I wonder how many years a constituent would get if they went into his office, sat in front of his desk and put a pistol on it while complaining.
They’d be eating carpet immediately if they weren’t shot by the cops.
I wonder how many years a constituent would get if they went into his office, sat in front of his desk and put a pistol on it while complaining.
They’d be eating carpet immediately if they weren’t shot by the cops.
Along with the stats of innocent bystanders caught by stray rounds in the crossfire.
it’s worse than that. He is taking the voice away from someone already victimized, and doing it in the name of the victim. That he was saying so while brandishing is a whole other level of disordered personality.
You answer your own question. Murcans want brainless thugs in power
Nope. The CDC is banned from taking statistics that could possibly cast firearms in a negative light.
That’s what the order from Congress actually says. No specific ban, just a ban on taking stats about guns because it may cast them in a negative light.
They cleverly ignore the problem in order to make it go away.
I think if you replaced all instances of “loaded handgun” in the article with “penis”, it remains accurate and captures the deeper meaning.
And it would be easier to lock up Ralph Norman as a weenie-wagger than as a nutcase with a gun.
Well it was a room full of women. Seems to really bring out the best in that guy,.
Talk about “out’a touch”. TGOP won’t wake up until November, then the real crying will start.
It’s really unfortunate because the perfect burn/own in this situation would be to pick up the gun and shoot him with it, but nobody else in the room is a monster so it doesn’t happen.
the reveal of his own mother, watching from behind a 2-way mirror.
It’s a guy thing.
had to say, thanks!
An organization of moms. They’ve seen that before, only life-sized.
The gun “debate” is not about facts and reason. Republicans and the NRA have molded it into a wedge issue that they use to get people to vote GOP who otherwise wouldn’t. The goal is to divide the electorate into those who are “pro-gun” and “anti-gun,” and get people to believe the narrative that the anti-gun side’s real goal is to ban all guns**. Meanwhile, the pro-gun narrative is all about personal choice and supporting constitutional rights. If it appeared that both Democrats and Republicans supported reasonable gun control legislation, then the GOP has no advantage. If they frame it as a choice between supporting constitutional rights vs submitting your personal protection to government control, then they get people on their side.
Norman showing his gun off has nothing to do with protecting himself. He’s just waving a flag in front of those voters who have been brainwashed by the NRA and saying “I’m one of you.”
** You can watch NRATV commercials on YouTube where they say exactly these words. “There’s no such thing as common sense gun legislation. Democrats secretly just want to ban all guns.”
Clearly the ideal solution would have been if EVERYONE in the crowd had a gun and was shooting at everyone else.
That’s such a rich old white man thing to do.
Meanwhile they have no concern with laws outlawing knives big enough to do common farm chores with, let alone swords or bayonettes. And heaven forbid you conceal carry ninja stars…
Meanwhile black men are getting gunned down by police for holding cell phones.
Permit revoked? Any decent, god-fearing, gun-totin’ American Patriot, who willingly surrenders control of his firearm when surrounded by a pack of rabid, feral, radicalised, liberal, socialist, womenfolk, needs his goddarn head lookin’ at, consarnit!
(Sorry, I just can’t take the US seriously these days. It is like the worst, cruelest, dumbest sitcom ever).
Gangster-style? Or Landscape as we call it?