No, I think that there’s an underlying problem that causes people to use guns. If someone reaches the point where they decide “I’m going to kill as many people as I can!” then that’s the problem. How they go about doing so stems from that cause.

I don’t know that we are more violent. Look at Central America (even more violent than US per capita) and the Middle East (nutso).

Don’t let it get you down.  Things will turn around but you’ve gotta keep your head up and fight on.

You may agree with his opinion but that still doesn’t justify spamming it everywhere.  It’s not a new theory and I think we’re all aware of the Democrats’ various objections to Trump picking a new Justice.  

The theories behind why this guy was killed don’t make a lot of sense but, of course, neither does this guy’s murder make any sense to begin with.  Sad story.  I take it that there’s absolutely zero chance they’ll apprehend the killers?

Why are you spamming the board with this stupid shit?

I’ll take that as an “I don’t know how much any of this would actually cost, let alone know how to fund it.”

In other words, you don’t have a clue how to fund any of the things she’s talking about.

I’m all for slashing the defense budget and hope Democrats can get candidates to run on that platform in a meaningful way.  But I’m not confident they are willing to do that.

OK. That’s a plan. I’m not sure it’s a feasible plan, but you’ve at least got a plan.

It’s (sorta) the left’s version of Eric Cantor losing his seat.  The base takes it as a sign that the overall party is getting more extreme.  For the GOP, that was true to an extent.  I don’t think the same will be true for Democrats, though.  Time will tell.

Anyone can say “I’m going to solve the world’s problems!” and not explain how she’s going to pay for it or how she’s going to do it.

No, if he appoints Sessions he can get a new guy at DOJ to quash Mueller.  It’s the easiest way to get a lid on that can or worms.

There’s a good reason for that. The Democrats fear that if they go too far left, they’ll lose everything between the coasts. And that’s probably true.

You’re confusing mocking her with being scared of her.  To the average Republican, she’s the same as the guy she’s going to replace, just more Pelosi-like.

He’s only pissed because he had to take a timeout from celebrating pulling off the biggest political coup in America to answer stupid questions. After he pulled this act, he went back to drink champagne and spike Gorsuch’s SCOTUS gavel repeatedly.

God damn it, he didn’t compare the two or say they were the same thing.  He never said they were equivalent.  The fucking people here constantly misuse “false equivalency” to duck any allegation of hypocrisy.  It drives me crazy.

No, the article quotes the pertinent part of the statute.

Read the article and you’ll see how wrong you are, dummy.

1) If you make it impossible to hear the person, you’re censoring him. That’s why states are passing these laws to begin with.