While you can theoretically cut a loaf in half an unlimited number of times, in realty, that doesn't work. Eventually, you end up with nothing but crumbs.
I knew they'd do this. You knew they'd do this. Dead children and teachers and old folks and anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time, are the price we pay for our precious second amendment rights.
I'm starting to feel like Senator Chris Murphy has moved from the hero column into the patsy column.
He is so desperate to get something done that he doesn't see the rug being pulled out from under his feet by McConnell and his willing stooge Cornyn.
Is it wrong to feel that way? *Does* he know he's being taken for a ride, but feels like he has to keep trying? Does he not understand that the Rs are gonna tank this somehow, and then blame "the left" or "the woke mob" or "a broken Congress" or "Democrat intransigence" for its failure?
"I'm begging [Democrats] to come up with something that I can get my arms and my head around right now because we need something very clear. And so far, we haven't gotten there yet"
How much more clearer would you like it?
Get rid of assault rifles and extended magazine clips!!!
I've been saying that. These shootings occur so frequently that they've lost their shock value. We need to see the carnage. That's what turned around the Civil Rights movement, that's what turned us away from supporting the war in Vietnam. GOPers have no problem carting around posters of what they claim are mutilated fetuses, so it's time to fight back.
Of course, that would take the consent of families, and I completely understand why they would object to it.
jesus - it doesn't even have to be an LGBTQ thing - cis/het women can also be abusers and are just as capable as men to use a gun on the people they abuse*. if you limit the language to just men in the relationship - it is not only discriminatory language, it won't stop that admittedly small chance a woman uses a firearm to harm their family.
*Guns aren't women's weapons of choice for meeting out violence on their victims, but they do use them.
Just finished watching Under the Banner of Heaven where it was absolutely typical for men and women of the LDS church advised wives who were being abused to stay with the marriage. Told them they had taken a vow that they needed to uphold. It was disgusting. But as I watched I recalled that this was also absolutely true of the Catholic church then and probably now in some cases. It was SOP to tell abused women that it was their duty to stick with their husbands and that they must seek to PLEASE him so he would stop beating her. I sometimes wonder if religions are just disguised misogyny clubs.
Cornyn explained that he's open to broadening the pool of offenders who might be prevented from owning firearms, but thatI'm begging [Democrats] to come up with something that I can get my arms and my head around right now because we need something very clear. And so far, we haven't gotten there yet.Oh shit, this is about LGBTQ people isn't it? Cornyn didn't say that exactly, but I bet you a nickel it's at least in part about what kind of domestic abuse victims "deserve" protection. Or maybe he's worried that if non-married partners/former partners are kept from owning a gun over a little old misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, the law might keep firearms out of the hands of abusers who weren't really truly abusive, and just a little bit abusive? No telling.
Please, Wonkette. Clearly he means they should make it clear that the law only applies to black people. Then it would have 100% GQP support.
What the hell? Your AG says school shootings are G_d's will.
While you can theoretically cut a loaf in half an unlimited number of times, in realty, that doesn't work. Eventually, you end up with nothing but crumbs.
I knew they'd do this. You knew they'd do this. Dead children and teachers and old folks and anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time, are the price we pay for our precious second amendment rights.
I'm starting to feel like Senator Chris Murphy has moved from the hero column into the patsy column.
He is so desperate to get something done that he doesn't see the rug being pulled out from under his feet by McConnell and his willing stooge Cornyn.
Is it wrong to feel that way? *Does* he know he's being taken for a ride, but feels like he has to keep trying? Does he not understand that the Rs are gonna tank this somehow, and then blame "the left" or "the woke mob" or "a broken Congress" or "Democrat intransigence" for its failure?
"I'm begging [Democrats] to come up with something that I can get my arms and my head around right now because we need something very clear. And so far, we haven't gotten there yet"
How much more clearer would you like it?
Get rid of assault rifles and extended magazine clips!!!
I've been saying that. These shootings occur so frequently that they've lost their shock value. We need to see the carnage. That's what turned around the Civil Rights movement, that's what turned us away from supporting the war in Vietnam. GOPers have no problem carting around posters of what they claim are mutilated fetuses, so it's time to fight back.
Of course, that would take the consent of families, and I completely understand why they would object to it.
I know that there are people who get their rocks off on it, but it needs to be right there on the evening news.
Heck, maybe Cornyn's just setting up an escape route,
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Like I said before, they will stall until goldfish-memory America forgets about this mass killing, and then kill the bill.
All those Trump staffers who had domestics abuse allegations had to go work somewhere.
Until the next mass shooting.
Rise, repeat.
jesus - it doesn't even have to be an LGBTQ thing - cis/het women can also be abusers and are just as capable as men to use a gun on the people they abuse*. if you limit the language to just men in the relationship - it is not only discriminatory language, it won't stop that admittedly small chance a woman uses a firearm to harm their family.
*Guns aren't women's weapons of choice for meeting out violence on their victims, but they do use them.
the roomba is gently weeping
Just finished watching Under the Banner of Heaven where it was absolutely typical for men and women of the LDS church advised wives who were being abused to stay with the marriage. Told them they had taken a vow that they needed to uphold. It was disgusting. But as I watched I recalled that this was also absolutely true of the Catholic church then and probably now in some cases. It was SOP to tell abused women that it was their duty to stick with their husbands and that they must seek to PLEASE him so he would stop beating her. I sometimes wonder if religions are just disguised misogyny clubs.
Cornyn explained that he's open to broadening the pool of offenders who might be prevented from owning firearms, but thatI'm begging [Democrats] to come up with something that I can get my arms and my head around right now because we need something very clear. And so far, we haven't gotten there yet.Oh shit, this is about LGBTQ people isn't it? Cornyn didn't say that exactly, but I bet you a nickel it's at least in part about what kind of domestic abuse victims "deserve" protection. Or maybe he's worried that if non-married partners/former partners are kept from owning a gun over a little old misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, the law might keep firearms out of the hands of abusers who weren't really truly abusive, and just a little bit abusive? No telling.
Please, Wonkette. Clearly he means they should make it clear that the law only applies to black people. Then it would have 100% GQP support.
We’ll see I guess. IMO it’s another Lucy Van Pelt stunt.