"Lawmakers at the state and federal levels have now collectively introduced more anti-trans bills this session than the past six years combined"

I wonder what the change is. For decades there was no such efforts.

@1 Yeah, I suspect legislation banning semi-automatic rifles equipped with flash suppressors or muzzle brakes isn't likely to make a dent in suicide rates. But, it does allow the legislature to seem like they are doing something.

@2 Gosh, it's hard to tell. Maybe it has something to do with the entire Republican Party deciding that they needed a wedge issue to have any shot at winning elections, and chose trans people as the easiest to kick down on?

We know it isn't about actually protecting children since they're silent about youth pastors.

@4. Yeah it's a total mystery for sure and not the logical progression of their perpetual culture wars against The Other. The cruelty is the point. Why actually work to make things better when you can just get the rubes to punch down?

@2 -- you 'wonder' why the
Fascists have felt emboldened
to strip away Human Rights? it's be-
cause too many people're Complacent

& pooh-pooh
their naked Lust
for Power at All Costs.

know anyone like that?

of Course
You don't.

"Republicans in Montana say they definitely aren’t censuring Zooey Zephyr (D-Missoula); in fact, she is censuring herself by not apologizing for calling out their bigotry."

yeah
it's all in
the Framing:

Stop resisting Arrest!
Stop Hitting Yourself!

re fired:
how 'bout
'Lemon Tucks'
the sour hemorrhoid
ointment that tastes like
Rupert Mudroach's spleenings

braindrop!

@1 Only if they're a good shot. There have been a few "suicides" that they had to try twice or more, if you know what I mean.

The Arizona governor is well on her way to handing the state to one of the Arizona Republican extremists.

HST wrote that if
he ever appeared to
have committed suicide
the CIA would be behind it.

@2, 4, 5, 6, & 8:

is there some Point
at which Obtusity
masks an insipid
Desire for At-
tention?

@kritofarian...Oh My Dog you are ON FIRE today my friend! I literally just accidentally spit out my coffee due to an uncontrollable burst of laughing after reading:

'Lemon Tucks'
the sour hemorrhoid
ointment that tastes like
Rupert Mudroach's spleenings

What a ridiculous, shortsighted law this "assault weapons" ban is. Despite it being used in a tiny minority of gun crime, of course you hear about the AR-15 the most if a gun makes the news - it's the most popular rifle in the country for the features that make it safer and more controllable for the user. It doesn't "destroy the body" any more than anything else people use to kill each other (the AR-15 common round is too small to even be used legally for hunting), so this reasoning is a lie - the reason it is being banned by people who don't know anything by guns is because it is the Scary Rifle From The News.

People commit mass killings, undeterred by laws. When we say "do something!" we often really mean "do something, but only that aligns with my preconcieved notions, punishes my political enemies, and doesn't make me uncomfortable!" No school massacre ever neared the death toll of the 1927 Bath school massacre, where a man snuck in explosives, and no mass shooting in history equalled the 2016 Bastille Day truck attack. The only thing that ever stops mass killers is someone with a gun and secured spaces, but "controlled entrances to schools" doesn't sound as right as "ban assault weapons", so more people will die. Criminals and psychos already have access to what they'll use, and now people who know nothing about guns just made it harder for you to defend yourself.

@1 Longer waiting periods might prevent some suicides. Since it is often an impulsive behavior, increasing the delay between the impulse and its realization reduces the number of people who follow through.

Katie Hobbs got ghosted by her tamale abuela and it shows.

@13: What could possibly be more desirous of attention than compelling readers to peruse your ubiquitous vertically elongated and frequently hyphenated words?

@4: I fail to see the need to conflate sexual abuse of children with concerns over puberty blockers and double mastectomies on young teens, other retorting with a snarky quip perhaps (which is okay).

@15 defend myself from what? I used to live in the hood and a gun wouldn't have saved me from shit. Am I defending myself from rednecks carrying concealed weapons? You might have a case for that. I have a couple gunsies now for funsies but I'm not under any illusion that I'm using them to 'defend myself' from the zero actual threats in Seattle.

@18 You seem to be arguing with some kind of version of what you imagined I said, where the features of the gun are "designed to look scary/cool", but yes, it's functional and not a hunting rifle? One thing I do want to point out as instructive is your bizzare misunderstanding about 5.56 and .223 - look at a picture of them side by side and see if you can tell them apart, rather than them being a "whole different beast" with less than a milimeter in size difference. 5.56, again, is also too small to be legally used in hunting.

Yes, it's as dangerous as any other gun. Accuracy and controllability (as well as not blinding yourself in the night a home invasion) is why you have things like flash suppressors and muzzle devices. This is why it's popular, it's why Inslee surrounds himself with police who are equipped with them - it's a good defensive rifle.

@21 I think you know "rednecks with concealed weapons" (couldn't resist a weird little self-superior class dig there?) don't really drive the murder rates in America, but that's a different conversation.

You may think it's better to sit around waiting for the police for 20 minutes while a home invader does whatever he likes to you and your family, but I suppose I just don't have the same overwhelming confidence and optimism in the police response.

@nekrasova - Would you be in favor of legalizing the civilian retail purchases of machine guns?

There's ample research to back this up. While intuitively it seems like somebody who was determined to kill themselves would, for example, just climb the fence on the bridge, the facts tell a different story -- suicides go down when any impediment is introduced.

And since gun deaths by suicide are a problem that statistically dwarfs more commonly discussed problems such as school shootings, even a small gain on that front would represent a significant improvement in the form of fewer lives lost.

@22 - Not big enough to legally use in hunting (incorrect; see below) but more than big enough to smoke enemy troops in combat in it's 5.56 configuration! And you would be shocked if you knew how many people had been killed by the lowly .22 prior to the popularity of 9mm's and such arising back in the early 80's. And those larger .223's seem to take out people in mass shootings just fine...especially kids.

As to be illegal in hunting, where? You should Google before posting. All kinds of hits on how to use a .223 in deer hunting and how great it is for rodents and predators, like coyotes. Nothing about being illegal to hunt with, tho. Shit, here in the libertarian paradise of Idaho, if it fires a bullet, you can hunt with it.

As to defending your home, you're better off using a pistol anyway, due to the confined spaces of a typical home. That's how we were trained and how we did it in my cops days despite having AR's. One officer might have one, out of several, but a pistol was more practical in the confined quarters of small homes and apartments. Still is. Large open buildings, sure, an AR is great...but you're talking about home defense, right?

I will concede one thing to gun nuts, they're right that the AR fires a round no different than any bolt-action or short-mag semi-auto .223. Both of which likely have even greater velocity that an AR due to longer barrel lengths. And much of what drives anti-AR sentiment is their overly TAC'ey appearance. Their great for middle-aged overweight losers to march around in the woods with cos-playing as Seal Team 6 or SAS or whatever they fantasize themselves as being.

But standard .223 rifles don't have 30-round magazines. The ability to unload a lot of rounds before reloading does make them deadlier than a six-shooter. Their shorter barrels make them less unwieldy than a standard rifle with, again, it's greatly reduced magazine capacity. (My semi-auto .243 only holds a measly 5 rounds. :(...) Better than shotguns. I mean, if you wanted to take out a lot of people quickly, what would you realistically arm yourself with? Be honest, now!

I personally have mixed feelings about the ban, but I'm certain that I dislike disinformation...such as yours.

@24 - My sister knew a woman who was so suicidal that her family removed all weapons and pointy things from her home. They had to leave briefly, so this woman went out to the garage, turned on their miter saw (the kind with a circular blade that drops down), put her head on the table of it, and yanked the fully spinning saw blade down on her throat effectively decapitating herself. Talk about fucking committment! Makes me shudder to think about it even.

Still, having a gun in the home does increase the likelihood of suicide. They're just too easy and convenient to use in an impulsive act. I'm not saying that to argue against them, but pro-gunners need to be honest about that.

Boy you know lawmakers are doing something right when the Trolling Slog Dipshit Brigade come out in force with the fallacy catalogue against it.

Banning or restricting these weapons will save lives. We know this for a fact. Almost every other OEDC nation has resolved this fact. And no amount of irrelevant Whataboutism’s deflecting to Advil or anything else changes reality.

@26 I'd say it's probably irrelevant whether they're illegal or not. The Glock "switch" automatic conversion gets more and more popular despite being an instant felony. A machine gun doesn't make much sense to me in terms of accuracy and training requirements and cost - I don't think they'll ever become a huge problem any more than howitzers will, both for design reasons rather than legal status.

@28 I concede that they're used to move pieces of metal really fast, similar to a truck, and not "designed to murder" as this depends on the operator.

I brought up the hunting comparison because hunting rounds are much larger and more powerful than 5.56, which tells you that the "bullets are too big" argument is just silly. As for the chambering issue, I think you could've figured this out on your own if you thought about it for a second instead of just copying and pasting ballistic performance, but any bullet used in any chamber that isn't sized up for it will cause an explosion. Duh! It's not because of the awesome power of 5.56.

As for pistols being "fine", I think it's pretty apparent you wouldn't be the person to go for self defense advice, but someone might ask themselves why SWAT teams will exclusively go indoors with the AR platform if it's so un-ideal.

@29 Before you scold someone else for not "Googling" as well as you, I'll have to correct you on this: the minimum size for deer hunting in Washington state is a 6mm rifle round. Since your ballistic knowledge seem about as good as your research skills and legal knowledge, I'll make this clearer: it is illegal in Washington state to use .223 or 5.56 to hunt deer, as they are smaller than a 6mm rifle round.

Tell me why someone should take advice from you again?

Ah, but you made a blanket statement that they are illegal to hunt with, and people from all over read this blog. WA likely restricted those rounds to also limit AR sales, but WA is stricter on gun issues than most states. Right? So, your statement is misleading. It's not illegal in the vast majority of places outside WA.

And I suspect far more people take my advice on these issues than yours...because I'm not an unhinged, misleading gun fetishist like you. Do you find that people start easing away from you at parties? Do you get invited to parties?

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question about what you would realistically (i.e. no Hellfire missiles) arm yourself with if you wanted to take out the maximum number of people as quickly as possible.

@23 I had break ins in the past and dealt with them myself without guns, police would take too long or not respond. I'm not shy about shitting on rednecks either, yes it's classist, and no idgaf.

@33 Nice try, buddy, but if someone had believed your advice here, they'd be "staring down the barrel", so to speak, of a gun crime conviction! Yikes! It is also really funny that you had to backpedal into how my saying "it's illegal" has to mean "all the laws are the same everywhere". The fact is, you just didn't know, and you called it incorrect.

As for your goofy speculation about "it's probably to restrict AR-15 sales anyway", the actual reason .223/5.56 isn't allowed in hunting in a double-digit quantity of states is that it's often considered inappropriately underpowered and inhumane for deer compared to the larger typical hunting round.

You are what's called a "Fudd" - someone who thinks they know a lot about guns confidently repeating ancient myths and downright falsehoods. I can imagine why someone exposed like this would resort to "people must not like you at parties" as a desperate and childish retort.

As for your question, the "best" thing to use would be a truck at a crowded festival, which in a single 2016 attack killed more people than any American mass shooting ever.

I am so anti-gun it ain’t funny. I applaud Governor Inslee’s noble effort to rid the state of assault weapons. Of course you know, there’ll be legal challenges before his signature ink is dry. The 10-day waiting period is a huge step in the right direction. I don’t see legal problems there. But making gun manufacturers responsible if a minor gets his hands on a gun? No. That responsibility lies in the minor’s major. If you allow your child or ward to walk around with a lethal weapon, then it isn’t the kid who’s the criminal (well, maybe it is – there are some pretty ruthless teenagers out there these days). In short, it’s a nice thought to go after the maker of a firearm if that firearm kills or maims someone close to you, but you know what? Killing and maiming are what guns are supposed to do. Manufacturers are only responsible for defects. Until we all live on the Star Trek set, this idea will be given the ol’ legal heave-ho.

Same with the idea of “dangerous people” having firearms. Yep, some of those people trying to purchase will be obvious, but otherwise how do you predetermine someone’s potential danger? That nutjob who cracked up in his hotel room in Vegas, spraying bullets all over a crowd of outdoor music concertgoers – did the gun shop salesperson have a clue, other than knowing the creep had dozens of guns – which, alas, is commonplace now, that his customer would one day become a mass assassin? Can you blame the manufacturer for that? I’d like to say yes, but legally I can’t. If a chewing gum company makes a gum that’s loaded with sugar called Rot Your Teeth With This, can you sue them when you get a cavity? When your kid gets a cavity? Or if a dangerous person uses the gum to somehow endanger? Cavities aren’t bullet holes, I know, but I’m searching for legal analogy. Good luck with all this though. The 10-day waitlist is a winner. When did the line between acceptable guns and unacceptable guns get erased exactly? It used to be so clear.

The Taliban is very, very low on my veracity scale. I want to watch – eventually – that three-part Frontline that concluded last night, “America and the Taliban,” but I haven’t been able to emotionally bring myself to it. I’m sure it’s going to be depressing as fuck.

In a world where two Latinas have to make and sale tamales else sleep in their car, yes, senoras, make your tamales. Bueno comida! But I also see where free-range home-cooking can be problematic. Not everyone will be as scrupulously clean with their preparations. Unfortunately, the government has to plan with this in mind, so there’s nothing narc about oversight in this instance. Narc, Ms. McCall, is the sound you would make as you are in the throes of fatal botulism or a think-you’re-going-to-die case of salmonella poisoning. BTW, I was a healthcare worker for about 25 years, and I only saw one case of botulism (thank goodness only one?). It was ugly and horrible beyond words – about three days of intensive care, and she didn’t make it. One thinks of swollen cans and elderly people whose sense of taste and smell are diminished. This was an otherwise healthy woman in her 40s who jarred her own salsa. I would have thought the environment would have been too acidic for C. botulinum to thrive, but no. So, it happens, and salmonella happens a lot. What if someone decides to start selling homemade baby food? You cool with that?

I think there’s more to the Carlson story than meets the eye. Is Fox, now that DeSantis is fading, trying to get back into Trump’s good graces? (Pffft…Trump doesn’t have any good graces.) But since those documents hit the airwaves about Tucker despising Trump, maybe Fox News is running back to Daddy? Also, there had been cocktail party talk around DC about Carlson being a viable Republican remedy against Trump. Remember a time when we could laugh that off saying, “It’ll never happen.” But now we know better.

@35 You do realize you're talking to an ex-cop, right? Talk about bringing a wet noodle to a gunfight.

@20 Because the lead Republican description of why they want to ban anything related to trans or drag is that it's about grooming and sexual abuse. Thus failing to remove the log from their own eye before trying to remove the mote from another's. Puberty blockers and gender-confirming health care have been around for decades. What's new is a Republican fixation on those things. And that, as previously noted, is all about finding a wedge issue.

@38 That's awesome - when I'm getting arrested for using 5.56 to hunt a deer, I'll smugly tell the cops "But a guy on the internet who said he was a cop in the 1980s said it was okay!" If they're skeptical, I'll let them know he also wouldn't admit he was wrong when I pointed it out. This is a good way to determine reality and laws

@31: It mattered in 1934 as the National Firearms Act of 1934 (which passed Congress unanimously) This legislation is a direct response to gang violence, this act imposed criminal, regulatory and tax requirements on weapons favored by gangsters: machine guns, silencers and sawed-off shotguns. There are probably voices to repeal this today, and then it would be very relevant.

@38: It's not a wedge to those who do not have a good experience. What, you never thought medicine met Murphy's Law?

transitionjustice.org

It should behoove the trans rights community to maintain a cooperative dialog with de-transitioners and others with pertinent experience instead of refusing to acknowledge them. There enough learning to do from all sides. Not all science is known, not all research studies have had the time. There's nothing wrong with learning.

@40, if I were in a country like Mexico, where gun restrictions are strictly enforced against civilians while criminal cartels have access to all the machine guns they wish, then yes, I might question the utility of such a ban.

@35 - Ding, Ding, Ding!!! I knew you were going to say that, you fucking lying piece of shit! As soon as I typed that sentence, I thought, "I bet that dumbass says truck." God, you fucks are predictable.

What's funny is that I really do have mixed feeling about a ban and can see both sides. People like me are the people people like you need to convince, but instead of reasoned and nuanced persuasion, you use unhinged anger, deception, misleading statements and more unhinged and fanatic anger.

That is to say, you push people that are supposedly persuadable toward your opponents. I read the article and think, "Hmmm..." with a dose of skepticism, but then I engage with you, and I'm more and more convinced Inslee is probably right. It's a case of, "Oh shit, if this unhinged lunatic and those like him are opposed to this ban, I really need to be for it!

So, way to go? I guess...

@39 - To be fair, the 80's, 90's, and up to 2011. I was an 11-Hotel TOW gunner in Army Infantry before that and sometime hunter and regular target shooter in my younger (say up to about age 30) days. But no, I don't know shit about guns. And if you take an AR-15 out to defend your house or apartment over a pistol, you have no real tactical sense whatsoever. It is true that you look badder, tho, so there's that...

@42 I don't really feel the need to convince you of anything. More states than ever, a majority, have Constituonal Carry laws now and the general trend of firearm restrictions is I think going to lessen despite this hiccup law that seems unlikey to survive serious court scrutiny. I think the reasonable Washington reader, reading this exchange, might notice how I stuck to unbiased factual statements to prove what I was saying, and you just gave up and started screeching and swearing insults at me like a child instead of having anything substantive to say. You're repeatedly calling me "angry" for some reason, when you're the one who's approaching this topic completely emotionally - I'll let the outside observer make up their own mind as to who seems more credible. The only people I can convince of anything are going to be the ones who are capable of approaching the difficult and complicated topic of guns with reason and an open mind.

@43 Sure, keep pointing to your resume instead of backing up anything you have to say. Don't forget to let the military and SWAT know that they're doing it wrong when they don't use pistols as a first choice judt because they're indoors.

@45,

I don't really have a dog in this fight. Only time I've ever shot a gun was 30-ish years ago when a friend took me out target shooting at the local rock quarry in my small hometown. I thought it was pretty boring and don't really understand how you all can get excited so about the culture. But then I'm a big baseball fan, so to each their own when it comes to appreciation of boring hobbies.

I'm only commenting to note that Morty's got a prolific, years long, and publicly accessible comment history here, and the overwhelming majority of it is cop tactic specific. So if he's lying about his resume, he's really, REALLY committed to the bit.

@44 - Ooh, I'm comfy with that.

You do realize with your truck scenario, you need to get a large truck, find a large and long, wide-open boulevard with no hard obstructions and that is packed with large numbers of people mostly facing away from the direction you're coming. But yeah, I'm sure you see those all over the place on a daily basis...unlike 1 of 400-million guns with office buildings, schools, churches, theaters and so on. Those things are impossible to find! Also, you're a gun fetishist who decides to forgo his collection of guns for the former scenario.

Yes, I'm sure any casual reader will believe that!

@45 - "keep pointing?" I had no intention of mentioning it all until another poster did and you felt compelled to minimize it. I just offered you a one-time factual correction. I bet you're all "Back the Blue," too, aren't ya? Just like those Jan. 6'ers beating cops with their "Back the Blue" flagpoles!

Ya know, I would never say Military/SWAT is wrong, but both would tell you a handgun is better in confined quarters than an assault rifle...or rifle...or shotgun. Yes, those are used often for a multitude of reasons, including what they have on hand. But our SWAT...who we called TAC...guys often used pistols, or at least MP-5's in those situations. The AR guys filled other roles, like inner perimeter overwatch.

Your implication that an AR is better in those circumstances shows your tactical ignorance. I didn't say what people often used in tight confines; I said what was better, and most of those people would say the same. The AR IS better in many other applications, just not most instances of home defense.

But you've grown tiresome, so enjoy raging at the Libtards at The Stranger. I think I'll head over to Brietbart and post celebratory posts about the WA AR ban. Or head outside and enjoy the rest of this nice day, whichever. Oh, WA may be the 10th state to do it...but there will be an 11th, and a 12th, and so on. Probably why you're so freaked out...

@46 Unfortunately, I don't doubt that he really was a cop. But you can look up the law yourself - he dispensed some embarrassingly wrong legal knowledge up there, and I'm glad I was able to expose it. Just as you shouldn't believe everything I say unquestioningly even if I said I was a super Delta Force Operator and everything I say must be correct - a lot of really confident sounding people aren't immune to being downright wrong.

@46 - Fuck, you got me. I'm really, really committed to the bit. Aargh, such a carefully crafted persona brought low by a passing casual comment! Poo...

@47 You're kind of shifting the goalposts on me here. You asked what might be the best choice for a mass killing, and I correctly pointed out that, well, a truck did set the record. And open spaces full of people aren't really that u common. My larger point would be that mass killing can be deceptively creative, and they'll choose soft targets, unsecured areas where they hopefully won't encounter any ARs, and as such banning any particular weapon model is sort of doomed to fail.

I'll just skip over a sidetrack on what the rest of my politics are, and an assumption that I'm "Back the Blue", though I might point out that nothing here has made me particularly confident in the police's ability to defend me.

It seems like you're conceding that SWAT and military use the AR platform almost exclusively on an indoor raid, but still insist that "they'd tell you" that at close ranges a pistol is "better". Maybe it is! Still, isn't the reason they use ARs because you never really know what weapon you're going to encounter? Probably why your TAC guys in the 80's used a high capacity weapon with a stock like the MP5, even if technology has moved on.

In summation, let's leave Grandpa Retired Cop to his reminiscing about the good ol' days, and decide for ourselves how many rights you really want to give up - because the arguments for giving up your rights are always going to be less trustworthy than they seem.

Guns, schmuns. I'll just quietly murmur that the (drama queen manbaby) "right to bear arms" ends when the bullet leaves the chamber. You're free to do that, but there better be a damn good reason why that happened.

Actually, I've always been sympathetic to the argument put forth by rural folks that guns are necessary for country living. After all, there's a lot of sketchy people in rural areas, as well as predatory animals that may go after your livestock. You really do need a defense for those scenarios.

But it also is true that back in 1975 one of my bachelor farmer great-uncles was killed by two of those sketchy rural people who broke into his house because they heard he had cash in the house (he did, and lots of it, but he wasn't about to give it to them). The beat him to death with the butt of his rifle. So "a good guy with a gun" isn't invincible.

I'm glad we banned these particular firearms. I'm sure Idaho will do something boorish in reaction, because - as we all know - Republicans are horrible people.

when All Children
are Armed only
Then will we
ALL be
Safe
--nra

re crowd control:

what Well-
Regulated Militia
don't Love Pocket Nukes?

when I get my tank?
it's coming with
the Twin flame
throwers:

how do You
like your Venison? is
still Smoldering* okay for You?

& nevermind the gasoline
aftertaste* you'll get
Used to it.

*tastes like
Patriotism

@51: Lots of horrible Republicans voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, Joe Biden in 2020, and will vote for Joe Biden in 2024. Please bake them a bundt cake.

“The murder rate in the 25 states that voted for Donald Trump has exceeded the murder rate in the 25 states that voted for Joe Biden in every year from 2000 to 2020.

Over this 21-year span, this Red State murder gap has steadily widened from a low of 9% more per capita red state murders in 2003 and 2004 to 44% more per capita red state murders in 2019, before settling back to 43% in 2020.
...
Even when murders in the largest cities in red states are removed, overall murder rates in Trump-voting states were 12% higher than Biden-voting states across this 21-year period and were higher in 18 of the 21 years observed.”

https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-two-decade-red-state-murder-problem

The blue states that went to Biden have better and tighter gun regulations. And lower rates of gun ownership. So just like driving less and enforcing traffic laws puts you at lower risk of an auto accident this owning fewer guns and better regulating them makes you less likely to be shot. Pretty simple logic.

It’s the guns. And the nuts that want more of them.

@7 kristofarian: re Lemon Tucks---for the WIN!!! Agreed with diFrankieFox @14. This gets my vote for SLOG Comment of the Year for sheer BRILLIANCE! Well done. :)

@15, @22, @23, @31, @32, @35, @39, @41, @44, @45, @48, and @50: Phallus Impudicus? Is that you going off like an AR-15 half cocked? Stop before you nail yourself in the Bazinga.

@29, @33, @42, @43, @47, and @49 Morty: The lil 'shroom sure is on a batshit crazy heated rampage, isn't he?

@37 Bauhaus I: SO spot on! I am in full agreement with you on being anti-gun. Bless Governor Inslee on signing the assault weapons ban into state law. I'm sure it will be hard fought by the crazed NRA gun nuts already suing, but the measures you have already aptly cited are indeed, steps in the right direction on public safety.

@51 Catalina Vel-DuRay: Although I can understand the need for protective measures in rural communities, I am sorry to hear about what happened to your great uncle. You and your family have my heartfelt condolences. Agreed: RepubliKKKans are indeed, horrible excuses for people.

@53: "Lots of horrible Republicans voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, Joe Biden in 2020, and will vote for Joe Biden again in 2024".
Can you name some, raindrop dear? I'm asking for a friend.

@57 shoobop: Bless you for all you do. I can't imagine being able to do what you do in the ER or ICU.

“guns good
people bad”

(every unshot life is precious,
god says please support the unshot innocents)

the FINAL Word
on Guns?

Tom Tomorrow:
https://thenib.com/home-of-the-brave-terms-apply/

Just report the gun nut account already. Jesus. Why do you fuckers tolerate these dangerous lunatics and their bad faith fallacies.

Report me for what, having a different opinion than you? I didn't break any rules. The only actual dangerous misinformation here came from an ex-cop spouting off his half-remembered Fudd lore from 40 years ago, while I kindly pointed out how his total fabrication with regard to hunting caliber restriction laws could've gotten you arrested if you listened to him. You're welcome I guess?

@62: SSSSSSSssssssssshhhhhhhh....be vewy vewy quiet......
you're in dire need of a Lemon Tuck, Elmer!
Huhuhuuhuhuuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhhuhuuhhuhuhuuhuh....

@63: MAGAts. If you can't reason with 'em, fuck with them.