think that your right to bear arms is first on their list.
Nay, nay......not so.
2. First on the list for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.
Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia
One smart Liberal, huh?
3. With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:
"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.
Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.
Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech
Again???
"it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Here....Fredo Cuomo:
Fredo….I’m not stupid like everybody says….I’m smart.
For the Founders, for Conservatives, for classical liberals.....and for Americans....there is no such thing as
"hate speech."
There is only speech.
And the Liberals are about chipping away at what you can say.
Firearms will be made available by the freemarket or by the blackmarket - the most powerful police force , the KGB, could not stop the blackmarket.
The blackmarket provides heroin, cocaine and at one time marihuana - there is NOTHING the motherfuckers can do.
That is true, but I don't agree with getting firearms that way.
We have an unalienable Right to Life. Inherent in that Right is the unalienable Right to keep and bear Arms. We don't need the government's approval nor their permission.
But, it would be a Hell of a lot safer for all concerned if the left could acknowledge the Right.
Even with firearms behind a lock that requires a crow bar to defeat, you have morons saying that isn't enough. They are the same ones who think they can dictate to us what our lives are worth. You obey the law to the letter and when it don't work out, it's our fault their laws suck.
Unfortunately , we must learn to live and survive in an UNfree world.
Five fascists "Justices" will rule that we do not have an individual right to carry firearms. Please read Heller's dissenting opinion.
.
The dissenting opinion is worthless. It is the words of the losers. What scares the Hell out of me is the HOLDING. The holding is the law - period. Here is why Heller was the worst United States Supreme Court decision in my lifetime:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
What the Hell do they mean, "like most rights?" The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT on the individual. What do they mean "most rights?" You mean some rights are unlimited and some aren't? So which ones does the Court think are are unlimited? Did you know that the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this, they said, that Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION.
The Right exists; it predates the Constitution; the feds don't have de jure jurisdiction to deny it and the Court had no authority to declare such a thing.
So firearms are what? a human right? like breathing?
~S~
