It’s really unfortunate that a woman who authored the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 will be remembered for aging so ungracefully out of government.

PETA is merely a grift that loves to speechify about loving animals while simultaneously killing them instead of the blatantly easy choice of adoption.

Just your typical Greek Tragedy...nothing to see here.

New to GizMedia are we? Nitpicking of good deeds has been the modus operandi for this family of sites since Nick Denton’s Gawker posted its first dumpster fire.

Sure glad to hear the suspect didn’t Escape.

And in DC you can carjack an Uber eats driver, cause a fatal car accident, whine about your phone while the driver bleeds to death on the sidewalk and the national guard will help you. Then DC’s mayor will send out a tweet with extremely poor optics about how to prevent a car jacking.

Small violins are being prepared all parties...

“Brown has recently gotten herself a full-time agent and has started promoting her own brand of “Bonded for Life” merchandise”

Son: Daddy, those new wheels on your car look really cool!

Supporters of $2K: Please give us $2000.

Then we have some hilarious gentrifier on gentrifier violence as a nice preamble to Friday’s March. You don’t get to bully someone to join your cause if they don’t want to. Its their right to enjoy a meal without getting berated by the shouty people. 

Brown makes comments about Black driver mowing down Black Lives Matter protesters.

The Bandit felt vindicated when he heard Black Trans Am Lives Matter.

The insurance excuse is just a reason to hand wave away the arson. Not the jobs lost, higher premiums for the rest of us, the blight left behind, etc, etc. The last time I heard, arson doesn't bring back the lives lost or punish the cops 

Somehow I don't doubt this a little bit of fantasy by the author. 

But the question whether it should or shouldn’t be has been asked and answered several times by SCOTUS. It remains protected. People don’t have to like the answer but that doesn’t change a legal thing. People should still attempt to get SCOTUS to rule differently but the odds are distinctly not in their favor.

WE don’t have to agree with hate speech to acknowledge it is protected speech. Nu uh is not a legal argument.

It is protected speech under the 1st amendment by multiple examples of established case law by SCOTUS. As recently as 2017, a unanimous SCOTUS ruled there is NO hate speech exception.

It is protected speech under the 1st amendment by multiple examples of established case law by SCOTUS. you may want to lead with that next time. As recently as 2017, a unanimous SCOTUS ruled there is NO hate speech exception.

Actively encouraging teh spread by someone who will be scapegoated to the ends of the earth?