Mass Shootings

[royiv 9333]

20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Holy shit last few pages are pretty off the rails. BC is right about a lot of shit in this discussion. Amazing watching the extremists try to roll him on it. 

 

There are reasonable solutions that the vast majority of gun owners/aficionados here and across America would support. In particular when we can focus on shit that is actually evidence based and outcomes oriented wrt gun violence. We've been over them ad nauseum here. Taking real meaningful ground will require a grand compromise, but our political system is not capable of that at atm or over the last 40 years really, in broader terms. Shit has been said going back decades on this board, but give me the pick of about 10 posters on this board and we can land on reasonable policies that would move the needle.  Healthcare, immigration, guns, foreign policy, etc. But our system is fundamentally broken and doesn't allow for common sense or common ground.  Except when it comes to the real core bipartisan issues like military spending, arms sales, and war making.    

Ahhh, the same old bullshit. Those on the other side are the extremists and your side is full of reasonable folks looking for reasonable solutions. Then why hasn't it happened, at least with some modicum of success in this state where the same party has held power since 1995? Seems like plenty of time to get something done, especially when our state leads the way in school shootings.

[fattyflattie 4638]

2 minutes ago, ultimaton said:

sorry all those dead kids are turning out to be such a burden for you

I’d lay the blame at the feet of the maniacs that killed them, but you do you. 

[royiv 9333]

5 minutes ago, ultimaton said:

sorry all those dead kids are turning out to be such a burden for you

 

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Should law abiding adults be able to own a 10/22?

Your stupidity and lack of reading comprehension is really quite amazing. Did you attend an institution of higher learning?

[fattyflattie 4638]

11 minutes ago, royiv said:

 

Your stupidity and lack of reading comprehension is really quite amazing. Did you attend an institution of higher learning?

Why do you have such a problem answering such a simple question?   I’m trying to gauge your sincerity to the situation. You said no AR .22, but others are fine.  Then next you got up in you feels and said ban them all. I just want to know what you find acceptable to adults in the US to own.   It’s really pretty fucking simple, and I don’t understand your hesitancy. 

[Anastasis 23481]

23 minutes ago, royiv said:

Ahhh, the same old bullshit. Those on the other side are the extremists and your side is full of reasonable folks looking for reasonable solutions. Then why hasn't it happened, at least with some modicum of success in this state where the same party has held power since 1995? Seems like plenty of time to get something done, especially when our state leads the way in school shootings.

Some of us have been having these discussions on this board (and its predecessors) for 20+ years. There have certainly been evolving perspectives. Some moreso than others (looking at all the idiots here that pulled the lever for Republicans over and over and over again, leading their local events, fundraising, and shit, but somehow found Jesus. Good for you guys.). Same old bullshit been recirculated here.  I actually expect that some posters here pay attention to the conversations and can interpret people like BC's posts in context. Not necessarily you. But others. My expectations may be too high though.    

Edited April 13, 2023 by Anastasis

[Bozo_Casanova 26511]

54 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

The counterpoint is that both the Uvalde shooter and the Louisville bank shooter bought a brand new AR-15 within days of their respective massacres. That’s 19 dead children, 2 dead teachers, and 6 dead bank employees. And that’s just the easy memorable shootings from the past year

The specific reforms i suggested target those shooters in specific ways that a ban would not. It’s the same thing I pointed out about the 5.7 i may buy. I’m proposing things that would keep mass shooters away from guns.
The ban is a radioactive nonstarter, but more importantly, it’s a much more blunt instrument in 1994 than in 2023 and not likely to be as effective as other, more viable stuff. Would you like to expend all your political capital and have the Uvalde or Louisville shooters go buy a couple G17s or Mini-14s instead? Both high capacity semi-automatics, neither covered in the 1994 bill. 

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[fattyflattie 4638]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The ban is a radioactive nonstarter, but more importantly, it’s a much more blunt instrument in 1994 than in 2023 and not likely to be as effective as other, more viable stuff.

Bozo, are you saying just a ban, or a collection effort/no grandfather for existing arms covered in that ban? 

[royiv 9333]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Why do you have such a problem answering such a simple question?   I’m trying to gauge your sincerity to the situation. You said no AR .22, but others are fine.  Then next you got up in you feels and said ban them all. I just want to know what you find acceptable to adults in the US to own.   It’s really pretty fucking simple, and I don’t understand your hesitancy. 

Because it's just going around and around with you. It makes no difference since you will never do anything meaningful to stop the slaughter of children. You revel in it. You admit it by denigrating any attempt to address the problem a crusade. You relish saying that you get off knowing that your grandchildren will be having these same debates (just hope your kids don't get murdered, hopefully you have time to make more). 

[fattyflattie 4638]

3 minutes ago, royiv said:

Because it's just going around and around with you. It makes no difference since you will never do anything meaningful to stop the slaughter of children. You revel in it. You admit it by denigrating any attempt to address the problem a crusade. You relish saying that you get off knowing that your grandchildren will be having these same debates (just hope your kids don't get murdered, hopefully you have time to make more). 

Nonsense. I’ll support any policies that fit the dozen(?) or so things we can easily do that I agree with, when my elected reps bring them.   I already don’t put firearms back “onto the market”, which is a big one in and of itself.  I currently don’t donate to the NRA.  I don’t F2F typically, so the govt has a great idea of what I actually own, etc.  
 

So, is a little baby .22 fine or no?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

10 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Nonsense. I’ll support any policies that fit the dozen(?) or so things we can easily do that I agree with, when my elected reps bring them.

Lulz

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

[Captainant 27694]

10 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

when my elected reps bring them

Your intellectual dishonesty is showing, fatty. You don't participate in elections, or give enough of a fuck about children getting fucking pulped in their schools, to vote.

You care enough to drop five figures on new rooty tooty point and shooties each year, but heaven forbid you vote for someone who may moderately restrict your hobby

10 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

So, is a little baby .22 fine or no?

playing fuck-fuck games with caliber in a mass shooting thread. Never change you absolute chud

[fattyflattie 4638]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Your intellectual dishonesty is showing, fatty. You don't participate in elections, or give enough of a fuck about children getting fucking pulped in their schools, to vote.

You care enough to drop five figures on new rooty tooty point and shooties each year, but heaven forbid you vote for someone who may moderately restrict your hobby

playing fuck-fuck games with caliber in a mass shooting thread. Never change you absolute chud

I didn’t vote in the last election.  I said I’d vote for reps that have restrictions I agree with, and that sure as fuck isn’t Beto.   Lol @ fuck-fuck games. I’m curious about how he comes to his conclusions, why they changed literally one post to the next, and he’s not willing to answer.  Definition of bad faith argument, imo. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Lauren Boebert is my congresswoman. I plan on supporting her when she brings forth common sense gun reform proposals forward.

[Captainant 27694]

30 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I didn’t vote in the last election.  I said I’d vote for reps that have restrictions I agree with, and that sure as fuck isn’t Beto.   Lol @ fuck-fuck games. I’m curious about how he comes to his conclusions, why they changed literally one post to the next, and he’s not willing to answer.  Definition of bad faith argument, imo. 

Just so you know: Beto hasn't run for a legislative office since his 2018 run for Senate. So you're making an empty point with "well I couldn't vote for BETO!" unless you're actually claiming that everyone with a (D) is Beto?

Jusy trying to understand how you're defending your failure to vote for legislators by pointing at a dude who's ran for executive offices the last two election cycles. 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Captainant
Corrected a missing 'nt

[Bozo_Casanova 26511]

11 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Bozo, are you saying just a ban, or a collection effort/no grandfather for existing arms covered in that ban? 

I was talking about the bill that was in the Senate last year, which was very much like the 1994 bill with a similar grandfather component for possession and xfer on weapoms in private hands at the time of the act. Which I would personally be fine with, but it's a nonstarter, to wit:

So much of this is really about product adoption. You know this, but a big part of why the ban was able to pass in 1994 was because it exempted all of the guns that would meet the legislative definition but were mainstream popular at the time, i.e. Mini-14, Mini-30 and OVER 650 others. 
In other words, the bill actually targeted unpopular guns that conservative law and order type people were worried about at that time,  which were not popular in the mainstream - the Colt AR-15 was one of them and was associated with kooks like David Koresh, but the big three were the cheap  Eastern Bloc AK-47s that flooded the country as the Soviet Union fell, and of course the guns that everyone associated with terrorism and drug crimes: the UZI and the Tec-9.  At that point, the big three already had import bans going back 5 years and had become quite disreputable. Certainly a Republican congressman wouldn't be seen holding one at anything other than a drug bust. 

In other words in 1994 they exempted the Mini-14 from the ban because even though a mini-14 can do everything an AR-15 does other than play dress up better than the AR (fight me), it was just way too popular and successful to be politically viable to take it off the market, even on a go-forward basis. 

So this is a real pickle - in 2023 the biggest problem product (the AR-15) is also the most popular product, so the option to have their cake and eat it that was available to lawmakers in 1994 isn't available now.  

Edited April 13, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[DDD Dad 14346]

19 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Well you aren't really talking about a lot of people who would actually do something, but January 6th certainly got my attention.  That said, I'm more concerned near term about pockets of disorder in rural and exurban areas - not so much insurrection but revolt and a lack of respect for the rights of those outside the local majority. I mean, it's not like they aren't banning books. That's typically a pretty bad sign. 

You mean, like the constitutional sheriffs who don't think they have to follow federal law?

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by DDD Dad

[fattyflattie 4638]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Just so you know: Beto hasn't run for a legislative office since his 2018 run for Senate. So you're making an empty point with "well I couldn't vote for BETO!" unless you're actually claiming that everyone with a (D) is Beto?

Jusy trying to understand how you're defending your failure to vote for legislators by pointing at a dude who's ran for executive offices the last two election cycles. 

Oh I forgot, executive office can’t do shit. Yall just bitch about wheels because…

2 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Lauren Boebert is my congresswoman. I plan on supporting her when she brings forth common sense gun reform proposals forward.

You should. It’s a bipartisan issue. 

[fattyflattie 4638]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I was talking about the bill that was in the Senate last year, which was very much like the 1994 bill with a similar grandfather component for possession and xfer on weapoms in private hands at the time of the act. Which I would personally be fine with, but it's a nonstarter, to wit:

So much of this is really about product adoption. You know this, but a big part of why the ban was able to pass in 1994 was because it exempted all of the guns that would meet the legislative definition but were mainstream popular at the time, i.e. Mini-14, Mini-30 and OVER 650 others. 
In other words, the bill actually targeted unpopular guns that conservative law and order type people were worried about at that time,  which were not popular in the mainstream - the Colt AR-15 was one of them and was associated with kooks like David Koresh, but the big three were the cheap  Eastern Bloc AK-47s that flooded the country as the Soviet Union fell, and of course the guns that everyone associated with terrorism and drug crimes: the UZI and the Tec-9.  At that point, the big three already had import bans going back 5 years and had become quite disreputable. Certainly a Republican congressman wouldn't be seen holding one at anything other than a drug bust. 

In other words in 1994 they exempted the Mini-14 from the ban because even though a mini-14 can do everything an AR-15 does other than play dress up better than the AR (fight me), it was just way too popular and successful to be politically viable to take it off the market, even on a go-forward basis. 

So this is a real pickle - in 2023 the biggest problem product (the AR-15) is also the most popular product, so the option to have their cake and eat it that was available to lawmakers in 1994 isn't available now.  

Thx. Reason I was asking is there were some posts just above your original post on it about not grandfathering, which I believe would be an absolute non-starter.  I couldn’t tell if you were speaking to that, or what you just laid out.  
 

I think there’s a good chance they could get the AR/AK platforms shut down moving forwards, or taxed to near non-existence, whatever.  The problem will be tying it to every other SA, and I think it’ll lose its steam/favor.  And while you’d take away the boogieman, all you have accomplished is making the mini/SCAR/SKS/any bullpup the new dejour killing machine for psychopaths.  

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

12 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You should. It’s a bipartisan issue. 

What fuck are you talking about?

Here's Lauren's platform on guns:

Quote

When I was sworn into Congress, I pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States—including the Second Amendment. The Founders understood that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state, so they drafted the Bill of Rights to ensure that the government did not mess with our sacred liberties.

Despite the clarity of the Second Amendment, leftists continue to try and trample on our enumerated rights. The Second Amendment is not open for debate, and I oppose the continuous, sustained, and unceasing attacks on our Constitution. When the government limits an individual's ability to lawfully purchase or carry firearms, it effectively disarms law-abiding citizens while allowing criminals to act unchecked.

As the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus, I directly fight to keep our freedoms intact. I successfully led efforts opposing gun control activist and lobbyist David Chipman’s confirmation as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Additionally, I co-sponsored the No REGISTRY Rights Act to delete over one billion ATF records of firearms transactions and ensure that the ATF follows the law and ceases creating a federal firearms registry. Like many law-abiding gun owners, I don’t trust the Biden regime or the federal government with this information. This bill ensures these records are deleted, restores privacy, and defends the Second Amendment.

I am a tireless advocate for the Second Amendment. I wrote an op-ed in the Washington Examiner defending the right to keep and bear arms from the leftist measures in the so-called “Bi-Partisan Background Checks Act” and the “Enhanced Background Check Act".  I also spoke against both these bills on the House Floor and called out Members of Congress who have taxpayer-funded 24/7 armed security but want to deny Americans the right to defend themselves.

When RINOs caved and passed a terrible gun control bill, I introduced the Shall Not Be Infringed Act to repeal this terrible legislation and protect the Second Amendment.

I filed an amicus brief defending the Second Amendment before the Supreme Court in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. For the last century, New York’s mandates have banned Americans from carrying a firearm outside of their home unless a public safety bureaucrat determines they have “proper cause.” I searched the Second Amendment, but I couldn’t find the phrase “proper cause,” all I saw was “shall not be infringed.” The Supreme Court agreed with our argument and struck down unconstitutional "may-issue" regimes nationwide. This was the biggest legal win for the Second Amendment in decades!

When Democrats added red flag laws to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) targeting our men and women in uniform, I voted against red flag laws. I worked to amend the NDAA and add Second Amendment protections. Because of my work, the final version of the NDAA did not include red flag laws, and our men and women in uniform will still have the same Second Amendment rights as everyone else. Our men and women in uniform defend the Constitution, and I will always defend their constitutional rights. Additionally, I cosponsored the Defending Veterans’ Second Amendment Rights Act to prohibit the VA from transferring veterans’ information to NICS solely because they have received a disability rating for a mental illness. Americans who fought for freedom deserve to be free!

I also joined over 100 Members in protecting the Second Amendment and urging Biden not to rejoin the unconstitutional United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. I introduced amendments to government funding bills to defund red flag laws, gun control programs targeting law-abiding citizens, and gun buyback programs. I cosponsored the SAFER Voter Act to lower the legal gun-purchasing age to 18—the age people can be drafted and serve in the military. Additionally, I cosponsored the Protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act to prohibit imposing gun control measures under the guise of a national emergency.

I strongly defended the Second Amendment of our Constitution and opposed an unconstitutional stunt from House Democrats to ban Members of Congress from carrying firearms for their personal protection in House Committee hearing and conference rooms.

I will always guard the sacred text of our Constitution, and I oppose gun grabs, mandatory gun buy backs, the creation of a national firearm registry, the criminalization of common transfers of firearms between family members and neighbors, and any other policies the radical left pursues to attack the Second Amendment. I vote against gun control bills that threaten our Second Amendment rights, and I will remain a strong defender of the Constitution. I am keeping my promise to defend the Second Amendment and upholding my oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

 

As a result of my work on the Second Amendment, I earned an "A" rating with both Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association.

 

[royiv 9333]

8 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

What fuck are you talking about?

Here's Lauren's platform on guns:

 

That all sounds like pretty reasonable compromise, no? After reading that, I can totally see why gun control is a failure of the democratic party. The republican party, led by the esteemed Second Amendment Caucus is all about common sense and protecting children.

[RomaVicta 29951]

19 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Remember how you keep saying this thing, and I keep asking you to prove I said it, and you keep not.  Pepperidge farm remembers. 

I do want you to know I hold literal dog shit in higher regards than you.  I'm sure you can figure out where I hold firearms in regards to dogshit.

Where does ironic dog shit fit into your hierarchy?

[fattyflattie 4638]

10 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Where does ironic dog shit fit into your hierarchy?

Irony always get a little bump.  

[fattyflattie 4638]

24 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Where does ironic dog shit fit into your hierarchy?

Too late to add.  Further irony, Royiv had my vote late last night.  So maybe I was a bit hyperbolic in my insults. 

[Captainant 27694]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Oh I forgot, executive office can’t do shit. Yall just bitch about wheels because…

How about you stop being such a fucking weasel and stick to one talking point? We were talking legislation. Legislators write legislation. Governors only sign it. If the lege doesn't pass it, the governor can't sign it. 

You are not participating in this thread honestly, and are falling back on braindead talking points when it's pointed out to you. 

 

You sure you're not aggy? Because you're acting like aggy. 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Captainant

[fattyflattie 4638]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

How about you stop being such a fucking weasel and stick to one talking point? We were talking legislation. Legislators write legislation. Governors only sign it. If the lege doesn't pass it, the governor can't sign it. 

You are not participating in this thread honestly, and are falling back on braindead talking points when it's pointed out to you. 

 

You sure you're not aggy? Because you're acting like aggy. 

I maintain I will vote for any further restrictive measures put forth by my R reps.  You can take it or leave it, doesn't bother me in the slightest. 

[BrickHorn 18258]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I maintain I will vote for any further restrictive measures put forth by my R reps.

That’s as brave as promising to match any charitable contribution by the Trump Org. 

[DDD Dad 14346]

12 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I maintain I will vote for any further restrictive measures put forth by my R reps.  You can take it or leave it, doesn't bother me in the slightest. 

What if it is a restrictive measure you've already indicated you approve but it's put forth by a D rep?

[Captainant 27694]

21 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I maintain I will vote for any further restrictive measures put forth by my R reps.  You can take it or leave it, doesn't bother me in the slightest. 

R reps will not ever vote for gun restrictions. Saying you support gun control because you'll vote for any (R) that does is like me saying that I will pay you a billion dollars for every blowjob you get from AOC. It's not gonna fucking happen so it's just idiotic to argue like it will.

Stop being an intellectually dishonest fuck and own that you will never vote for any sort of gun control. 

[Biff Tannen 45695]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

So this is a real pickle - in 2023 the biggest problem product (the AR-15) is also the most popular product, so the option to have their cake and eat it that was available to lawmakers in 1994 isn't available now.  

So because it’s popular, we can’t ban it?  

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I maintain I will vote for any further restrictive measures put forth by my R reps.

Hey @Bozo_Casanova is this an example of the type of good faith actor we’re supposed to engage?

[fattyflattie 4638]

42 minutes ago, Captainant said:

R reps will not ever vote for gun restrictions. Saying you support gun control because you'll vote for any (R) that does is like me saying that I will pay you a billion dollars for every blowjob you get from AOC. It's not gonna fucking happen so it's just idiotic to argue like it will.

Stop being an intellectually dishonest fuck and own that you will never vote for any sort of gun control. 

I was under the impression a bipartisan bill just got passed.  Surely your aware of it?  

[nbmishoid 963]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I maintain I will vote for any further restrictive measures put forth by my R reps.  You can take it or leave it, doesn't bother me in the slightest. 

And I will make love to “insert best looker here” as soon as she offers.

[Hermanator 7124]

50 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So because it’s popular, we can’t ban it?  

That's exactly what it means. Gun lobby owns a large piece of republican congressman's ass. Along with many other corporate entities like oil corporations. They learned their lesson from the cigarette lobby not pulling it's weight enough and allowing smoking bans and bans on advertising. They aren't going to allow republican politicians to ban any guns. Never again. 

[Captainant 27694]

23 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I was under the impression a bipartisan bill just got passed.  Surely your aware of it?  

Care to refresh my memory with some links and details? I'm not sure what you're referring to

[Anastasis 23481]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Care to refresh my memory with some links and details? I'm not sure what you're referring to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Safer_Communities_Act

 

[fattyflattie 4638]

2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

What if it is a restrictive measure you've already indicated you approve but it's put forth by a D rep?

I would be for it and encourage my reps to consider it.   But I’m just one vote, they need to follow the majority of their constituents.  

[DDD Dad 14346]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

I would be for it and encourage my reps to consider it.   But I’m just one vote, they need to follow the majority of their constituents.  

Would you vote against your R rep if he or she voted against it?

(I know the answer).

[Captainant 27694]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

I was under the impression a bipartisan bill just got passed.  Surely your aware of it?  

 

34 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Safer_Communities_Act

 

Gotcha. That's a pretty tortured use of "just passed" and "bipartisan", for having passed the senate in Dec of 2021, failed the House in Mar'22 due to GOP fuckery, and then passed on a second try two months later. (link)

Further, only ten out of 200 republicans in the house voted for it. Five fucking percent. You don't get a participation ribbon for a bud heavy's worth of bipartisanship. 

 

More intellectual dishonesty and half-truths. But at least you've got annie backing you up now! You've got most of a surly intellectual darkweb going lmao

Edited April 13, 2023 by Captainant
added link to back my claim

[fattyflattie 4638]

Unequivocally no. It’s not even close to my #1 issue.   If we voted on things a la carte, would be a no brainer yes (up to and including red flag, depending) but that’s not how we do things here, so we get what we have chosen. 

[fattyflattie 4638]

Just now, Captainant said:

More intellectual dishonesty and half-truths. But at least you've got annie backing you up now! You've got most of a surly intellectual darkweb going lmao

I’m sorry that you dont agree with the definition of bipartisan. Maybe you can write someone about changing that as well. 🤷‍♂️

[Anastasis 23481]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

But at least you've got annie backing you up now!

Sorry that you do not pay attention and know what he was referring to.  The bill originated in and passed the Senate by unanimous consent. I know that it is hard to go against your nature, but try to stop being such a dumbass. 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Anastasis

[Captainant 27694]

Nothing more fun than a "health care" huckster and an oilman coming into a thread to tell me all about how much republicans are doing to address gun violence. Those guys are always honest!

[Anastasis 23481]

Just now, Captainant said:

Nothing more fun than a "health care" huckster and an oilman coming into a thread to tell me all about how much republicans are doing to address gun violence. Those guys are always honest!

You are a simple clown. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26511]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

So because it’s popular, we can’t ban it?  

Certainly doesn't make it easier. 
I was trying to explain my comments about the facts on the ground. In 1994 there was a bipartisan consensus to ban a short list of unpopular, problem products that could be taken off the market at a relatively low political and economic cost. Now we are talking about banning the manufacture and sale of an extremely popular problem product on an almost strictly partisan basis.

Maybe there's an example, but off the top of my head I can't think of an equivalent effort that has ever succeeded. 
 

[nbmishoid 963]

Check your mirror for a head bruise, BC

[fattyflattie 4638]

Just now, nbmishoid said:

Check your mirror for a head bruise, BC

What do you believe is incorrect about that statement?

[nbmishoid 963]

Narcissist.  I wasn’t referring to you.  I was referring to BC’s efforts.

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

So because it’s popular, we can’t ban it?  

That and because he might want to buy one. 

[jimmyjazz 46001]

Fucking is popular.  Let's legalize rape.