i dont know about their liability either. could see it going either way

i'm just talking about the prosecutor she seems to have another agenda and no working relationship with the sheriffs department

Basis?

Am I missing something?

Since conservatives were calling for basically the same thing back in the days of the crack epidemic, I'm thinking there's probably some legal reason why it's not as simple as that.

Only the joke

I was strictly talking about a scenario when, for example, gun-rights activists and far-left groups meet in a 'protester vs anti-protester' situation.

she had a press conference to announce charges instead of telling the sheriffs department. the sheriff said it was unfortunate he learned through the media and didn't have officers in place to arrest them.

Murica as exempliied by this new congressman.



Imagine posting this ever and thinking this is a good idea, let alone so soon after a teen school shooting.

I bet they are deeply religious too.
Promoting love and peace ..

Yet instead turning the other cheek ,
(“phrase. If you turn the other cheek when someone harms or insults you, you do not harm or insult them in return.”)
They love turning guns in its place ….

And then they proclaim themselves true representative of god, go figure ….

The left who make almost no effort whatsoever to promote what we want complain about the right promoting what they want as if they're the ones making a mistake.

If I ever run for Congress I'm going to put out a similar picture, except everyone will be holding golf clubs.

I think the timing could be a large part of the point, a show of solidarity and aggression. It's like they know we think kids with loving families and bright futures being arbitrarily gunned down is bad, not due to them sharing the sentiment but because it would fit into a pattern they have noted, a pattern of concern for human life they find threatening. And so they are saying we are happy with the way things are and if you ty to take our guns we will shoot you.

And what is that like a mac 10 the daughter is gripping? It looks like a battlefield machine gun for dear old dad. He's really trying to make a point.

Seems like the result of a hasty analysis of social media engagement, "Christmas", "family", "traditional family", "guns", "gun control", "trolling political opponents". At least some PR consultant will have an improved Christmas budget this year.

It is probably effective in the sense that it accomplishes what it was meant to do.

As for the rest of us, if nothing else we learned that slightly awkward family photos are not improved by adding guns.

Its not a threat. Its a highly predictable outcome.
Your choosing to ignore it and operate entirely from the unlimited realm of ideological abstraction doesn't change this fact for policy makers who have to estimate actual outcomes.

Square up with that indisputable fact (even if you hate the fact and you wish it were different) and then present a working idea to arrive at your proposed solutions.
I'll wait here...

Yes. I think under the current legal framework, the 'limit' seems to be firearms/small arms in common use by the military.
This excludes artillery, crew served weapons, anti personnel explosives, nuclear devices, etc.

Ultimately, its always an argument about 'where's the line', I think either side makes some pretty dishonest arguments in this zone but yeah, speaking just for the United States, there's a good bit of legal precedent sorting this out, including some contemporary.

Its a valid argument to make, that we should 'ban guns because they can be used to hurt people'.
What I'm saying is that its largely an all or nothing position, if you're to remain intellectually consistent.

Handguns are FAR AND AWAY the biggest offender when it comes to murders, suicides, etc. So, if you're going to cede the argument that 'we should ban guns because they hurt people', there's really no intellectually consistent position that holds handguns are OK but other guns aren't. At least not one thats credible and isn't just an incremental step towards banning them all but giving handguns a wide berth because the constituency is so large, you realize it wouldn't go so well.

Imagine being so naive and hive minded that you don't think this is a symptom of fascism in America.

It's one thing to use guns to hunt or for sport or even for home/business defense. It's quite another to promote military arms as family centered basis for holiday photos.

I think it's time we just stop feeding the children sugar. Americans have proven we're not evolved enough to be responsible gun owners and they should be taken away immediately.

Congresswoman Bobart saw that family photo and thought 'no one one ups our family'...




They rushed this on to social media.

If you think there's anything wrong with that, the new hot shots who want to take over the forum will call you a child.

I think they may all be Paul D's kids.

Where is the husband? Too busy out committing domestic violence and exposing himself to be present for the family photo session? Sad.

She isn't even holding a gun, now way am I voting for that loser.

Beautiful pics!

I may do one myself but I'll make sure to have the Coors sitting on the coffee table.

Oh, her family is SUPER one-upped by the earlier photo.
Most of those guns are NFA/machine guns, meaning if they're Pre 86 transferable, they're worth, literally, hundreds of thousands

2, 2, 2, 2.

She is actually pretty hot. That is a congresswoman?