Trump says the Sutherland Springs massacre wasn't a gun situation.
Previous Post
Next Post
  1. During a press conference in Japan earlier today, the press asked President Trump about Sunday’s mass murder in a Sutherland Springs, Texas church. As ABC News reports, the President doesn’t consider Devin Kelley’s crime a result of  “lax gun laws.”

“Mental health is your problem here. This was a very, based on preliminary reports, a very deranged individual, a lot of problems over a long period of time. We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, as do other countries. But this isn’t a guns situation,” President Trump said of the First Baptist Church shooting during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Better yet, the CINC acknowledged the contribution made by an armed individual in stopping Devin Kelley and potentially saving more lives.

The president went on to say that it’s a “little bit soon” to be talking about guns following the tragic event, and suggested that the death toll could have been higher had it not been for another armed individual who opened fire on the assailant, according to witnesses.

“Fortunately somebody else had a gun that was shooting in the opposite direction otherwise … it would have been much worse,” the president said. “This is a mental health problem at the highest level.”

Hear hear. Like all occupants of the Oval Office, Trump certainly has his weak points and limitations. And no shortage of detractors on both sides of the aisle. But when was the last time we heard such measured, reasoned comments after a headline mass shooting?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Well, atheism is a form of narcissism… A sane man can admit that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Militant atheists are so far up their own fourth point of contact that they believe that their own personal experience is sufficient to disprove the combined life experience of billions of people.

    • I would call it a form of “nihilism.”

      It’s important for societal integrity to have useful productive purpose in your life. Nihilism will take that away, turn people into lazy oafs and drug addicts, and the occasional mass murderer, when conditions are right.

        • simply saying you lack belief means you hate and don’t care about anything?

          No, that’s not what they’re saying at all.

          And “simply… lack[ing] belief” is not atheism, it is agnosticism. The latter is a lack of belief for or against (i.e. one neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of) a supreme being; the former is explicit disbelief in a supreme being.

          Different atheists take their explicit disbelief in a supreme being to different conclusions (logical or otherwise). One quite logical conclusion to the explicit disbelief in a supreme being is the belief that morality is not an absolute, but rather a human construct. That conclusion leads to Nihilism, and has resulted in the deaths of some nine figures of human beings, in the twentieth century alone.

        • There is ample evidence to back up that assertion. See exhibit A in the form of this particular nutjob.

      • Nihilism and Atheism do not necessarily go hand in hand though one can be both.

        Nihilism is the intentional rejection of meaning and therefore also of value.

        An Atheist may say “There is no God” but a self-described Nihilist usually goes way, way farther than that, often to the point of rejecting the meaning of anything society places value on, up to and including life itself because they believe it to be meaningless. The obvious sub-text to this thought process being 1) Meaningless objects have no value of any kind and 2) since nothing, including life, has value one is free to do quite literally anything to anyone without creating a moral quandary. Since everything is meaningless and valueless there can be no morals or ethics.

        There is no logical contradiction in an Atheist saying “There is no God but life is precious and therefore murder is wrong”. There is an absolute and incontrovertible contradiction in a Nihilist saying the same thing.

        I would steal, and represent in much more basic terms, a general argument from Nietzsche; If one considers people to be ships on a body of water Nihilism seems (to some) to work during plain sailing weather. However, when storms blow in even those people need a “lighthouse” in some form and this is where Nihilism breaks down because the Nihilist doesn’t simply ignore the lighthouse they actively reject it’s existence (or at least it’s purpose). The problem then being that active rejection of the lighthouse almost ensures the the Nihilist sails in any direction BUT that of the lighthouse.

        • There is no logical contradiction in an Atheist saying “There is no God but life is precious and therefore murder is wrong”.

          I am curious regarding the justification for someone who believes that life is the result of a cosmic accident, asserting that life is inherently precious. If life is nothing more than the right combination of chemicals under the right environmental conditions, and if human life is nothing more than the results of eons of genetic evolution, how can life be precious?

        • It depends on how you look at it.

          If life is, as you mention “…nothing more than the right combination of chemicals under the right environmental conditions…” then we would have to surmise that such a combination of chemicals and environment has some unique characteristics, otherwise there would likely be life all over our solar system (just an example).

          If there is something unique about the conditions that created life then we can say there is something inherently special about those circumstances. If something is the result of such special circumstances then we can say that it is, to some degree, precious because it is rare. As a species we have long prized thing that are rare and therefore it comes as no particular surprise (to me) that regardless of where one might think that life “came from”, that a person can attach significant value to life simply based on the fact that it is, so far as we know at this point, a rarity.

          There is no rule of the universe or philosophy that says one cannot look at this from a non-religious point of view and say “God didn’t do that, special circumstances did, but that doesn’t make life any less amazing. In fact, if God didn’t do it then the set of circumstances that did “do it” makes life even more amazing and therefore something to be cherished”.

          All in all, I see nothing illogical or contradictory about an Atheist placing value on life. It’s no different than attaching high value to gold, diamonds, rare Earth metals or powerful magnets.

    • Without attempting to paint all atheists with the same brush (“militant atheist” seems an appropriate term), I think we have the definitive answer to Robert’s question from several days ago – and we also have some appropriate context by which to evaluate the responses to that question, especially some of those responses left by self-proclaimed atheists.

      One logical conclusion to atheist beliefs is, as anonymous has identified, Nihilism. Combine that Nihilism with toxic disregard for those who hold religious belief, mix in run of the mill domestic violence and angst against a former spouse’s family, and you get what happened yesterday.

      The difference between, say, this guy who murdered under the guise of atheism and a nutjob who murders an abortion doctor under the guise of Christianity is that, in the former case, the actions are consistent with the proclaimed belief system, but in the latter case, the actions are explicitly contrary to the proclaimed belief system.

      • I differentiate between atheists and agnostics. The former has a mental disorder the latter are willing to admit that, being human, they don’t have all the answers.

        • I would accept that differentiation, by your definition an Athiest would also be defined by his/her belief, simply belief of a negative quality, but would also draw a distinction between what I’m going to call General Agnostics (those who have a personal lack of belief with no rejection of others belief or non-belief,) Diest Agnostics (those who believe that there may well be some kind of higher power, but that it is fundamentally uninterested in us,) and Militant or Absolutist Agnostics (those who reject the idea that ANYONE could EVER know, and reject anyone else’s belief as fundamentally irrational.) All of these groups are defined not by belief (positive or negative,) but the 3d one seems to me to be as prone to Nihilism as Athiesm

    • And the the f*cking evangelicons show up and tried to blame it all on lack of religion.

      Yeah how about you go pound sand son. We’ve already god significant amounts of data that points to this guy a violent wife and child beating POS and general violent scum bag. Him being militant atheist is at best window dressing on already just a waste of skin. Kind of like a childhood friend of mine that was being banged by his pastor at a Boy Scout camp up in Western NC decades years ago. No on suspected a thing about him for decades until all of these kids came forward when said pastor found a kid that wouldn’t take it. Monsters come in all shapes and sizes, sometimes you can see them outright. Sometimes they hide behind a veneer of righteousness.

      • The problem is not the lack of belief, it’s the abject rejection of the possibility of a higher power. I’m not a huge fan of the papists either, so that’s not really an argument. The fundamental problem is the sheer arrogance it takes for a person to assert that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Once you go down that road, it’s not a huge leap to assert that all morality is subjective and, as such, largely meaningless.

        For example, I have no problem with agnostics, they are, at least, humble enough to admit that they don’t have all the answers. That’s a very rational approach and I can respect it. People who defy basic logic trying to disprove something by claiming an absence of evidence they find compelling (note: not an actual absence of evidence) is evidence of absence.

    • “Well, atheism is a form of narcissism”
      I have to disagree with that. I (and most of the other voices) have been narcissistic most of our lives, but only rarely have any of them been atheists. I know because most of the voices ARE GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL WHEN I DIE! So, therefore, since we (or most of us) believe there is a hell, conversely there has to be a heaven, which couldn’t exist without there being God. And they are going without me. Soon. As soon as I find the shotgun they’ve hidden from me. Talk about a hostile takeover! I just wish they would shut up sometimes, but no! Jibber-jabber constantly, signifying nothing!
      I could probably cut them out of my head, but I think they’ve hidden all the knives.
      Did you know that foam rubber feels good on your forehead? The all white motif is boring, though.
      If I had a car, it would have to have white walls.
      Excuse me, but they are acting up again. I can’t hear a word Alice is saying!

      • Not all narcissists are atheists, but all atheists are narcissists. It’s not an unfounded conclusion based on the fact that they dismiss accounts of evidence they don’t like in favor of their world view. An agnostic is at least rational enough to admit the possibility that they are wrong.

        • In an infinite multiverse the lack of existence of anything is statistically impossible. Claiming otherwise denies basic math.

        • Your answer assumes an infinite multiverse. That is neither established or the premise of the query. Transparent dodge of the question. Lame.

        • I don’t have the time nor the inclination to explain basic cosmology to a pedantic halfwit. Go away little troll and gaze some more at your own reflection.

    • 100% agreed. Those who deny Muhammad is a prophet are real narccist cases.

      After all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And, who would be so self absorbed to deny the collective experiences of billions?

      • 100% agreed. Those who deny Muhammad is a prophet are real narccist cases.

        That’s a real nice straw man you’ve got there. Would be a shame if something happened to it.

        Belief/disbelief in the existence a supreme being is not the same thing as belief/disbelief in the identity of said, supreme being.

        • Chip. The point is the same. So you deny Muhammad was a profit? If so, why?

          Do you deny the flying spaghetti monster is our Lord and savior?

          Are you arguing that only complete atheism is narcism? But if one beleives in the fsm they are good to go?

          What about the arrogance of denying the collective experiences of billions of Jews and Muslims?

        • Chip. The point is the same. So you deny Muhammad was a profit? If so, why?

          No, the point is not the same, in any way whatsoever. But nice try.

    • If you are saying that a belief in a supreme being is a requirement for having a good moral compass, you’re pretty much admitting that the only thing that’s holding you back from doing evil, is a threat of eternal damnation. I am an atheist-leaning agnostic, who does know enough to realize how little he (and we, as a whole) knows. I always try to do good, not because I’m scared of some awesome alien hyper-intelligence punishing me in another plane of existence, but because I have a strong sense of empathy, compassion and an ability to think critically, instilled in me from an early age by my parents. To me, treating others the same way you’d want to be treated yourself, is just common sense. I cherish this life, everyone and everything around me even more, because I realize that these fleeting moments of sentience, are likely all that there is for us. I find spirituality in the natural beauty, art, love, the vastness of the universe, etc. To me, what’s really narcissistic, is thinking that you have all the answers and can judge others, because you subscribe to some Bronze Age mythology as an end-all belief system.

  2. Churches are targets these days. They should not be gun free zones.

    I saw Pastor Robert Jeffress, from Dallas Baptist Church, on Fox today. He commented that this could not have happened at his church since about 20% of the congregation are legal concealed carriers. He has the right take on this.

    • It could have started to happen but it would have ended sooner.

      This is, I think, a point we need to be careful about. Good guys with guns don’t – can’t – stop this from happening. They can reduce the toll when it begins.

      • Any perceived “gun free zone” is a target. Churches are often perceived as such. If it is made known that such and such Church is an armed camp it will be much less likely to be attacked as these wackos are cowards and don’t want to get shot. That doesn’t take into consideration that the wacko is stupid as well as crazy or suicidal though.

  3. Exactly. Who cares what instrument he used to kill 27 people. He killed 27 people. That is the problem. Why did he kill those people? Why did he think that was acceptable? These are the questions that should be asked. Not – how did he get a gun? What kind of gun was it? What was his magazine capacity??? The instrument shouldn’t matter, it is not the root cause of the issue here.

    • You hit the nail on the head but failed to finish the thought at least a logical one and that is with literally no gun laws that are meaningful in anyway any nut case out there can get all the guns and ammo he wants and this mass murder will continue to happen until finally we do something about it by passing laws that civilized nations have adopted decades ago.

      • Actually, he properly finished the thought as there are literally no gun control laws that could have ever possibly stopped this, and civilized nations do not debar their citizens the use of arms. And, no, mass murders didn’t stop in those thoroughly uncivilized nations across the pond, either. Also, no, there is absolutely zero evidence — empirical or otherwise — to even suggest that they did. You never actually provide any citations to back any of your assertions, and that’s because none exist to support them.

        • Excedrine headache you are a laugh a minute and a person who knows nothing at all about the success of gun laws in other countries. Your a joke and an ignorant back woods hick.

          Australia put an end to gun mass murders when way back in the 1980’s they passed their gun control laws and not a mass shooting has occurred since.

          Britain put an end to mass shooting by civilians armed with assault rifles when in the 1980’s a nut case shot up a neighborhood with an ak47. Britain also put an end to school shootings way back in the 1980’s when a nut case used two hand guns to murder children at a school.

          British laws prevented the nut case terrorists on the bridge incident this year from getting guns as well and when they tried to kill people in a bar with their knives they got the shit beat out of them with chairs and broken beer bottles from the patrons of the bar. Now what would have happened if they could have went to a gun show and bought all the deadly weapons they wanted? Is this too complicated for you to understand, well of course it is, your to mentally unstable to fathom even such simple examples.

          With our latest nut case he got a gun because the bone heads in the Military did not get up off their dead asses and feed his violent history to the National Background Checks system that they were by law required to do. But lets face facts our Neanderthal’s in the Military have fucked up everything they have attempted since WWII so what else is new.

          But the Nut case would have got an Assault rifle anyway because we do not vet second hand sales of assault rifles or high capacity magazines. No other civilized country puts up with such insanity. A man who just got out of the nut house or prison could walk across the street from the prison and go to a gun show the same day, the same hour and buy all the weapons and ammo he wanted. Now no one like you would be able to understand this since you have been very deranged for years but sane people understand the insanity of our lack of gun laws in this country.

          Our failure to do anything about weekly mass murders only hasten the day when draconian gun laws will take most firearms away and restrict ammo to perhaps only 1 box a year. It has become so bad that even the corrupt Republicans that are on the take from the NRA will not be able to ignore the problem much longer because its become way too serious a problem and the Nations people are now at the point of mass hysteria over it. And lets face facts the courts vote according to public opinion not the Constitution and they have sanctioned every gun ban, every magazine capacity ban and California’s recent confiscation law as legal. Its the law that over the next 2 years in stages they are all going to be confiscated. You can deny this with your insane ranting’s as you have in the past but 300 million other Americans have been following California’s new law and are well aware of it.

          Our failure to give mental tests to get a gun owner I.D. cards have resulted in so many crazy people shooting at innocent people on the freeways over minor traffic problems that again the people in the U.S. are in a panic over this problem as well.

          Its all rapidly coming to a head and with the down fall off Herr Drumpf either through pending impeachment or the avalanche of angry voters enraged over the lack of health care because the Republicans refused to do anything about it will result in them losing control of both houses of Congress in 2018 and the Democrats will be able to win in the 2020 Presidential race even if they ran Hillary again insures that gun owners will get the blame instead of Congress who refused to take any action on the problems of mass murder in our country and our freeways now turned into daily shooting galleries.

        • cirsco kid you are a groan a minute and a person who is guilty of the ignorance he knowingly, falsely accuses everyone else of having. You know nothing at all of the abject failures of gun controls in other countries. You are a joke and an ignorant Marxist NEET.

          Australia never actually put an end to gun massacres at any point in time, and further massacres were in fact committed by other means, regardless. Oh, and other mass shootings have in fact occurred since, too.

          A ten-year study, lead by Dr. Samara McPhedran and published in the British Journal of Criminology, found that the $500M AUD spent on the mass confiscation and destruction of previously-legal firearms had absolutely no effect whatsoever on homicide or suicide rates.

          Yet another five-year study, produced by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi from your University of Melbourne and published in the Melbourne Institute’s Working Paper series, confirmed Dr. McPhedran’s conclusions and no others.

          Likewise, Britain didn’t put an end to mass shootings by civilians with “assault rifles”, and neither did Britain put an end to school shootings, either. So, no, British laws haven’t prevented any nut cases terrorists in any year from getting guns. They could have just as easily gone to the black market, like the terrorists in France did, and got all the weapons they wanted and then some and not even be questioned because there effectively no border controls in the whole of the E.U. thanks to the Shengen Zone. This is obviously too complicated for you to understand and because you’re too mentally unstable yourself to even fathom even such simple examples.

          So, let’s face some actual facts: you would absolutely rather have us give our individual safety over to the government that, as you stated, won’t do its job and won’t hold its agents accountable for it.

          But, the nut case would have gotten a rifle anyway actually because there is no way to vet second-hand sales of guns to begin with. Every other civilized country puts up with this insanity, too. A man who actually escaped from a nut house in 2012, or got out of prison the same year, could drive across the border into Mexico and buy all the weapons they wanted. Now, no one like you would be able to understand this since you have been very deranged for years, but sane people like me understand the insanity of gun control laws just as a concept, let alone in actual application where they’ve been shown to be totally ineffective.

          Our success in not doing the wrong thing, i.e. pass gun control laws, had to lead to mass murders not being a weekly occurrence as you like to knowingly, falsely claim they are and there is absolutely zero evidence for any one of your knowingly hyperbolic predictions of draconian gun control laws — which you HAVE already called for by the way — which will somehow take most of of our guns away. It has actually become so bad for you that the corrupt Dumass-O-KKKrats that are on the take from Nanny Loonberg will not be able to ignore the actual problem of the ineffectiveness of gun control laws any longer because it’s become way to obvious that it doesn’t work. And let’s face some actual facts: the courts do not vote according to public opinion and they have not sanctioned every gun and magazine ban, and the courts have not yet even ruled on the legality of any of KKKommiefornia’s confiscatory bans — which cannot and will not be enforceable, regardless. It will be successfully challenged and stayed, and likely defeated in the next two years and nothing will be confiscated in the first place. You can deny this with your insane rantings as you have in the past, but 250 million other Americans (which don’t even include you) haven’t been following KKKommiefornia’s new law and aren’t even aware of it.

          Our success in not subjecting peaceable citizens to new poll taxes (i.e. mental tests) to get useless FOID-card equivalents have actually resulted in so many crazy people getting shot after shooting at innocent people that people in the U.S. aren’t in a panic over violence on the freeways, either. Nor do you have any sources whatsoever for this or any other claims that you’ve ever made about anything, ever.

          It’s all rapidly coming to a head and with the downfall of Herr Shillary either through her failure to get elected or the avalanche of angry voters enraged over the lack of control because Dumbass-O-KKKrats refused to anything about unaffordable healthcare will result in them completely losing control of both houses of Congress in the 2018 and the they won’t be able to win the 2020 Presidential race — especially if Shillary ran again — ensures that gun owners will not get the blame instead of Congress, who took the right course of action by not punishing gun owners for mass murders, or the still-rare violence on our freeways.

          FIXED that for you.

  4. What is always annoying to me is that this is even discussed.

    When the wack job uses ANYTHING but a gun. Truck, bomb, plane, etc etc etc, its about the killer. if the wackjob uses a gun, its the gun.

  5. Hey we can argue religion and shit all day long. How about instead, we sit back, breathe a sigh of relief, and thank whoever for Trump being president. Look what he just said. He is EASILY the MOST pro gun president the United States has had in, what, 100 years or more? Possibly ever? He is the first in that time not to call for more gun control. This right here is proof positive he IS the 2A supporter we voted him to be. Our pro gun bills haven’t passed yet, but that’s not on him, it’s on the GOPe. Just imagine what would be happening right now with Hillary as president with a democrat congress… Trump has won my vote for 2020 already.

  6. The MSM will not reveal their true reaction which is “a bunch of bible thumping, gun clingers got a taste of their own medicine…good riddance…let’s call for sensible gun legislation.”

  7. We won’t need religious debates with the rate America is losing its religion.

    Which is a good thing. Religion has been responsible for more deaths than anything else.

      • Faith, by definition, is the belief in something absent evidence.

        Are you saying that a lack of faith is responsible for 100 million deaths? Please explain.

      • Chips in the head as usual has everything backwards. The millions of deaths he talks about were not caused by “lack of religion” but by “having religion”. Anyone who has not flunked history as our Genius boy Chips in the head obviously has, knows that the bulk of all wars were caused by guys just like Chips. Bigoted Right Wing Fanatics that go to war over religion. They believe that their particular race along with its religious chants, rituals and incantations by the light of the moon are the only ones permissible and that all others are “out to get them” (persecution complex) and that the infidels all must be destroyed.

        Is it not bizarre that the religious fanatics can claim in one breath that God always existed but totally reject the fact that just maybe the Universe always existed and did not need any God to invent it. Considering the fact that the world we live in could not function without pure evil being the main driving engine (study nature) we all better hope that there is no God because if there is we are in deep trouble considering the hell hole he invented for us all to live in. Of course that’s way over Chips in the heads ability to fathom.

        I think too that if we pay attention to some of the most brilliant men that ever lived (I could name many) that the bulk of them all rejected the idea that there ever was or is or could be a God. I think that alone should tell even a mental midget something but Chips has not reached even that level yet.

        • Let me be very clear: if the site admins won’t enforce the commenting rules, then I will. If you can’t exhibit even the modicum of self-control required to refrain from using insult and ad hominem, then do not reply to me.

        • crisco kid has everything backwards. The 150+ million deaths Chip talks about were, in fact, at the hands of faithless communist regimes. Namely Russia and China. So, no, the bulk of wars were actually caused by bigots and trolls like crisco here. Bigoted left wing fanatics that go to war over classism. They believe that their particular race along its political chants, rituals, and incantations by the light of the hammer and sickle are the only ones permissible and that all others are “out to get them” (an actual documented persecution complex when in reality none has occurred) and that the infidels all must be destroyed.

          It is actually not bizzare that the statist fanatics claim in one breath that God never existed but totally reject the fact that the universe hasn’t always existed and, for no discernible reason, exploded from nothing. Considering the actual fact that the definitions of good and evil are up to one’s own personal perceptions and that there is actually no inherent good or evil in nature (only we Humans ascribe that to certain actions), you had better hope that there is no God because he would visit on you exactly what you always he’d visit on the rest of us. Of course, that’s actually way over crisco kid’s ability to fathom.

          What you like to “think” is irrelevant. You are inherently a non-thinker and bring forth less than absolutely zero evidence whatsoever — empirical or otherwise. Some of the most brilliant men that veer lived were also either Diests or devout religious types. That alone should tell something to things that like to root around in the muck and the mud under the bottom of the food chain, like crisco kid here, but he’s not even reached that level yet.

      • Hey Chips in the head, you are the one that keeps bugging my posts not the other way around. Now you are crying that you can’t take the heat, then get out of the kitchen or shut up and quit bugging me and my posts. Your a coward and cannot take it lets face facts and I relish the good fight every time you instigate it. Blame no one but yourself. When you bug me I jump right in with both fists flying and loving every minute of it.

        • That’s because you are an unhinged, bigoted, violent Democrat; and are therefore responsible for the vast majority of violent crime in this country… If you Democrats would stop shooting people; violent crime in this country would drop by 90%….. Congrats azzwipe; YOU are the problem, not Chip…

        • Hey crisco kid, you are the one that keeps making prima facie absurd posts, not the other way around. Now you are crying that you can’t take the heat yourself. So, no, you need to get out of our kitchen or shut the fuck up and quit bugging us and our posts. You’re a coward yourself and cannot take it. Let’s face some actual facts: you don’t relish a good fight because you can’t put one up, and you’re the one instigating them in the first place. You are the only one to blame. When you bug us, we jump right in with both fists and we make you hate every minute of it.

  8. As usual Herr Drumpf and the Republican Prostitutes of the Gun Industry sit on their hands and simply say “learn to live with it as mass murders will now be a weekly occurrence and we would lose too much money from t he NRA if we decided to put a stop to it.

    At this point the question is why in the hell is not the U.S. Military sharing its information with the people in the Government that run the Brady Bill. If the weapons bought were bought legally than this is the fault of the U.S. Military for not sharing the fact that the Nut Case was sent to a military jail for a year over severe assault upon his wife which under the Brady Bill would have denied him purchase of any firearm.

    It is necessary to note that Texas denied him a concealed handgun permit so obviously law enforcement knew about his violent past and he therefore must have lied on the 4473 Federal Form. The ATF has made the statement he did legally purchase the guns so obviously they did not have information on him that would have prevented him from purchasing firearms. Even if you lie on a Federal Firearms From you will be caught if there is information in the system on you which since the Military had failed to share they are to blame for what happened. I think the obvious question now is how was it that Texas law enforcement knew about him but the Brady Bill people did not? It is possible he used a fake i.d. but law enforcement has yet to release everything that they know about him and exactly how he was able to purchase the firearms.

    It must be remembered that even if the Brady Bill had prevented him from purchasing firearms he would have gotten them anyway because the U.S. being under the influence and control of Hillbilly Republican Morons is the only country in the world that does not make it mandatory that all second hand gun sales be vetted and that guns purchased be locked up in safes to prevent theft. No civilized nation on earth save the U.S. has such an insane gun policy of being able to purchase firearms by anyone whether he be a criminal or a maniac on the loose and a further policy of letting people leave deadly weapons laying around a house or in a gun store so that anyone can kick in the door and cart off all the deadly weapons he wishes. If it were not for the gravity of the situation the rest of the world would be laughing at a Nation like the U.S. that is run by such screwball Morons.

    Meanwhile we have mass shooting now almost on a weekly basis and even the Republicans will soon reach a point where it will be politically impossible for them to keep on pandering to the NRA. Because we have failed to use such basic safeguards gun owners will pay the ultimate price with draconian gun and ammunition bans. I fear it may eventually get to the point where like at one time in Britain farmers were restricted to the purchase of only one box of .22 rimfire ammo per year and firearms restrictions so severe that the common man’s ability to afford to or jump through the political hoops to purchase firearms will be a thing of the past. Only the extremely wealthy and the Power Elite will have firearms and all because we refused to accept such basic safeguards as complete vetting of all firearms and the mandatory use of safes. And the Republicans refusal to institute National Health Care which would give free help to people with mental health issues. According to the Greed Monger Republicans money is more important than human life. They truly are the lowest form of human life on the planet and most of the Nations problems are the result of their policies of blind greed which results in pollution that is destroying all life on the planet, people dying from lack of health care, people going bankrupt for lack of affordable health care, young people giving up on the idea of an affordable college education, our roads and bridges unsafe to drive on, no money for the widening and improving of our roads, inadequate money for police training which results in a horrific 1,500 cop killings a year as compared to civilized nations which have only a few. This is all the result of our incessant wars of rape ,pillage and conquest that result in us spending the lions share of our taxes on this insanity leaving no money for the social programs all the other industrialized nations of the world have already had for decades and decades. We have created a Nation that has become an unsafe mad house to live in and a joke amongst the rest of the civilized nations of the world. Today you cannot even drive down the freeway without worrying that some nut case will start shooting at you for just cutting him off in traffic. Is it a wonder why 65 per cent of the American Public who do not own guns are demanding that all guns be outlawed? Since we have consistently failed to do anything we deserve what we inevitably are going to get and that is a complete ban on firearms and ammunition which the courts time and time again have ruled is legal (even though it Constitutionally is not) but when did the Courts ever really give a damn what the Constitution says or means.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here