Sure sure. You got your "Fire and Fury", then you got your "Stormy", then you got your "Omarosa". Little puffs of nothing for the left to desperately cling to. Kinda like how this started out with you saying the dossier wasn't the main part of the surveillance warrants and asking why Trump doesn't fire people if they did something wrong. You're caught in a slow mudslide down the side of the mountain just grabbing at tufts of grass sticking out. Present your evidence Omarosa. We all know she has none though. If she did it would already have been leaked. She's just trying to eke out 2 or 3 more books before it's all over. Don't worry though, Tom Arnold and Rosie are on the case.
The two aren't even comparable. No one is saying that if have a gun you are therefore invincible. Everybody is vulnerable to being shot. however it's extremely hypocritical for someone to be for gun reform and yet committed murder.
someone who wants less guns shoots someone Or Someone who wants more guns GETS shot Seem pretty similiar to me
The Left are cowards who wear masks, either white in the past or black in recent years to intimidate others and hide their identity while they assault those they disagree with. Made up of butch women and beta males they require odds of 3, 4, 5, or more per each Trump supporter when they start getting violent. Of course they don't want the other side to be able to even the odds with a firearm.
So you're trying to imply someone who once tried to run for a state political office but gave it up a year ago is suppose to represent Democratic party? Looks like she shot the guy she was living with. You think that she shot him for political differences, or could it have been another tragic case of people living together letting their differences take them over the line. That happens often, you know.
I'm not sure I'd call the murder of an innocent person a great moment in anything, but then again I'm not a schmuck who's so self involved that I completely forget about the dead body as I quickly step over it in my rush to score points on the other side.
She's not every Democrat, but she does represent the Democrats who are gun banners because they themselves can't trust themselves with guns.
Absolutely. To support gun rights you have to have a general trust of people and believe people are competent. If a person believes everyone else is incompetent and dangerous, then to protect himself he wants to control all those people - which means disarming them.
That's actually totally different, because the person in the OP isn't a victim, because nobody asks to be a victim they really can't be caught up in the irony the same way as a perpetrator...
Then they would not believe in gun control. The facts do not support gun control. The USA and Australia are a perfect example, 2 Western nations with similar populations, and took opposite approaches over the same time frame. The USA, starting in the late 1980's, began relaxing gun control, enacting stand your ground and castle doctrine laws, more people began getting carry permits, gun ownership increased. And violent crime decreased >50% since 1991, gun crime and homicide decreased >50%. AUS went the other direction, enacting strict gun control and gun bans in 1996, and triggered a crime bubble in which previously declining crime rates skyrocketed. Violent crime went from 716.7 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 1015.7 in 2001/2002, a 42% increase. Even homicide increased from 3.63 to 4.2, then dropping after a massive investment in police funding and activity. Armed robbery, sexual assault, kidnapping, assault with severe injury, all increased. That's from the AUS Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports. The data is very clear. More guns does not mean more crime. Fewer guns does not mean less crime. Its more likely the opposite, more guns less crime.
That's quite a stretch. Do you have any credible reason to back up your claim about trusting themselves? The rantings of gun nuts is not a credible source, but do you have a credible source that backs up your claim? I've looked. I haven't found any more reason to believe your claim than I did to believe that stupid sex slave pizza shop story.
To be clear, you are requesting hard evidence that liberals psychologically don't trust themselves around guns? This is just my speculation, and therefore my opinion, not based on anything more than anecdotes like this one. If you have a data based answer I would be curious to hear it however.
Australia has a population of less than 22 million, and less than 70% of our land area.. We have more than 313 million. How do you consider that as similar? We had a ban on certain types of guns for a while, and the right wing predicted our gun crime rate would soar when it went into effect. That rate fell appreciably between 1994 and 2004, the time that ban was in effect. Fewer guns did mean fewer crimes.
An opinion based on speculation is hardly worthy of belief. Is that why right wingers spout silly unfounded claims such as yours?
"An opinion based on speculation is hardly worthy of belief." Interesting point, and not entirely wrong, however the number of actual "opinions" that are available to be tested as a hypothesis are not large. Most people have to fill in the blanks with a worldview. Not you of course. I'm sure every single opinion you hold has been rigorously tested via the scientific method, for example your conjecture that "right wingers spout silly unfounded claims such as yours." I anxiously await the data on this with the terms defined for the purposes of the study.
She represents the hypocrisy of the party. I live in the liberal petri dish, Los Angeles. Judges, politicians, and gang members carry guns and limo-liberals live in safe neighborhoods telling others why they don't need a firearm.
