They Don’t Like It When You Know What You’re Talking About

Reader Jake F. writes:

Today I received a phone call from Gifford’s new campaign “Americans for Responsible Solutions”, who were trying to squeeze $100 dollars out of me. What follows is an approximation of my phone call, which took place about five minutes previous to my writing this up. Not every word is perfect, but it’s about as close as I can recall it . . .

Caller: Are you familiar with Gabby Giffords’ and Mark Kelly’s new organization “American’s for Responsible Solutions”?

Me: Oh, yes. Very much.

Caller: Oh, that’s great. What we’re trying to do is get support for the new federal bill that’s trying to make its way into congress, the new background check law, in order to help us get some law and order into this country. We’re trying to prevent tragedies like what happened in Newtown, and the movie theaters where two men came in and shot people and what happened to Ms. Giffords, who was shot in the head, and stop people from buying all these guns without a background check and get more mental health checks so we can prevent people from going in and havng all these shootings and bombs and…and…

Me: Wait, what do bombs have to do with background checks for guns?

Caller: Well, these checks would help us prevent people from getting these heavy munitions that they can use to blow people up!

Me: The Tsarnaevs went to a fireworks store and used completely legal fireworks to create their bomb.

Caller: Well, you know, you know, the-uh, do you know about what are called these “high-level magazines”?

Me: Uh, I think-

Caller: The ones that can shoot more than 10 or 15 rounds and are used in “heavy ordnance” rifles? The AR-15 and the AK-47 and such?

Me: I know what they are, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what heavy ordnance is, and everyone involved in all those events you mentioned, Aurora, Tucson, had successfully passed a background check.

Caller: We’re talking about mental health checks here, mental health checks. We’re trying to get some responsibility into the system, because nobody is taking responsibility for their actions here.

Me: Wait, so murderers aren’t being held responsible for their actions?

Caller: What’s that?

Me: Did none of those people who committed murder get arrested and go to jail?

Caller: Criminals, sir, they buy the guns over the counter, with no background check and no paperwork, and they slip through the system because they don’t have a mental health check.

Me: A “mental health check”? What is a mental health check?

Caller: Well, we’d have your medical records on file so we can see if you have been reported as being mentally ill.

Me: YOU want my mental health records, or the government?

Caller: The government would have them, so we could check when you buy a gun if you have a history of mental illness.

Me: What would be disqualifying mental health criteria for buying a gun? I mean, it’s already illegal to buy it if I’ve been declared incompetent or-

Caller: Right now we have people, I know some people personally who are buying guns, North Carolina we have this, where people are buying guns over the counter without a check, and they have a criminal record.

Me: Wait, so these people are buying guns illegally, and you know about it? Have you called the police?

Caller: I mean, I’m not doing it personally-

Me: No, I understand YOU aren’t buying the guns, but I mean are you telling-

Caller: They’re just buying guns over the counter with no paperwork and no background check, because the laws aren’t being enforced!

Me: And you know these people personally?

Caller: Sir, it’s happening all over the country. People aren’t enforcing the laws and these criminals just go and buy guns.

Me: So you know of people who are breaking federal law and buying guns in gun stores without a background check?

Caller: We don’t have mental health check laws right now, which is what we’re trying to do, so we’re hoping that if you would give us a donation of $100 dollars in order to meet our quota-

Me: No, I’m sorry. I’m fundamentally opposed to your organization’s principles.

Caller: I see, well thank you for your time.

Me: Can I ask you something, though?

Caller: What’s that?

Me: Do you support police officers having these magazines that can hold 30 bullets and carry AR-15s?

Caller: *brief pause* Well, police officers aren’t what we would call civilians, and they-

Me: Police officers are most definitely civilians.

Caller: No-

Me: If they aren’t military they’re civilians.

Caller: Well, I do think police should have them because they’re very well trained.

Me: I can be just as well trained as any police officer, why shouldn’t I be able to keep a rifle?

Caller: *annoyed* Sir, we are trying to make sure that these weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands, these people, crazy people, get guns and they shoot up the theater and they shoot up Gabby Giffords, who was shot in the head, and they don’t stop them, and then they shoot little children in schools! None of these people had a background check, and they’re all crazy!

Me: ALL of those people passed a background check to buy their weapons, except for Adam Lanza, because his mother owned the guns, and SHE passed a background check and then was killed by him. Those laws wouldn’t have stopped Newtown from happening.

Caller: Newtown is just a single example, and you can’t judge-

Me: You’re the one who brought it up! All those other people passed a background check! If I can pass all those checks, why can’t I have a rifle?

Caller: You keep changing the criteria! You keep changing the criteria and we’re talking about things you obviously don’t get, so I hope you have a good-*CLICK*

She hung up before she could finish her own sentence. I had wanted to explain to her that the people she had brought up were reported as dangerous by their mental health physicians but the police didn’t do anything about it, but the conversation got away from me. It wasn’t my intent to piss her off as much as I did, only to make her question what she thought, which probably didn’t happen, and to take up enough time from her that maybe she’ll lie to one or two less people for money. I was having quite a bit of fun, myself. What an easy debate partner.

104 Responses to They Don’t Like It When You Know What You’re Talking About

  1. avatarShire-man says:

    I like how the caller just kept going down the list of “evil things” hoping to hit a chord with the author. Must have had a nicely bulleted sheet in front of her. I wonder if their callers will tally up which bullet point resonated with what type of target and call it a “national poll.”

  2. avatarRob says:

    I was in a car accident this one time, because of that can I call myself an auto-mechanic expert?

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      Not only that, but you can demand that people give up their cars to alleviate your suffering.

      • avatarAK says:

        That’s about what it comes down to, really.

      • avatarMina says:

        Exactly, in this country if you’re a victim of something you are an automatic expert at that something and you are first in line for ideas for new public policies based on your victimhood.

        • avatarRamble says:

          Unless you are a victim but agree with what the rest of the victims oppose, like Mark Mattioli.

          Then you are just brushed to the side and virtually silenced.

      • avatarAJ says:

        Oh come now, cars “serve a purpose”…..

        /s/

  3. avatarHryan says:

    Yeah I ran into a couple of people collecting signatures in Old Town Alexandria the other day; most of their “talking points” were blatant lies; including that The Aurora and Newtown shooters got their weapons at gun shows without a background check.

  4. avatarP. Hogan says:

    Telephone – $20. Phone bill – $50. Having an anti-2A group supported by an anti-Constitutional administration countered by the lies of their own agenda when they call for a $100 donation – Priceless.

  5. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Don’t expect rational reasoning to resonate with a liberal. They just don’t get it.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      “They don’t WANT to get it.”

      Fixed it, you are most welcome.

      LIARS. COWARDS. TRAITORS. DESPOTS BEWARE!

      • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        To be honest, I’d have to disagree. I think their brains are simply wired differently than most people. In fact I think they’re defective. They are incapable of logic and reason. Their lives are run out of pure irrational emotion. Confront them with the flaws in their emotion (logic) and they will contort themselves all over the place and reject your opinion. They won’t understand how you just don’t get it. No amount of facts will ever change their opinions.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Kind of like with most conservatives and climate change?

          We all have blinders foisted upon us, by CNN, the Pope, Fox, a Pastor, the President et cetera.

          We should strive to rise above them, rather than to clear only one eye or the other.

        • avatarjason21m says:

          Russ, you’re so right that it’s not funny.

        • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Climate change?!? It’s the facts that keep conservatives from buying into that BS.

          Try these facts out for size:

          1) During most of the past billion years the atmospheric levels of CO2 have been many times higher than today.

          2) Periods of low CO2 are associated with ice ages.

          3) We are currently living in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age.

          4) At it’s current level of ice loss, Greenland will be ice free in 13,600 years. Like it was 500,000 years ago before the glaciers buried the forest there.

          5) 13,600 years ago New York City was buried under a mile thick glacier and sea level was 390 feet lower than today.

          6) Plants grow faster and produce more food when atmospheric CO2 his higher.

          7) 1000 years ago the earth was warmer than today. Crops could be grown at higher latitudes than now.

          8) The Earth’s climate has risen about one degree (C) since the industrial revolution began (i.e. the “Little Ice Age” ended). Which means that Milwaukee now has the climate Chicago had 150 years ago.

          9) During the last 4 interglacial periods global temps peaked at 6-10 degrees C higher than today.

          10) There has been no increase in global temperatures in the last 17 years.

          I could go on…

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          I see you’re very good at toeing the Exxon party line.

        • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Is Exxon running Wikipedia now?

          If not, here’s a good place to start; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_ice_age

        • avataruser3369 says:

          You can’t just casually skip over a 1 degree rise in global temperatures.

          That’s fucking HUGE.

          We are absolutely in a warming trend.

          There is a correlation to human activity, but it is impossible to prove causation.

          We can absolutely prevent the warming trend from accelerating by adopting very simple environmental methods. They don’t have to cost a lot of money and they don’t have to change our way of life.

          Just because the left is correct about a warming trend does not mean they are right to push a burdensome alternative energy policy.

          If we continue to rape the natural world, we will eventually find ourselves royally fucked.

          On the plus side, thats a solid hundred+ years away, the Mars Colonization Project looks like a go, and none of us will be alive to deal with it. I’m not reproducing, so fuck it.

        • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          I didn’t skip over a 1 degree rise in temperatures. I pointed that out in fact #8. That the one degree is the difference between Milwaukee and Chicago (they’re like 50 miles apart).

          The point isn’t whether or not we’re in a warming trend. The points are, 1) how much does the climate change all on it’s own? (a. a lot), 2) how much is man contributing? (a. a little), and 3) is man’s contribution a good thing or a bad thing? (a. it’s a good thing – see point 6).

    • avatarcsmallo says:

      With your appeal to “collective guilt” you aren’t any better than these gun grabbers.

      • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        What collective guilt?

        • avatarLolinski says:

          Yeah global warming is a hoax I mean nature in the course of less than 50 years transforms a place known for mild summers (30 celsius) into a place known for drought and 40 celsius temperature.

        • The blind are leading the blind.What are you going to do when the sun has a burp and a spasm and fries a large segment of the population ,blame it on your greenhouse gases ?
          It’s not global warming you perverts ,it’s global sinning !

        • avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          LOL, I’m not sure where this extreme change in climate you’re referring to is taking place but I will point out 2 things. First, 30 degrees Celsius is 86 degrees Fahrenheit and 40 degrees Celsius is 104 degrees Fahrenheit. I can assure you that this kind of climate change is not happening globally.

          Second, ice core samples have shown that up until about 10,000 years ago such wild swings in climate were actually fairly common, often occurring over just a couple of decades.

          Also I do not believe anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, just way over hyped. Human activity most likely has contributed somewhat to the warming. However a slightly warmer planet with more CO2 will support more life than the one we live on now, just as the present day earth supports more life than 15,000 years ago when half of North America was buried under thousands of feet of ice. It’s the cold you need to fear, not the warmth.

      • avatarTrisha says:

        The reason I don’t believe in global warming is, because after watching “The Inconvenient Truth” I saw croney science. You cannot compare two coorelations and conclude a causal relationship. Coorelations do not denote cause. Al Gore intentionally makes comparisons to coorelations that are related, and hints the coorelation denotes cause, but politically leaves it up to the audience to make the wrong conclusion based on limited information. Anyone with a freshmen in college level of education knows you cannot come to a causal relationship from a coorelation. I followed my hunch, I researched where he got his information, and I found out the causes told a totally different, more reasonable story than the slide show was spinning them into. If you need more proof the video is a hoax, research who Al Gore sold his tv station to. He’s a crook who stands for nothing. My astronomy professor could explain climate change with sun spots with real science better than anyone has ever explained global warming to me. If the facts of the study are easily thrown out for improper methods, it is not a valid study. If the face of the study sells his tv station to Muslim extremists, he has no ethics, and should not be taken seriously. Anyone who believes coorelations denote causal relationships needs to go back to school, and stop spreading propaganda.

        • avatarRich Grise says:

          I thought I’d look into the “Inconvenient Truth” propaganda piece, and couldn’t take more than a few minutes of it before I had to go throw up.

  6. avatarJeh says:

    Hah, that women’s gonna go home and drink now because of you. I applaud you sir, nice job, one more ignorant Liberal with a ruined day. At least now she knows not everybody is a drone.

    • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

      Most likely she doesn’t give a crap. She’s probably getting eight bucks an hour to do this, perhaps with bonuses for certain numbers of donations, which is the total extent of her interest in the topic.

      • avatarguy22 says:

        I would agree with you, if she were selling goods, or services.
        She was probably a volunteer, who goes home at night feeling she made a difference.

        Why pay someone if you can get them for free.
        That is for where we are at.

        Nothing you said to her would make her change her mind.

        Guy22

        • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

          You could be right, but I do speak from some experience. When I was young and stupid (undergrad days) I spent a summer working for CALPIRG

          http://www.calpirg.org/

          I did pretty much what the girl did, except door to door. Most of the workers only cared about getting paid, and couldn’t care less about whatever they were raising money for. One of the first of many hints that I was playing for the wrong team. There was this dead-head girl that summer though…

    • avatarHerb says:

      I have gotten beg-fest calls from NPR & other liberal groups asking for pledges, and my standard response is, “Filthy capitalist dollars!!? I thought you guys never touch the stuff!”

      One phonebanker actually replied, “It’ll have to do until something fairer and more just is instituted!” To which I said, “Go talk to the Cubans” & hung up.

  7. avatarBill Derer says:

    I haven’t gotten that call yet. Maybe they know better than to call me…

  8. avatarGeorge says:

    Give her a break! She’s just working at a call center trying to make a buck.

    You got her off her talking points. That’s not fair!

    What do you expect? Data-driven public policy?

    • avatarrosignol says:

      Yup.

      She hung up before she could finish her own sentence.

      Sounds like a supervisor cut her off. People in call centers are paid to bring in donations, not debate the other side.

  9. avatarColoradan says:

    Leftist trolls, trolling for money to fuel their trollish propaganda campaign. Good job at handling this troll. Though I would have pushed back on the idea that the government should have a database of all our medical records. These tyrants just don’t know when to stop.

  10. avatarRalph says:

    She’ll probably call Jake back in a couple of days to sell him some penny stocks or insurance.

  11. avatarpartiot88 says:

    LMAO!! great job jake!!

  12. avatarAZRon says:

    Was the caller “Rachel from cardholder services”?

  13. Great job. They can NEVER be truthful, it doesn’t sell well.

  14. avatarAharon says:

    Thanks for sending in this piece.

    A friend of mine observed that everyone who was taught how to use an AR in the military has thus passed the USGs criteria for using an AR therefore there should not be an issue with them having access to a fully auto AR. He meant of course that if you can be considered capable of being armed and sent into to combat to fight and maybe get killed then you are good enough to own one. BTW, his sarcastic observation was not one of in real life endorsing every ex-service member to own a fully auto AR.

    • avatarJT says:

      But they all have PTSD! It is that new thing that started in troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan! It was never around before that.

      /s

    • avatarCA.Ben says:

      “BTW, his sarcastic observation was not one of in real life endorsing every ex-service member to own a fully auto AR.”

      Of course not! Why should we limit that freedom only to ex-military? Everybody should be able to own fully auto ARs. Provided you don’t have a history of violent crime.

      • avatarcsmallo says:

        Provided you are not currently incarcerated.
        If a man can not be trusted with a weapon, then he cannot be trusted to walk the streets.

  15. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Gots to get those guns, gots to get those illegal background checks. I’m sure they are sad, here they sit broken hearted..tried to s… grab those guns but didn’t get started. Life is full of dissapointments, if they remove their head from their ass they could eliminate one of them, Randy

  16. avatarCanopus says:

    I’ve never saw such a stark, pristine, clear and wholesome example of doublethink in the real world in my entire life… I really don’t know what to say about this.

  17. avatarSubZ says:

    Using fraudulent statements to solicit money. There aughta be a law against that…

  18. avatargregolas says:

    Jake F., you are a gentleman, a scholar, and a patriot. You showed class, good manners, and impeccable logic. Glad you’re on our side!

  19. avatarChas says:

    Gun control nuts go ballistic when confronted with truth. Every.time.

  20. avatarIn Memphis says:

    “… that puts communities’ interests ahead of the gun lobby’s.”

    What communities? Chicago, NYC, Kalifornia? They dont speak for the country. If they were the 90% then there would be more than a handful of antigun states. Oh and how about thoes gun lobbyists? They would be powerless without the money of the real 90%

  21. avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

    If they call me I’ll record them telling lies for money, probabably across state lines, so we can get the Attourny General to prosecute them for fraud. Oh, wait…

  22. avatarRalph says:

    After re-reading Jake’s intellectual manhandling of the caller, I’m convinced that Gabby Giffords was not the only person from “Americans for Responsible Solutions” who took a bullet to the brain.

  23. avatarSilver says:

    You win, Gabby, I’m going to become a “gun violence voter” in 2014…by voting only for pro-gun candidates since gun control promotes criminal violence and an armed public deters it. Suck it, you pathetic tool.

    To Jake, you handled that well. Always funny to watch the mentally damaged leftist (redundant, I know) flounder when confronted with fact and truth. They simply can’t register it.

  24. avatarKevin Smith says:

    I don’t want to get all conspiracy theorist here, but did she really say TWO people were involved in the theater shooting?

  25. avatarJason says:

    Wow, next to her Loughner seems less crazy.

  26. avatarDr Duh says:

    I think I’m going to start calling people at random and ask them to sign a release so that all of their mental health records can be forwarded to MAIG… you know for the children.

  27. avatarBob Barker says:

    Caller: Well, I do think police should have them because they’re very well trained.

    Me: I can be just as well trained as any police officer, why shouldn’t I be able to keep a rifle?

    “very well trained” – I don’t know whether I should LOL or SMH.

  28. avatarPatriot says:

    Pieces of Sh!t like this just inspire me to donate $100 more to the NRA.

  29. avatarAnonymous says:

    Don’t bother… that caller would never get it anyways. She is convinced that gun control and those additional background checks would work because mainstream media says so. She has not researched the law, she has not researched criminals actions, she hasn’t researched anything. She is a Susie homemaker/soccer mom type that is oblivious to what is actually happening and absorbs only what mainstream news has told her. Your typical low-level informed voter.

  30. avatarTom in Oregon says:

    Shame on you Jake.
    Engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed person…
    How will you ever sleep tonight?
    Bwahahahaha

  31. avatarJon Enigma says:

    Violent crimes committed with guns has decreased [according to the govt.] while there has been a significant increase in the number of guns. Thank you Obama for the one thing you have done to help or economy. And while this is going on; something around 40,000 problems have been identified with gun checks but only about 40 have been followed up on [also according to the govt.]… sounds like a poor record in that regards Mr. Obama. As usual I will add in my opinion.

  32. avatarRobert says:

    When these RE-Tards (regressive-Libtards) call me, I love to engage them and “waste their time” so they cannot call others who might feed them the dough!
    LMAO, Good Call! BRAVO!!!

  33. avatarTravis M says:

    The problem is the Anti-gunners are organized. We need to be organized as well. They are spreading lies and propagating their agenda. We need to have people doing the same things, making calls, getting the truth out and disputing everything false coming out of their mouths. But, I don’t see it. I don’t hear about it. We give $25 bucks to an organization that sends us a bumper sticker but that’s about all we ever do besides complain. If we are to ever win the war we have to fight with the same ferocity as they do. If they come out firing with all they got then so should we. Sadly, we get complacent and sadly, when we are not watching, our rights are quietly chipped away. We are at a pivotal point in our country. Will our children and grandchildren still have a second amendment? It’s up to us.

    • avatarapplebutter says:

      And so, you’ve volunteered time to NRA-ILA to man phone banks?
      I’d never tell you to shut up, but you might consider putting up before you whine.

  34. avatarready,fire,aim says:

    too bad that guy ran out of bullets on that b i&ch…

  35. avatarSivartius says:

    You know, some anti-gunners I’ve met are irrational, but a lot simply have never heard the facts. I was talking to a fellow college student, and when I gave her some of the true gun and crime statistics that I found out about here, and her reaction was, “Wait, what? Really? But…. but I… I’ve never heard that.” So I took her to the FBI website and showed her the crime statistics there. It seemed to totally rock her perception of the world. I didn’t convince her, not yet, but I think I did shake her worldview.

  36. avatarThomasPainelives says:

    The stupid in that woman, it burns. It’s really kind of funny when you know more than the person who calls you. I can’t wait for MY turn. Gonna bring up the DOJ study that shows deaths caused by guns, crimes committed using guns, and mass shootings have been on the decline since 1993. Wonder if I’ll be able to hear their heads explode?

    • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

      Waste of time. You are simply not their target market. Best you can do, as DZ did, is keep them on the phone. Ask lots of questions, make interested noises. Waste their time while you watch TV.

  37. avatarSGC says:

    THAT looked like fun…I wish one of those folks would call me…:)

  38. avatarJ says:

    People from the military are also civilians.

  39. avatarMediocrates says:

    Hahahaha that’s funny.

  40. avatarJim Scrummy says:

    I hope I get the call! Should be fun! In fact I’ll ask to speak to the “Supervisor”, like I always do. Good times, good times a comin’.

  41. avatarUS says:

    She got those bedroom eyes in that pic

  42. avatarCraig says:

    Sounds like a conversation with the “Men from Washington” in Atlas Shrugged.

    Who is John Galt?

  43. avatarMad Dawg says:

    Thanks for sharing. the story is so darned funny… It just demonstrates how ignorant and stupid a lot of sheeple are in this, what used to be a, great country.

  44. avatarNam Marine says:

    DO NOT SCREW WITH MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS !

    ………………….MOLON LABE………………….SEMPER FI !

  45. avatarRicky Ross says:

    The only problem I have with the above conversation is that it gives credence to the 3 FALSE FLAG/STAGED EVENT shootings that took place.

    First, the shooting in Arizona was targeted to kill Federal Judge John Roll. Giffords and the others were not the targets.

    Second, the Aurora movie theater shootings was a HOAX!

    Third, Sandy HOAX was just that…a HOAX!

    By referring to these events in their sanitized made for TV news reports, only gives them the reality that they do not deserve!

    If you disagree with any of my statements, that is fine, but you are doing a disservice to yourself by not investigating what really happened. There are tons of documentaries on YouTube about all three events.

    • avatarNeil says:

      Yep and hopefully after the fallout from our currently elected leadership’s Benghazi we will begin to see real media coverage of the credible evidence for these false flag events. I have no problem with disarming police and all federal employee’s within the US, just don’t try and deprive our citizen’s of our constitutional rights. We have no need for this militarized police force that we have today, where like in California the other day police officers used batons to murder a man that was pleading for his own life on his own front lawn. They have enough body armor and are present in significant enough numbers that they no longer need firearms. It wouldn’t take them very long to return to their original purpose which is to protect and serve, once the tools of government oppression are removed from their arsenal, then they can be re armed if it’s found to be necessary by the people. We are meant to be the one’s in charge not our government, they are here to protect and serve and need to be returned to that state of being.

  46. avatarTimVa says:

    I think they should pass a law that in order to purchase a firearm 1) to state your political standing to determine whether you’re a liberal or a conservative, 2) that if you’re a liberal you would undergo a mental health check. Seriously, I have to doubt the real motives behind the gun control fanatics. Think about it, if you were a deviant, or a future felon would you want your victim or your victim’s families to be in possession of a firearm? I reckon why so many are pushing for gun control is to save their own hides.

  47. avatarSteve says:

    “…gun lobby…”? The community is the gun lobby. There is no special interest, it’s about our interest.

  48. ALL gun control laws infringe upon our Second Amendment rights, God-given rights to defend ourselves against not only common criminals and lunatics, but tyrants in government! The Founding Fathers expected the “militia”, the whole body of men in the public able to keep and bear arms responsibly, to provide their own military grade rifles. Some civilians, who could afford them, even posted their personal cannon in their yards! Such artillery was recognized, legal, and honored for many years after the Revolutionary War. But now, gun-grabbers like Obama, Feinstein, Biden, Reid, Schumer, Pelosi, et al, claim civilians should never have a military grade firearm. LIARS! Live free or die trying!

  49. avatarGS650G says:

    I’m wondering if any of her crazy relatives or friends play with firearms after having a few drinks; maybe that’s what worries and scares her.

  50. avatarNick says:

    I think that I would have brought up the fact that the federal government under “Fast and Furious” funneled guns to drug cartels, and that the government had no problem putting them into the hands of people who were criminally insane. Should we not be prosecuting the AG, the President, and the congress for not taking some action? And what about Giffords herself who has done nothing to guarantee that those insane people in government who perpetrated those acts were prosecuted?

  51. avatarcharles says:

    If Mrs Gifford is so smart after being shot in the head, why did she not go back to her job,? Not to seem cruel but one would think she is in no position mentally to be anything but a player child for the morons!

  52. avatarcharles says:

    If Mrs Gifford is so smart after being shot in the head, why did she not go back to her job,? Not to seem cruel but one would think she is in no position mentally to be anything but a player ch!ild for the morons!

  53. Corrrect me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember reading that Gabby’s husband just bought himself a brand new AR 15 about a month or so ago. If this group trying to get guns away from us, shouldnt they be gun free also?

  54. avatarNoah says:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  55. avatarShaun L. says:

    I run a fabrication company that specializes in ornamental metals…. When I get these blatantly misguided calls, some even outright lies, I try to sell them my product. I figure it’s only fair to try to sell them what I fabricate because they’re doing the same. They fabricate falsehoods and lies, I fabricate a beautiful product…. let’s see who wins…lol. To say that it pisses them off is an understatement.

Leave a Reply

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