I’m Shocked . . . Shocked!

Reader Eric sent a letter to his Senators expressing his support for protecting Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. Here’s the response he received from Senator John McCain:

Dear Dr. XXXX:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and its impact on federal gun legislation. I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me . . .

As you know, on December 14, 2012, a mentally unstable gunman committed a senseless atrocity by murdering twenty students and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut. While many Americans continue to try to rationalize this tragedy it remains clear that the inhumane and depraved actions of this individual gunman appear to be motivated solely by his extremely disturbed mental state.

On January 16, 2013, President Obama and his administration introduced a twenty-three point plan which lays out both executive and legislative proposals that would attempt to prevent future violence. As the details of the President’s proposals become more clear, I look forward to reviewing them, and working with my colleagues to find sensible solutions that respect the Second Amendment but also help us prevent these type of horrific events from ever happening again.

While I am an unwavering supporter of the Second Amendment, please know that I will seriously consider all reasonable public safety legislation that comes before the Senate.

Thank you once again for contacting my office. Please do not hesitate to do so on this or any other issue of concern.

Sincerely,

John McCain

United States Senator

79 Responses to I’m Shocked . . . Shocked!

  1. avatarMike P. says:

    That letter is so vaguely worded so that McCain could vote for or against almost anything and not be called to account for it.

    • avatarJMS says:

      Agreed. It’s his job to read and consider any legislation that hits the Senate floor. I wouldn’t want any senator automatically voting for or against anything just because of the overall subject matter or the side of the aisle that the bill came from. Like Mike P said, this is so very vague and open to interpretation that it is effectively meaningless. If you think McCain has just made an anti-2A statement then it’s because that’s how you choose to perceive his comments.

      If I were a senator sending auto-response e-mails on the question of gun control right now, I would likely say something fairly similar. Along the lines of, “I will not support or vote for any legislation that infringes upon the 2nd Amendment, but it is my duty to consider all legislation that may come up for a vote and I will give a fair read to any new bill and weigh it against the wishes of my constituency and against the Constitution that I have sworn to uphold.”

  2. avatarRichard says:

    That funny I got same letter from write John McCain to.

  3. avatarj says:

    I don’t trust McCain or his judgment as far as I can throw either. He has proven himself easily compromised and don’t get me started on illegal aliens!

  4. avatarmike123 says:

    So let’s review for those not paying attention to the news.

    Senator McCain is for amnesty for foreigners who have violated our immigration laws while at the same time he wants to throw gun owning Americans in jail for selling their personal property. Nice Guy!

  5. avatarRoss says:

    On January 16, 2013, President Obama and his administration introduced a twenty-three point plan which lays out both executive and legislative proposals that would attempt to prevent future violence. As the details of the President’s proposals become more clear, I look forward to reviewing them, and working with my colleagues to find sensible solutions that respect the Second Amendment but also help us prevent these type of horrific events from ever happening again.

    While I am an unwavering supporter of the Second Amendment, please know that I will seriously consider all reasonable public safety legislation that comes before the Senate.

    Really John, really….. “unwavering supporter of the Second Amendment” you should have shut your mouth right there.

  6. avatarBill in IL says:

    Insane McCain has got to go! How he remains a senator from AZ shall remain a mystery.

  7. avatarCHris says:

    Sounds like he is posturing to jump the fence again.

  8. avatarblehtastic says:

    Honestly, I think he’s got brain issues.

    • avatarAharon says:

      Seriously, I’ve had that impression about JM for about the past ten years. There is something about him he mostly keeps hidden under the surface. I suspect that he is slightly insane.

  9. avatarCJ says:

    Well, what do you expect from an East Coast Democrat!………… Oh, Ummmm hmmmm……..crap

  10. avatarJSIII says:

    Time to finally ditch all these RINOs

    • avatarChristoff says:

      RINO? Whatcha talking about? McCain would have us in 7 different wars right now if he had his way. Someone’s gotta look out for the military-industrial complex. Granted, he may not hate him some Mexicans quite enough, but no one’s perfect. Maybe he likes their encheritos. Or possibly he hasn’t figured out yet that alienating every single demographic except disgruntled older white men is the key to electoral success.

  11. avatarAnmut says:

    HOW do these guys keep getting reelected and reelected?? Especially in a state like AZ!

    I hope that the past 2 months and the next 3 months stay laser burned into the mind of the informed voter and that we might have a chance to kick some of these clowns out of office in 2014/16.

    • avatarLarryR says:

      How do these guys keep getting reelected? Simple. For one, the incombent always has the advandage, and two, even simpler, what it always boils down to, is that in the voters eyes, it’s “the devil you know”, and they know that they can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time, but they can’t fool all of the people all of the time, so they concentrate on fooling the fools that will vote for them. Or something like that.

      • avatarStinkeye says:

        “For one, the incumbent always has the advantage”

        That’s putting it mildly. For the vast majority of federal-level elections in this country, it’s virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent unless he or she gets caught with a dead prostitute or a suitcase full of cocaine. They’ve spent the last four or five decades mucking around with district maps to ensure that it’s almost impossible for the opposing party to mount an effective challenge, and have locked up local and state-level politics to keep potential primary challengers in their place.

        Additionally, incumbents usually have a massive fundraising advantage, since most of them spend as much time as possible on the taxpayer’s dime raising money and handing out favors to be called in during the next election.

        It’s pathetic that Congress has re-election rates over 95%, while their approval ratings are always under 20%. Those are the kind of numbers you expect from a totalitarian state, not a supposed democratic republic.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        “How do these guys keep getting reelected?”

        Probably because no one can figure out their position on anything. Americans are a charitable lot, and one of their major failings is tending to think the best of leaders, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

  12. avatarensitu says:

    McCain’s “Auto Biogrphy” opens with his seduction of the daughter of an Argentine diplomat’s daughter. He published this KNOWING that his daughter would someday read it. What kind of a man puts his ego before the welbeing of his own children?
    He’s just anmother Crypto-Commie pushing his Leftest agenda!

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Manchurian candidate. I don’t know if any of McCain’s fellow “guests” at the Hanoi Hilton are still living to tell the tale, but he sold them out multiple times. A VERY BAD waste of protoplasm.

      • avatarRalph says:

        he sold them out multiple times

        Utter nonsense.

      • avatarEvan says:

        Im sorry but you can’t just go off spouting things like this with nothing to back it up except your dislike of him. To say he sold them out is insulting even if you don’t like the man, I don’t like him but I won’t pretend to know everything about him and also insult the experiences he has had.

  13. avatarJohnnyNRA says:

    Tomorrow, you and I get our first look at the gun control monster President Barack Obama and his anti-gun pals have been building behind closed doors . . .

    Make no mistake — this will be the biggest fight over our gun rights in a generation, and you will have a critical role to play.

    In fact, U.S. Senator and NAGR member Rand Paul has thrown down the gauntlet.

  14. Politicians don’t give a damn about us little people. Regardless of what letter is beside their name.

  15. avatarCharlie says:

    I respect John McCain, but clearly his time is past. He was the wrong candidate to push for president in 2008, and I don’t think he’s got any better since then.

    Remember the Bob Dole fiasco in 1996? What is it with the Republicans and their “old white men”?

    Sheesh!
    Charlie

    • avatarBill in IL says:

      Why do you respect McCain? From what I have read and come to know about him, there is absolutely nothing to respect about him whatsoever.

  16. avatarNew Chris says:

    I am unwavering in my commitment to waiver…

  17. avatarLance says:

    I do know he opposed the AWB in 08 and again I think in 12. Keep the pressure on him Arizona gun owners!!

  18. avatarKelly in GA says:

    I was thinking today about how much I despise Progressives and their politics on both sides of the aisle. Most D politicians would qualify, and the first R that I thought of….John McCain.

  19. avatarJavier says:

    John McCain dropped his pants got no nerve found out she was Joann.

  20. avatarCraig says:

    So… Why are you shocked?

  21. avatarThomas Paine says:

    why don’t they have 1 letter for the anti replies, and 1 for the pro replies?

    That’s what i would do. These boilerplate replies are idiotic.

  22. avatarJAS says:

    Doesn’t work form me and that’s all I have to say….

  23. avatarTex74 says:

    This is why I quit sending them letters. I always got form letters in response. Didn’t seem to matter whom I wrote, dem or repub. Our “representatives” haven’t represented us in a loooong time.

  24. avatarpat says:

    Lets wait til after he votes FOR the AWB before we start talking smack about him.
    Remember, the effing libtards like Barry (some of you dumb morons on this forum ACTUALLY voted for him) are for the ban. Yeah, sure, John and Mitt are just the same as ‘kid Kenyan’ the ‘monkeyer to the Constitution’ and would be pushing for a gun ban like ‘the One’.
    Elections matter and have consequences.
    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  25. avatarspacecoaster says:

    It may be vague and noncommittal, but it beats the response from my Democratic Senator by a mile.

    Thank you for contacting me about policy proposals that seek to reduce gun violence in the wake of the tragedy in Newtown.

    I am a hunter and have always owned guns, and I support the Second Amendment.

    But assault weapons such as AK 47s are intended for killing, not hunting.

    Solutions for reducing gun violence must address many areas, from protecting law enforcement and keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, to school safety, access to mental health services, and confronting a culture that sometimes glorifies violence.

    I support reinstating the assault weapons ban and restoring the 10-round limit for ammunition magazines. And, I support universal background checks so that we can know if person buying a weapon has a criminal record.

    I appreciate hearing your views on this very important issue, and I will keep them in mind. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

    Sincerely,
    Bill Nelson

    Sigh…

    • avatarAsh says:

      Here’s a reply from my Democratic Senator, sounds more promising than a lot of these Republicans:

      “Thank you for contacting me again regarding gun violence. I appreciate our continued dialogue.

      I understand from your previous correspondence your concern about this issue. While there have been a number of proposals that may warrant consideration of how to best reduce gun violence, I have determined that renewing the assault weapons ban is not an effective means of addressing this problem. Please know, as the Senate considers any further legislation, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.

      Again, thank you for contacting me. I value your input. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my office regarding this or any other matter of concern to you.

      Sincerely,
      Mark Pryor
      United States Senate”

  26. avatarConrad says:

    I’m going ask the reverse for arguments sake.

    1. Does anyone believe we should be allowed to buy firearms without a NICS check.
    2. Does anyone believe we should be allowed to buy automatic weapons without a ATF bond?
    3. Does anyone think they should mandate firearms safes for the most dangerous firearms?
    4. Does anyone think they should be allowed to obtain a firearm without any training on the weapon?

    I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment, but I also believe as the Supreme Court has stated that the 2nd Amendment is not without limits. I would support any _reasonable_ measure that does not unduly burden ourselves, short of an outright ban on the weapon or other restriction/removal.

    At the same time, I recognize the fact, that the more deadly the weapon, the greater should be the responsibility and limiting in access. Instead of yelling at all the obviously ignorant things that don’t work, let’s propose things that _do_. I recognize that law enforcement cannot solve the problem, and am willing to accept laws that promote personal/civilian enforcement: gun training, gun safes, civilian issued (mandatory) background checks, national concealed carry.

    Global elitists on both sides, Republicans (like David Frum) and Democrats, would like nothing more than disarmament; and we are almost the last stand in the free world on this issue. I want to drive our crime rates so far down, that other countries like Canada and the UK, start to recognize that _they_ have it wrong, and we have it right… because I firmly believe we do — I took the same, albeit smaller and less remarkable journey as John Lott, and came to the same conclusion. The way we win this once and for all, is to continue to reduce crime, and still have civilian arms. Let’s keep things going in the right direction.

    • avatarracer88 says:

      1. Yes
      2. Yes
      3. No
      4. Yes

    • avatarLarryR says:

      Be careful with that word “reasonable”, because what is reasonable to one person is not reasonable to another. I don’t trust “reasonable” and “common sense” uses. You won’t find those words in a legal document because of their vagueness of meaning. The founders knew that in order for citizen militia to effectively defend against military aggressors, they had to have the same kind of weapons the military aggressors used-parity. Todays military aggressors have helocopter gunships and M1A1 abram tanks, should our government choose to use them against us…

  27. avatarSD3 says:

    Looks a lot like the “conservative” presidential candidate democrats chose for us 5 yeas ago, before this last douchebag-fake conservative-unelectable presidential candidate were told to vote for last November.

    Gosh, who do you think they’ll let us vote for next time?

  28. avatarasia331 says:

    Yup; same crap letter I got from him. Like the quote from a George Strait song “I’ve come to expect it from you.”

  29. avatarNS says:

    John McCain is a spineless SOB whose only goal in life is to have as many people as possible like him and heap adulation upon him for being a “hero”

  30. avatarJeff the Griz says:

    There is a key word in this… reasonable, next letter from him will be filled with “common sense”.

  31. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    Weeellll…

    Some new legislation might make sense.

    Better access to mental help, for instance, wouldn’t suck.

    Also, anyone who is terrified of such a “person” and plans to send him away, but stores her not inconsiderable arsenal in a closet is dangerously moronic, and a background check on her might’ve raised a red flag. >;{>

    Finally, guns are a valuable and necessary part of our society, but as a nation of laws (afther all, 2A is a LAW) it does behoove us to have sensible safeguards in place in order that a few truly rotten individuals do not tarnish us all.

    What an appropriate legal framework might be, I do not know, but it’s a cinch to infer that what we have now isn’t up to snuff.

    I’m an electrical engineer. If I screw off on the job, a building might burn down and a thousand people die. That’s a thing called responsibility. Or perhaps accountability.

    If our legislature screws off on te job, we have – what we have.

    Let’s get to work and educate ourselvess, one another and any newbies so as to solve these problems. It’s pretty damned obvious that noone else is going to solve ‘em for us.

    A safe woud have made SH harder to pull off. She could have openebed it when she got home.

    Reasonable carry laws would have kept her jake while on her way from her car to the safe.

    Universal background checks – yes, I DID type that – would have interfered with certain other monsters’ Great Plans.

    Reasonable carry laws would also likely ensure that a maniac didn’t get so far in their mania ere they were impeded by a couple hundred grains of Justice and Public Welfare.

    And and and.

    No, Pandora’s box ain’t getting re-stuffed and resealed, but We can Do Better.

    Shall we? Let’s shall.

    Russ, curmudgeon at large

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      Regarding your comment:
      “Finally, guns are a valuable and necessary part of our society, but as a nation of laws (afther all, 2A is a LAW) it does behoove us to have sensible safeguards in place in order that a few truly rotten individuals do not tarnish us all.”

      Careful there, hombre. In an apparent effort to be or appear reasonable to those who are either rabid or leaning anti-gun, you’re coming dangerously close to sipping their cherry-colored koolaid. Just know that the anti’s demonize all things gun in an effort to cause fright at the mere sight of any gun. While they try to sound reasonable, they don’t really try to be reasonable. And how can they? There is nothing reasoned about their position. We are in the right because if more of the people have the means and the mentality to defend themselves and those they care about, there will be much less of the evil that empowers the gun grabbers. Instead of spending further money or effort on restricting this important right, we should be working to provide knowledge and training. This will do so much to help confront fear of the gun and show that it is nothing more than a powerful tool. A tool that demands the full attention of the user, just like any other powerful tool.

      • avatarBill in IL says:

        What is with this universal background check thing I keep hearing? We already have background checks. Making me have to go through an FFL because my cousin or son or friend wants to buy a firearm from me is plain ridiculous. Especially in IL, where we are required to have an FOID and cannot sell anything to anyone without a valid FOID. How do we know these transfer records are going to be destroyed? I am somewhat friendly with my local PD, mostly good guys that stand with the 2nd, but I live in a small town with 6 or 7 full time officers. When we had some medical trouble with my elderly father, they were at the house with the paramedics. They knew every firearm I had that I purchased from a gun store. Tell my again how the police are handicapped because they don’t access to the FFL records.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        By rotten apples I mean convicted armed robbers, rapists et cetera – violent felons. People who we can all agree should not be armed.

        Russ

  32. avatarGreg G says:

    My “line in the sand” in regards to gun control is this: N O M O R E! ! ! We have given FAR too much ground already. There are already over 20,000 gun laws on the books in this country. When are you people who support “reasonable measures,” (read restrictions on law abiding citizens), going to get it through your thick skulls that passing yet more onerous and restrictive laws will do N O T H I N G to stop gun crime? Why can’t we make you understand the simple fact that CRIMINALS AND THE INSANE DON’T GIVE A RED PISS ABOUT THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!! They will do and say anything to aquire whatever they need to carry out whatever nefarious or heinous deed they have in mind at the time, your laws be damned! The only people you will affect by passing still more draconian legislation will be, once again, the law abiding citizen. Do you get it now? CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY LAWS! INSANE PEOPLE DON’T OBEY LAWS! So can you please tell me how you think that passing even more rediculous, restrictive, right destroying legislation is going to do anything more than diminish, still further, the ever more tenuous rights of the law abiding citizen?
    I tell you, it’s not Obama and his ilk that I fear. They’re out in the open and I know where they stand. I can fight that. It’s the turn coat who “firmly believes in the 2nd Amendment” yet stands ready and willing to stab his fellow gun owners in the back and sell out that very same Amendment he claims to so “firmly” believe in that I chiefly fear. What’s the old saying? ” With friends like that, we don’t need enemies.

    • avatarConrad says:

      Clearly the system has flaws. I agree that no law enforcement can enforce 20000 laws. Take away the 20000 laws, _YOU_ write the laws. Give us something that _works_ better than the current ones.

      Either you’re willing to help fix it, or you’re willing to leaving this alone as they are. I’m not, I want things better with more civilian gun freedom and responsibility, and less criminal guns. I want to concealed carry in all 50 states. I want gun-free zones outlawed unless the establishment provides reasonable armed security per occupancy rate. I want my semiauto rifle, and am willing to keep it in a safe to make others feel better about it. I want criminals to KNOW that if they commit gun crimes they will stay in jail with no chance of early release or probation.

      If you simply say that criminals don’t obey laws, you’re missing the point… they chose to obey or not obey certain laws. EVERYONE chooses to obey or not obey laws, and the laws are there as warnings and punishment should they actually be enforced. Obviously our laws are too stupid, unenforceable, or too weak to do what they are supposed to do. The correct thing to do is not to leave things as they are, the correct thing to do is to FIX IT OR GET RID OF IT.

      Don’t lecture me on the 2nd Amendment. I firmly know what it’s about, and it isn’t just about militias or tyranny. The 2nd Amendment has always been an affirmation of INDIVIDUAL AND STATE SOVERIGNTY, as is the rest of the Bill of Rights in limiting the Federal government. Both the First and the Second Amendments are complementary, both support each other. Without the teeth, the words have no weight; and without words the teeth would otherwise be used except as a last resort (anecdotally Chris Dorner is a tragic example of this). Weakening either one of the Amendments, weakens both (and I’ll be damned if I let either happen).

      • avatarBill in IL says:

        Quite frankly, Conrad, the problems with firearms are being purposely blown way out of proportion to achieve the antis agenda. If you look at the crime stats, violent crime is going DOWN not up. We don’t need anymore laws and should repeal most of the ones we already have.

    • avatarArtford says:

      Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

  33. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    As awful as McCain is, I kind of wish he was president.

  34. avatarGw says:

    The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
    Excerpt as follows:
    “Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on
    Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
    RESOLVED…”
    Amendment II “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    source: http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

    [ Note carefully the words, ‘in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added’…
    and quite clearly were. ]

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Gw: The phrase ‘in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers” means “in order to prevent misconstruction of the Constitution or abuse of the new central governments’ powers.”

      The phrase “that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added’…” refers to the addition of the Bill of Rights, both explicitly declaring rights and specifying restrictions on central government power.”

  35. avatarMichael W Perkins says:

    I Got the EXACT same letter TO A WORD. Can’t publish my response here.

  36. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    Unless We the Gun-Owning People get off the idea that the 2nd Ammendment has no limitations, we will lose it all.

    A right should not be construed as an unrestricted license. The simplest case would be that free speech (Ammendment 1; 2 is not the entirety of the constitution) does not confer the right o slander, libel, perjure, scream “Fire!” in a crowded movie house et cetera.

    The fifth does not confer the right on the owner ofa daycare to it report a pedophile for fear of lawsuits.

    The eleventh does not prevent a resident of State A from suing the State B seeking redress for the illegal and scandalous behavior of State B’s highway patrol when such resident was on a road trip through State B.

    We now have, under th Constitution, a standing military. A well regulated militia is no longer relevant. This Is Imporant.

    The non-abridgment of the right to bear arms does not extend to, say, nuclear weapons, anthrax spores or antipersonnel mines.

    If we do not cease ad desist the denial of the sensible premise that certain limits do in fact make sense, the majority of Americans just might be convinced to make the 2nd Ammendment will go the wy of the 18th.

    Then where would we be?

    • avatarSD3 says:

      “Then where would we be?”

      Apparently, with The Dear Leader Russ Bixby in charge.

      The RKBA folks have never advocated the unrestricted right to bear an weapon, as you claim. This is not about land mines, or rockets or nukes, or any other paranoid fantasy you might be embracing. Americans understand very well the path you advocate, and they clearly don’t want it or believe it.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        I’m replying for others’ benefit, as you’re abviously mask-programmed.

        I’m not suggesting that 2A defenders, of which I am one, advocate personal possession of landmines.

        Rather, I’m saying that the right to bear are has some inherent limitations: no felons, no howitzers et cetera.

        In other words, I believe that throwing a slug does not necessarily make a weapon 2A “eligible,” and not everyone should be permitted ownership of or access to otherwise legal weapons. I suspect that the Framers would agree.

        Again, I am simply advocating thought and discussion, rather than name-calling and jingoism.

        Russ

    • avatarBill in IL says:

      You miss the point that there is no prior restraint on the others. They don’t lock a gag on your mouth before being allowed into a movie theater.

  37. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    Wow. I really shouldn’t type at 0230. I stand by the premise, but not the proofing.

  38. avatarJohnO says:

    McCain’s been a proven crook for 30+ years.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

  39. avatarMike D. says:

    I got the nearly the exact same letter from Sens. Warner and Kaine, both of whom want to crap all over the Constitution. McCain is no “maverick,” just another RINO, albeit one with a remarkable military service record.

  40. avatarDeRoy says:

    I wrote to Diane Feinstein. despite knowing up front it was a waste of time. Got a form letter from her that basically said “Thanks for sharing your point of view…”. They all use form letters.
    They all parrot the “assault weapons are only for killing” crap because that is what the “Party Line” is…it’s not ignorance, it’s a deliberate political lie to keep the morons who vote for them ignorant and scared.
    John McCain has lost it.

  41. avatarProfessor says:

    Don’t trust him, never did. Typical politician, when his lips are moving, he/she is lying. All they care about is being reelected…

  42. avatarRalph says:

    McCain built a political career on the years of hell he spent in the Hanoi Hilton having his arms ripped out of their sockets. He still cannot raise his arms above shoulder level, nor can he walk properly. I applaud his loyalty, courage and ability to withstand punishment. Sen. McCain, god bless you and thank you for your service. Now GTFO because it’s time for you to go.

  43. avatarTX_Chris says:

    McCain is like that friend we all have who changes their opinions and likes/dislikes to suit the popular opinion of the crowd they’re with. We all know someone like that, and odds are we hate being in a social setting with them because they annoy the hell out of us.

    “While I am an unwavering supporter of the Second Amendment, please know that I will seriously consider all reasonable public safety legislation that comes before the Senate.”

    Translates to:

    “Honey, I am a firm believer in the sanctity of marriage and fully committed to you. Please know, however, that if something more appealing comes along, I will seriously consider all options.”

  44. avatarSmaj says:

    Meaningless blather and platitudes.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.