Quote of the Day: You’re On Your Own Edition

Baltimore Riots (courtesy dailycaller.com)

“It’s a very delicate balancing act, because while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.” – Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake [via dailycaller.com]


  1. avatar Joe says:

    …but if you have a Florida CCW, you’d better not drive through OUR state…or else…

    1. avatar Joey says:

      Too bad you can not use what ever force you choose to protect yourself or property

  2. avatar KingSarc48625 says:

    Its good to know that the home and business owners that were abandoned were able to protect themselves and their property from the mob.
    Oh wait, this was in Baltimore.

    1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      We should just call it the purge and get that over with!

    2. avatar ThomasR says:

      Hmmm.Call me crazy, This could explain some of the increase in states passing shall issue laws and people getting CC weapons.

      Internet and youtube, two of the greatest instruments of re-awakening people’s appreciation for the Second Amendment.

    3. avatar foo dog says:

      Yup. HIstory repeats…


      You would think leaders like Obama and the Mayor would learn, but community organizers dont- it seems.
      Instead the civil rights movement is devolving along the Jackson-Sharpton-Farrakhan direction…

  3. avatar the ruester says:

    It really bothers me how they apparently can’t call this “rioting” anymore.

    1. avatar James says:

      Since I was out of it this weekend, did main stream media cover this rioting like they did Ferguson riots? I’m not sure if it was because this happened in Baltimore in the deader news time of Friday night to Saturday or are they learning it is better to ignore this for a myriad of reasons; mostly likely not to drive public to gun ownership by showcasing the government incompetence and police inaction?

    2. avatar William B. says:

      They don’t call people who want to murder everyone in the entire country who doesn’t share their faith “terrorists,” so failing to call property-destroyers and vandals “rioters” comes as a shock to some of you?

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Yes. They can’t even call the victims ‘Christian’. If it doesn’t fit their narrative, ignore it.

        1. avatar B says:

          You don’t know for sure that they were Christians, you only have the murderers word that they were. For all we know those Muslims executing people could be Christians and the victims could be the Muslins! To be on the safe side we’ll just call the terrorists white conservatives.

          /insane sarcasm

        2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Mr. B, you sir have mastered the mindset of the American liberal.

    3. avatar CAG404 says:

      It’s not really rioting anymore. It’s open warfare against the police and governmental authority.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        That can’t be!

        I’ll believe that as soon as I’ll believe the Bloods and the Crips would lay down their arms for one day and stand arm and arm…

        Oh, wait…

      2. avatar T554 says:

        No, it’s not open warfare against police and government. It’s random violence against people that had nothing to do with it. They ought to be protesting who they have a problem with, not destroying private property.

  4. avatar Benny the Jew says:

    Waitaminuit…is the mayor openly admitting that they made it safer…for the rioters? Please tell me that’s not what she just said.

    Also, I hate to bring the obvious here, but the statist media will ridicule the peaceful and law-abiding NRA convention for posting pictures where nary a non-white face can be seen, but will say nothing about pics like this where the opposite is true. (Yeah, I see the ONE white guy back there.)

    1. avatar -Peter says:

      Not that it really matters, but I see four or five white people in that picture.

      1. avatar Benny the Jew says:

        Ah, they’re hard to see on my phone, but you’re right. The main point still stands, though.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      I see at least six…including the guy wearing the ninja mask. I’m sure when he left the house with a mask he was planning to take part in a peaceful protest, not riot and destroy.

      1. avatar Mark in Oklahoma says:

        You have to wear a mask to fit in…Lots of people wearing masks. If you’re not wearing a mask then how can the mob tell if you are one of them?

  5. avatar Alan Longnecker says:

    Without knowing anymore about her than this blurb, I’m willing to put $10 on her being a Democrat.

  6. avatar Tom W. says:

    She (the Mayor), is black. Therefore, she’s down with the “protesters” and made sure they had the ability to “protest” with minimal interference. Nice lockdown of 36,000+ Oriole fans at Camden Yards after the game.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      That’s a lock-down of 36,000+ TOTALLY DISARMED Oriole fans at Camden Yards after the game…

  7. avatar John Franco says:

    Really disgusting and animal like behavior.

  8. avatar blahpony says:

    In the article they were trying to put a spin on it.

    Basically, if you have a bunch of peaceful protesters, you will have a certain number of bad apples in the group. They want to allow the peaceful protesters their rights and deal with the bad apples as they come up.

    Yet, there are millions of peaceful gun owners. It stands to reason there would be a few bad apples in the group. They don’t want to deal with the bad apples, they just don’t want anyone in the group to have their rights.

    1. avatar Defens says:

      Very well stated.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      It’s the bad apple defense for groups protesting the actions of members of another group that uses the bad apple defense. So, what’s left to protest against? Both sides agree it was just bad apples. My, that’s a whole lot of bad apples all around.

  9. avatar Cory D says:

    As a resident of MD (unfortunately) I watched the press conference. She also thank the nation of Islam for their help. True story……..

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Baltimore has the mayor it wants AND deserves. Too bad for the civilized people who live there. Luckily these ‘protesters’ usually do more to destroy their own neighborhoods than anything else.

      1. avatar El Mac says:


  10. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”

    Isn’t that just pretty much how Baltimore has been run on a day-to-day basis for the last thirty years or so?

    1. avatar chuck (hates nj) says:

      Haha yea this sounds like a late sat early Sunday thing. I stayed in Baltimore once after a paintball event in VA. We had a good time bar hopping but didn’t see very many people due to the weather. Well until about 4 am when we were woken up by Atleast 200 people fighting in the street outside our hotel. Also that was the first time I’ve ever seen a Walgreens lock up everything pocket sized in the store.

  11. avatar actionphysicalman says:

    My dad told me that if you don’t have something good to say about somebody, don’t say anything at all. I haven’t been entirely faithful to that principle, but will try here. At least she is being honest about intentionally failing to protect citizens and property. It is disturbing what one can get away with and still get reelected much less removed from office and charged with a crime.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      In some quarters–not all, but some–it helps if you are a black female with two last names.

    2. avatar Chuck in IL says:

      Who do you think elected her? Probably wasn’t the John Birch Society.

  12. avatar mk10108 says:

    Government serving themselves, protecting their pensions, and finally participating in the delicate balance of anger management giving freedom to the people, to let their anger out….AND deny liberty to 36K citizens in an arena.

  13. avatar PeterC says:

    Where is H.L. Mencken now that we need him?

  14. avatar El Mac says:

    Planet of the Apes….the world turned upside down.

  15. avatar Josh says:

    And anti’s can somehow still say ‘the police will protect you, you don’t need a gun for self defense’ with a straight face.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      What I find hilarious is that the urban sophisticates love to portray and paint us gun owners as a bunch of paranoid country bumpkins, out in our pumpkin patches with an assault rifle, waiting for the boogeyman to show up.

      Then when these racially inflamed incidents occur in their fair cities, the dainty progressives start going after their cops for use of force on some of these yutes who were “just turning their lives around.” Tie the hands of the police in urban riot situations, and you’ll have opportunistic rioting, looting, etc on a widespread scale. It is just what this particular racial cohort does. Expecting them to act in a self-regulated civilized manner is like believing in the Tooth Fairy – it’s a nice story to tell children, but those of us who have been around the block a few times know full well it is nothing but a children’s fairy tale.

      Well, the natural convergence of these two trends is going to be that the urban Clockwork Orange is eventually go in search of more lucrative looting grounds – ie, the tawny, upscale neighborhoods where these cluck-clucking liberals and milquetoast progressives live.

      Then we’ll see some quality entertainment.

  16. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    At least in Ferguson you were free to openly arm yourself and guard your property.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:


      Government needs to get the hell out of the way ’cause it ain’t part of the solution.

  17. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Aren’t progressive policies great?

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:


      The thing about progressives is that they are, and always have been, peddlers of political lies, economic superstitions, policy fairy tales and crackpot social theories. This isn’t new. This started 100 years ago, starting with the Federal Reserve, Prohibition (the first social justice movement spawned by busybody women) and then other idiotic ideas (Social Security, et al).

      They live in a mental condition free from accountability for their idiotic twaddle and recommendations.

      I’ve decided from the start of this year forward, I’m no longer going to be a nice guy when debating policy and issues with ‘progressives.’ I’m going to pile on facts, then I’m going to ridicule, humiliate, denigrate, and personally belittle them in any and every way possible. I no longer care about winning a debate or argument. There’s no point in debating policy any more with these people because the notion that they’re seeking to debate policy honestly is a fraud. Their clear, unequivocal agenda can no longer be seen as anything else other than ending civil society. They seek to solve nothing, improve nothing and remedy nothing. They’re simply out to destroy a civil society built by white protestant males and replace it with a third world perspective of savages and elitist rent-seekers. Being one of those who helped build said American society, I see no reason to be civil towards these grifters, poseurs and frauds.

      We’re only a few years from the point where the balloon will go up and the noisy part of the decline of America will start in earnest. I reckon I might as well enjoy seeing the terror in the dewey eyes of these low-IQ people as it slowly dawns upon them that some among us will have a long memories and will be seeking to meet out retribution.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        There’s no point in debating policy any more with these people because the notion that they’re seeking to debate policy honestly is a fraud.

        I came to that conclusion decades ago too. The whole “have a conversation” shtick nauseates me. 🙂

  18. avatar Clark says:

    Without proper eye protection the gentleman in the picture could certainly injure himself. Shocked to see the mayor show such little concern…

    1. avatar CAG404 says:

      LOL. And he’s not wearing gloves to protect his hands from glass. We’ll need to make a call to OSHA to see if they can implement safety standards for rioters…oh wait, I’m on hold…They’re already talking to the Baltimore mayor about how they can make rioting safer for the rioters. nm.

  19. avatar Another Robert says:

    It’s OT, but the DC could use some copy editors and/or proofreaders. On topic: I’m kind of not believing this, but it looks to me like the “spin” from the mayor’s office is actually pretty reasonable. Her initial statement could pretty well be read to mean that in seeking to protect/respect the rights of legitimate protestors, the city wound up letting the violent ones run wild, not necessarily purposefully. The effect is the same tho, the violent ones were able to run wild because the city muffed its “balancing act”. Then again–maybe it’s just spin after all.

  20. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    So, what happens if someone is just passing through town, makes a wrong turn, and finds themselves in the middle of a riot like this where the mayor decided to allow “space” to be “destroyed”? This sounds all benign and well intentioned and all, but the guy smashing the car window looks very like one of the guys who was filmed smashing the SUV’s window during the “Hollywood Stuntz” biker riots in NYC a couple of years ago. My question is what is the difference, here? Is there a difference here?

    Nobody wants this to happen but what are you supposed to do if you get caught in something like this? People carry arms in their cars for the express purpose of defending themselves, their property, and their families from being attacked. What happens if someone who’s car is being attacked defends themselves and shoots several “space destroying” rioters? Does the fact that you’re being attacked during a riot instead of a mall-lot car-jacking invalidate you’re right to self-defense?

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Ask Reginald Denny.

  21. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    My son lives about 10 miles from Baltimore…and he loves Maryland. And he won’t have a gun in the house. And thinks I’m a gun nut, Also ex-military(in war zones) and works at DoD(speaks Arabic). I can’t wait to ask him(mess with him) about his democrat-socialist paradise…wonder if this shite will spill over to his little burb?

  22. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    You voted for people who gave you Marijuana intoxication and homosexual marriage. And that made you happy. Then they took your gun civil rights away. In Colorado and Washington state. It was a wonderful exchange. They said they supported freedom. The state gave you pleasure.

    You voted for people who raise your taxes take your gun civil rights and other rights away. And you still vote for the same people.
    Conservatives have been warning about the things to come for quite awhile now. But they were called intolerant, racist, homophobe, etc, etc.

    Growing up in California I heard “burn it down” all the time. Now those same people are elected officials like the mayor of Baltimore or city council members in San Francisco. And you voted for them. You believed them when they said they supported freedom.

    Over a million people live in SF. That city has only one gun store as of 2010. Gun stores have been closing in the Baltimore area since last year. But in Kentucky and Tennessee new ones including ranges are opening. We don’t have homosexual marriage and Marijuana intoxication there yet. But we still gun civil rights.

    1. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

      LOL @ marijuana intoxication.

      I do like your attempt to tie supporting 2A to supporting the drug war and being against gay marriage. At least try to be consistently pro-liberty and not be a douche.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        It is a fact you choose to lie to yourself about. Liberals support homosexual marriage and marijuana intoxication. Liberals do not support firearms civil rights. This web site is called “The Truth About Guns”. If you want to read about good gay sex and illegal drug intoxication then go to a different web site. Out of the closet Homosexual lawmakers are writing laws restricting gun civil rights. And that is ok with you?


        -The Assembly passed AB500 by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, which requires gun owners to safely store their firearms when someone who lives in the home is prohibited from owning a weapon because of mental illness or a criminal record-
        -The bill also allows for a seven-day extension on the current 10-day waiting period for weapons purchases if the state Department of Justice needs the extra time to complete a background check and requires dealers to notify the justice department when the buyer has taken possession.-
        -“All components of this bill will keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them and ensure our registry system and background checks are working,” Ammiano said on the floor-

        I wonder how many women will be raped or killed or permanently physically disabled because this white homosexual man said they should wait longer to get a gun. Tom Ammiano is the enemy and you would vote for him or any open homosexual who is anti gun civil rights. Pot and gay sex in exchange for the loss of gun civil rights. Here Is some home work for you. Find an NRA, A rated open homosexual elected official. Get back to me on that.

        1. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          It’s funny when social conservatives cannot even fathom the existence of people that supports all civil rights. But… but…. God told me weed is evil. Or maybe God is Nixon and Reagan. 🙂

        2. avatar El Mac says:

          @Sexual Tyrant, wow. Dern you sooo smart.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          But… but…. God told me weed is evil. 🙂

          Pro-tip: they’re called libertarians.

          And it is Libertarians’ seemingly single-minded focus on marijuana that renders them unserious.

          The world, and our freedoms, are falling apart around us. Who gives a flying flip about weed? I’m completely agnostic about marijuana, but I long for the day that its legalization is the most pressing issue facing us.

          P.S. I view “social conservative” as someone who believes in individual liberty and responsibility, and a “social statist” as someone who would use the power of the state to compel others to act in accordance with one’s own beliefs (regardless of what those beliefs are).

        4. avatar El Mac says:

          @Chip Bennett, well said Mr. Bennett.

        5. avatar Aaron says:

          ChrisT, are you a little afraid that deep down you might be a poof?

          Alaska has gun rights, gay marriage, and doobage (as far as I know, i don’t live there). These things are NOT mutually exclusive.

          I consider myself an old -fashioned conservative: I’m a Christian, and at the same time I like liberty, evidence-based policy making, guns, and I don’t believe that God hates poofs.

          We are all sinners, and there are something like 600 laws and rules in the Old Testament – why do you choose to focus so intensly on a sin that doesn’t hurt anyone else, unless you are afraid you are one of them?

        6. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          Careful sir, you might trigger ChrisT with that kind of logical talk. 🙂

        7. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          @Chip Claiming libertarians are single-mindedly focused on pot is simply proof of your ignorance.

          On the flip side, anyone who has studied the history of the drug war can see how Nixon and his gangsters singled out pot as a target to demonize due to its harmless nature (i.e. if pot can be demonized, the other drugs will be automatically condemned). That criminal lied and started a war that killed thousands of Americans, why do you continue to believe his lies?

          I do like your wacky attempt to separate social conservative from social statist, considering social conservatives have been using the government to impose their brand of morality on everyone else for a half century.

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          @Chip Claiming libertarians are single-mindedly focused on pot is simply proof of your ignorance.

          Reading comprehension fail? I said seemingly single-minded focus.

          Which, ironically, you then proceed to support, by talking about the war on drugs (and making a false assumption regarding my opinions on it). So, thanks for making my point.

        9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I do like your wacky attempt to separate social conservative from social statist, considering social conservatives have been using the government to impose their brand of morality on everyone else for a half century.

          I infer that you believe that all conservatives/Christians want to use the state to impose their morality on everyone? If you believe so, you are very, very wrong.

          My definitions of social “statist” and “conservative” are political definitions. Yes, there are some conservatives who have attempted to use the state to force their brand of morality on everyone. Is it any better that progressives are now attempting to do the same? I oppose both.

          I am a Christian, and want nothing more than to be left alone to live my life as I see fit. I want the same for everyone else. I support liberty and self-responsibility for all. I am of the camp that it is as anti-freedom as it is futile to attempt to legislate morality. I do not agree with legislating Christian morality, Muslim morality, atheist morality, LGBT morality, or any other morality.

        10. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          We’re talking about drugs because that is the topic at hand. I can talk about all the other crap that social conservatives are ruining for everyone, if you want. 🙂

          By the way, if you really believe social conservatives shouldn’t be interfering with other peoples’ business, you should tell them yourself. Because they (as a political group) have been doing so for decades. I doubt *all* Christians agree with this vile movement, but enough of them do to make life hell for many people.

        11. avatar El Mac says:

          @Sexual Tyrant, Nice try Leftist troll.

        12. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          By the way, if you really believe social conservatives shouldn’t be interfering with other peoples’ business, you should tell them yourself. Because they (as a political group) have been doing so for decades.

          What leads you to believe that I’m not?

          And regardless what has happened in the past, at this point in time, it is the social progressives who are doing the most interfering in other peoples’ business. By a long shot.

        13. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          Mac is mad at the facts. 🙂

          Standard propaganda from the drug war fanatics, anyone who dislikes the drug war is a leftist, soft-on-crime hippie, etc. Line is getting old, brah.

        14. avatar El Mac says:

          @Sexual/Statist Tyrannosaurus/Tyrant, bro, smoke all the dope you want. I could care less…shoot the shit in your veins, I’ll sit by and laugh. It’s you Leftist wackjobs that want to DICKtate what kind of lightbulbs, toilets, drinks, food, guns, ammo, cars, trucks, books and so on, that we – the little people – are to consume/use, etc. Leftist statist punk.

        15. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          >it is the social progressives who are doing the most interfering in other peoples’ business. By a long shot.

          Really? Are gays now murdering people or throwing them in prison for decades for refusing to side with their point of view? Because that’s what the drug war zealots have been doing for four decades, and the drug war is the emblematic effort of the social conservative movement.

          Fining cake shops for refusing catering is abominable, but it is hardly a comparison.

        16. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Can you back away from the weed, even for a moment?

          The so-called “War on Drugs” does not represent or encapsulate the entirety of social conservatism. In fact, social conservatives aren’t even anywhere near agreement on the issue.

          How about social progressives getting people fired (or attempting to do so) for expressing their beliefs? Or forcing businesses to shut down, either through the courts or through unlawful interference?

          Was it a social conservative who attempted to dictate to New Yorkers how large their soda cups could be, or how much salt they could consume? Was it a social conservative who forced every person in the country to change their health care plans? I know! It is a social conservative who is forcing school children to eat 100-calorie “lunches”.

          Need I go on?

        17. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          >In fact, social conservatives aren’t even anywhere near agreement on the issue.

          Really? Did Nixon and Reagan not use moralistic language in pushing the drug war, in their cynical attempt to pull white voters away from the Democrats in socially conservative areas in the South? Is the religious right not the primary driver for the drug war in its four decade lifespan?

          The drug war is not the entirety of the social conservative movement, but it most certainly is its flagship effort. Maybe gay marriage has approached the drug war in terms of the level of fearmongering peddled by the moral crusaders, but at least the gay marriage issue doesn’t get thousands of people killed or cost several billion dollars a year.

          I do like how you prefix the war on drugs with “so-called”, as if it doesn’t exist. Despite that term being the literal language used by politicians who support and push its existence.

          Also LOL @ Obamacare having anything to do with social conservatism.

        18. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Really? Did Nixon and Reagan…

          You mean to imply that Nixon (out of office for 40 years) and Reagan (out of office for 25 years) define the unanimity of social conservatives in 2015? How absurd.

          The drug war is not the entirety of the social conservative movement, but it most certainly is its flagship effort.

          And you keep proving my point. Give your dopamine receptors a break for just a minute, would you?

          Also LOL @ Obamacare having anything to do with social conservatism.

          Is it your reading comprehension that failed again, or your sarcasm detector? Obvious sarcasm was as obvious as it was intentional, to prove a point. That point, obviously, was that social progressives are responsible for Obamacare – which is one of the single, biggest intrusions into peoples’ business, ever.

        19. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          No, economic progressives are responsible for Obamacare. Note that plenty of economic progressives are also social conservatives in regards to the drug war, not for some fake moral stance, but for the sheer power.

          As for Nixon and Reagan, they started the drug war and all the standard lies and propaganda invented by their regime are still applied today, such as scaremongering, dehumanization, circular arguments (immoral = illegal = immoral), and scientific denial. Nixon and Reagan are long dead but their “moral argument” for the drug war is as alive as ever, and fervently embraced by today’s social conservatives.

    2. avatar Aaron says:

      ChrisT, and yet Alaska has gay marriage, doobage, and gun rights…

  23. avatar Ralph says:

    Don’t think of it as rioting. Think of it as urban renewal. You know, like Sherman’s March to the Sea.

    1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      Like what happened on the westside of Chicago…it’s still not renewed. Dumbazzes burn their own neighborhood…

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      The difference is, folks rebuilt what Sherman burned, razed and wrapped around trees.

      Detroit was subject to the same sort of urban renewal policies, and it will not be rebuilt any time soon. I suspect that Baltimore will soon be like the Pattersons, Newark in NJ, Detroit, Buffalo NY, et al.

      1. avatar Aaron says:

        if people live in a nice place, and thugs, war, or a disaster come through and destroy it, generally they rebuild. if lazy, stupid, people live in a shiite hole such as 2/3 of baltimore, and thugs (or an earthquake, in the case of Haiti) come through and wreck it, it pretty much stays wrecked no matter whether outsiders pay lots of money to help out.

  24. avatar Moshe says:

    Baltimore mayor wanted the rioters to exercise their First Amendment Rights. Would she also be supporting if ordinary Baltimore citizens exercised their Second Amendment Rights in this situation?

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      no, of course not. but you already knew that.

  25. avatar H says:

    She is covering something. The police chief certainly is. Seems there have been two lawsuits already against the city after one death and a paralysis from past police joy rides to the station. The cap was $250,000 paid by the city when the court awarded in the millions.
    How hard is this to investigate? Did the police transit van roll over? Was it involved in a serious G inducing deceleration? No? Then Coppers, you’re fired and see you in court where you can perjur yourself.
    As for the violent protestors. I hate to add laws but up the fines and jail time if someone really did it. Oh wait…another way for police to exaggerate a situation.

    1. avatar Clark says:

      She’s not covering anything…this just happens to be her voting bloc…

  26. avatar MojoRonin says:

    My money is that the federal regime (including the AG office) sent the mayor a “in case of rioting” playbook for her to follow. ‘Let them riot, it has been determined it is best for the media and the narrative.’

  27. avatar Aaron says:

    I’ve lived in Baltimore. It’s mostly a crap hole with some islands of beauty. Many of the people are nice, but crime is much higher than many other places – I’ve never seen so much crime as when I lived in Baltimore. And MD has high taxes and gun control that disarms the law abiding but does ansolutely nothing to prevent every thug who can scrap up a few hundred dollars from illegally buying and carrying a stolen gun. I’m never moving back.

  28. avatar Silver says:

    The mayor couldn’t care less. The rioters voted for her, so they’re happy that they’re allowed to destroy. The white leftists voted for her, and they’re so riddled with pathetic white guilt that they’ll bow down and give the poor, oppressed rioters free access to their shops. And both groups are too staggeringly stupid to realize that all their misery comes from their voting practices.

  29. avatar tmm says:

    “…we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”

    So, when you hear yourself talk, does it sound like dolphins?

  30. avatar Col. Angus says:

    I’m sure that if asked, the mayorette would swear that she is the mayorette of all the people…..

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email