Join me on Facebook!
Follow me on Twitter!
More 'toons here!
Or subscribe here.
If you want to piss off a conservative, tell the truth
or be gay or poor or female.
anything besides a fetus or a wall street executive is bound to make them mad as hell.
If you want to piss off a liberal, disagree with them.
if you want to piss off an independent. ummm... hold on. its in there. umm...
can someone help?
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'
Thomas Jefferson 1802
the above quotation is not entirely accurate, however it is close to something T. Jefferson did say
I would like to know where this is quoted from?
I bet this right-winger knows a lot of FOUR letter words!
Should freedom of the press be limited to handset type, one page at a time?
Does the the prohibition against quartering troops in private houses only pertain to small, one room, log cabins?
We'll know when arms are no longer relevant. First, the military disarms, then the police disarm. Finally, the private citizen won't care and weapons will gradually turn into harmless toys for children.
However,I'm surrounded by a sea of arms and violence on an inconceivable scale. We are still pointing 20 to 30 thousand nuclear warheads at each other, manufacturing thousands of armored vehicles, fighter jets, tens of thousands of land mines, bombs, machine guns, etc. all over the world.
I need my few guns-just in case any of that kind of thinking gets close and personal-I'll have a tiny chance. It's kind of like the claws on a cat - just enough there to maybe get out of a tight spot where I'd otherwise be ruined. In the mean time, let's develop a political philosophy that lets us live together as friends, neighbors, brothers and sisters.
Guns are obsolete, and I'm a bad shot with mediocre reflexes. I would not have survived in the old west. I will only feel safe and secure if I can have my own nuclear arsenal. Only nuclear assured destruction of my neighbor can give me that 21st century safe feeling in my neighborhood. I believe the fourth amendment backs me up on this.
To you and the hunter gentleman who spoke of buying home protection against the crazies -- Do rabid fear paranoia really help you live with people as friends, neighbors, brothers and sisters? How many people who make that argument, that they need protection from the nuts, would shoot first and ask questions later because they freak out over thinking someone is a nut who's attacking them? (I'm not talking about a very obvious attack.) And guns aren't "needed for hunting." How many people hunt from NEED for food these days in this country? Or if you mean a gun is a necessary tool if one wishes to hunt, that's also not true as you can bow-hunt. Yes, I know owning a gun is a constitutional right. I'm just saying something that was necessary before we had an organized militia, police and supermarkets is way out of control now. It's too easy for criminals to get their hands on guns, even ones owned legally by noncriminals via burglary.
As for automatic weapons being available for "collectors"...first, making those guns available to the public for any reason is nuts. Secondly, well, I think you can't be 100% right in the head if you're all "dude, machinery of death, instruments of killing! Awesome! I want a bunch of 'em!"
"To you and the hunter gentleman who spoke of buying home protection against the crazies -- Do rabid fear paranoia really help you live with people as friends, neighbors, brothers and sisters?"
I have a shotgun and pistol that I keep loaded for home defense. I also hunt. Therefore, I believe that I am one of the people that you refer to. Does my "paranoia" or my interest in guns affect my relationship with people? Yes, but only positively- going with a group of friends to go shooting is great recreation. I frequently hunt with my family.
"How many people who make that argument, that they need protection from the nuts, would shoot first and ask questions later because they freak out over thinking someone is a nut who's attacking them? (I'm not talking about a very obvious attack.)"
Judging by the people that I have met, not very many. Concealed carry license holders have one of the lowest crime rates of any group of people. They also tend to be better versed in the law, and are well trained in dealing with attackers in a justifiable way. Therefore, I would doubt that your paranoia is true.
"And guns aren't "needed for hunting." How many people hunt from NEED for food these days in this country?"
I know several people that would be hurting for money if they had to buy their meat instead of harvest it themselves. Furthermore, wild game tends to be healthier meat to eat. In addition, hunting is an important wildlife management tool used by the US fish and game biologists to control wildlife populations.
"Or if you mean a gun is a necessary tool if one wishes to hunt, that's also not true as you can bow-hunt."
Bow hunting is far harder, and much less likely to result in game. Many of those people that rely to some degree on hunting for meat throughout the year wouldn't be able to get game. In addition, it would make it much more difficult to kill the number of game necessary to manage the herds effectively.
"Yes, I know owning a gun is a constitutional right. I'm just saying something that was necessary before we had an organized militia, police and supermarkets is way out of control now."
They are still necessary for all the same reasons. The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms for three reasons- to defend our selves from criminals, invasion, and tyrannical government. While we have a police force, they can not always respond instantly to any crime. In many cases, their job is simply to photograph the dead body. A few months back, there was a shooter (using a bow and arrow no less) shooting people in downtown Houston. It took half an hour from when the shooter started shooting till when police arrived. That is in an urban setting no less. In out in the country where I live, response times could be far slower. I feel the need to be able to defend my self until the cops arrive. At the time that the constitution was written, a Militia was an armed populace that could rise up if something went wrong. Still today, that's the only militia that we have. The National Guard, which some people think are a militia are actually federally funded troops with very little state control. In addition, as the Iraq war has shown, they could potentially be off fighting on a foreign land (a use of the national guard that I don't believe to be good, but it's the way it is). This means that if the US is attacked, it is entirely possible that a good portion of the US military could be overseas and unavailable. Furthermore, if the Government was to become tyrannical, the military would do what they say. There must be an armed people to stand up for what is right. It is said that without the second amendment, there is nothing to protect the rest of the constitution.
"It's too easy for criminals to get their hands on guns, even ones owned legally by noncriminals via burglary."
Which is why it is so important that the good guys also have the ability to get guns. Gun laws are not going to stop the criminals from getting guns. They will however stop the good guys from having guns.
"As for automatic weapons being available for "collectors"...first, making those guns available to the public for any reason is nuts."
The National Firearms Act passed in 1934, and required the registration and tax of all full auto weapons, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, suppressors, and destructive devices. Since 1934, a total of 2 NFA registered (legal) weapons have been used in crime- a short barreled shotgun and a machine gun, and the machine gun was a police department owned gun issued to the cop that used it to commit a crime. Clearly, legally registered full auto weapons are not a danger to the public. Certainly, illegal full autos have been used in crime, but further anti-gun legislation is not going to stop that.
"Secondly, well, I think you can't be 100% right in the head if you're all "dude, machinery of death, instruments of killing! Awesome! I want a bunch of 'em!""
I think diving off a bridge with a bit of elastic tied to your ankles is a bit odd, but I don't try to make them stop. Shooting full auto is exciting, which is why there are many gun ranges that charge exorbitant amounts of money to let you shoot full auto weapons.
It seems to me as more people are getting layed off from their job the one industry that is surging in business is the gun shops. On the news the other day I heard they are bringing in 100k a day.Now this is an unreal amount of guns being sold. One store owner said he asked some of the people who were coming in why are you guys buying up so many guns? Their reply, "When Obama gets elected he will stop us from buying guns". BTW they were Obama supporters came in with the Obama change T shirts on. Now what does this say for the country?
The second ammendment was put in the constitution to have us PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE GOVERNMENT!!!
Until people figure that out...we are SCREWED!!
uh no it was created to ensure a standing militia against the british........... I suspect it's out of date by now don't you think?......
and if you think that having afew assault weapons will help you against your governments army keep dreaming
IM GONNA KEEP MY GUNS!!!! KING GEORGE IS STILL ACOMIN' WITH HIS BLUE PEE AND WHATNOT. WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR FARMS FOR THE DAY THOSE REDCOATS COME WITH THEIR MUSKETS AND GALLEONS AND TRY TO STEAL OUR FREEDOMS!! YAAARG!!!!
I may seriously have to join this site. I swear you have me laughing so hard! It's awesome. Congrats on your phenomenal cartoons. I love them.
I just bet those poor innocent students at VT that were shot would have given anything to have a gun in their hands to defend themselves with. Choi might have gottin his dues much sooner if just one of the students would have had a weapon with them, before he took the lives of the other innocents. I will always carry my gun, and you'll probably never know because Im quiet, kind, gentle courteous, and well trained. ...
Nice to assume that those students would be similarly responsible... but there's lots of people who shouldn't be trusted with a CAP gun, much less a firearm.
That's the kind of thinking that lead to VT You know...
Just forget the GUN!
People of US, you need to eat, drink, love and sleep. NOT to fire...
Thats what germany did in the 1930s and look what happened.
Thats also whats happening now in Europe and Australia and the crime rate is now sky rocketing as a result.
Criminals love unarmeed defenseless citizens.
What Germany did in the 1930s (1933 to be precise) was elect Adolf Hitler. While gun-control laws were in place at the time, Hitler didn't have to shoot his way in; 85% of the German people voted to approve his designation as "Führer und Reichskanzler." If the remaining 15% had been armed, it would have made no difference.
The German people allowed Hitler to seize power in violation of his country's constitution; they approved his dissolution of all political parties other than his, the merging of labor unions into employers' federations under Nazi control, and the abolishment of the traditional autonomy of German states. Gun control didn't come till five years later.
I'm not saying tyrants don't love gun control; of course they do. I am saying that relying on gun ownership to prevent tyranny is like relying on your lucky penny to prevent poverty -- not much more than superstition.
The German people didn't approve of any of that. Most of them hated Hitler. He was not elected. He was a dictator and he did what he did without even asking the German people. You might want to get your facts straight. And I can also tell you that you can have all the weapons you want but if the gubmint decides to come and take your crap they will. Your little pea shooters are nothing compared to the firepower of the good ol' military of the US of A. And if a foreign invader comes your little pea shooters are nothing against hand grenades, fighter jets, tanks, and bombs. I think you people need to stop watching these Hollywood Rambo flicks.
It's quite obvious to me that we have a problem with some law abiding gun owners short circuiting upstairs and killing people because life just handed them a bowl of lemons. We need to address this situation and resolve it before any more people die. I don't have all the answers and no one else does either but this needs to be addressed.
And let's bear in mind that Mark Fiore makes cartoons to lighten up things a little and it's just a joke.
Gun ownership most certainly does NOT prevent tyranny. The willingness to use it....is what prevents tyranny.
I'm a largely liberal voter and a gun owner. What I am seeing in most urban liberal areas is what I could call fear-mongering about guns and a "blame the gun" political climate which attempts to vastly simplify the causes for crime to...guns. It's very disappointing to see people who are so intelligent and clearly are capable thinkers, become so illogical and ridiculous when it comes to guns, basically viewing guns as the very incarnation of evil. If these people would only go to the firing range and shoot a gun a few times, exploring the object of their fear, they might become more reasonable. Sure, crime is a problem, but in every nation where the government has banned or nearly banned legal ownership of guns (such as in England) crime is MORE of a problem, because criminals are greatly emboldened when they know that people are unable to legally effectively defend themselves. Guns are the most effective means of self-defense available, and nothing else but a gun will put a small, weak woman on a level playing field with a large, strong, male who is attacking her.
THe thing in the video about gun shows not using background checks is false. IN any state where a background check applies, it applies also at gun shows held in that state.
IN my area recently, a man killed his whole family with an axe. Should we now ban axes and knives? The issue of violence is more complex than will be solved by banning anything.
I've noticed that there seem to be three different issues any of which will push a liberal's 'button' and cause them to flip out emotionally and destroy their capacity to reason: guns, race, and religion.
I just read a silly web editorial over at the "Freedom States Alliance" (an anti-gun group) lamenting the number of firearms in the hands of the American public and the political difficulty of taking them away. I just have to laugh at the cluelessness of these addle-brained would be crusaders who can't seem to understand how they are their own worst enemy. Nothing has done more to promote the sales of firearms and increase the stockpiles owned by the public than the efforts of the anti-gun movement.
The fact is people don't like to be pushed around, bossed, or blamed for crimes committed by others. It's a natural human instinct and a symbolic middle-finger for the public to respond to gun banning efforts by buying more guns. Witness the panic buying spree since the election of Obama (the gun salesman of the year!).
So keep up the good work Mr. Fiore and fellow anti-gun cultists. Thanks to your efforts it will be impossible for any gun ban law to ever succeed. The public are reacting to your agit prop in exactly the opposite way that you intended.
A good gun is like a good woman you have to supporet it all year round and you only get to shoot it once in a while.
The "Patriot Act" is the sole reason for the 2nd amendment. But I have more reasons:
Waiting Periods - What about the abused wife/husband who's ex has just called "I'm coming for you tomorrow"
Home invasion - A group a men/women kick in your front door wielding knifes and bats. Are you going to call the police and wait 15 maybe 30 minutes for them to arrive?
Police Brutality - Pittsburg Penn. Police no knock entry, Guns firing 90 year old INNOCENT man dead. Wrong address. Oops! Probably wishs he had an automatic weapon to take a few of those dump$@# officers with him.
Automatic Weapons for hunting - Have you ever been deer hunting in Alaska, when an 11' 2800lb brown bear comes at you. I have, wish I had an automatic rifle....
Look, there are hundreds of reasons to own a gun, and only one reason not to own a gun DEATH....
I have met many people who were anti-gun individuals until they were on the receiving end of a violent attack. Now they own a gun.
I have met many people who are alive today, because they did own a gun. The liberal media just doesn't air any of these stories. They just air the stories of the wackos who shot up a college.
All you anti-gun wackos that want to believe in a perfect world, where we all live in peace, go for it, you need mental help.
There are people out there that would not follow any law.
If you stopped the legal production of firearms they would just make homemade one, (REMBEMBER PROHABITION IN THE 20'S)
Just remember one thing -- Most serial killers never had a gun !!!
There are only TWO things left to the American people: the Internet and guns. Take both away, as they are currently TRYING to do, and you have TYRANNY complete. After tyranny is complete; then the end of ALL this way comes, including our very lives. Wake up people! The Fascists will murder US, if we let them... And these are global Fascists, nothing more.
I don't think that freedom is measured in how many AK-47s the government will let you keep in your basement, or by your ability to surf the web.
Although a nation that possesses AK-47s and access to the Internet may not truly be free, it's guaranteed that a conquered nation or oppressed minority will possess neither firearms nor freedom of information.
If nothing else, the right to bear arms is a sobering reminder that the U.S. hasn't yet been conquered (in a non-economic sense, anyway).
History has shown that the proper way to conquer a nation is to flood it with riches, milk interest payments and buy up key assets during the boom cycle, wait for a natural 'stress' (disaster, war, etc.), and finally provide services to the desperate society in the bust cycle while buying back assets for pennies on the dollar. Rinse, lather, repeat, until (guns or no) the nation collapses (usually into a bloody civil war).
Foreign nations then swoop in and, with the gratitude of the starving and demoralized people, impose the new order.
And the skilled warriors? If there's any dissent, historically, the lucky half of them are paid in food, water, and shelter to kill the other half. Problem solved.
It's All About LIBERTY
The issue isn't left vs. right. The issue is LIBERTY!
I can't understand how someone could be so completely correct in criticizing the government's violation of our 4th amendment right via their warrantless NSA wiretaps (that was a great cartoon) and yet side with the government in their violation of our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms via their gun control laws.
We need to stop the partisan and meaningless Republican vs. Democrat bickering that polarizes us on so many issues, and start focusing on the liberty vs. fascism issue that unites us against an increasingly tyrannical government.
We all need to stop supporting the government when they take away some of our rights, because in the "lesser of two evils" voting we're forced to do, we keep bouncing back and forth between Republicans and Democrats, with each taking away half of our rights. We almost never get those rights back when the other side returns to political power.
The two party system is corrupt. Yes, both parties! We need to start working toward a return to liberty, the founding principle that made the US such a great place.
If you avoid the political programming and emotional nonsense and look at the facts and crime statistics, it's obvious that the places with the most gun control have the most violent crime, including gun crime. It's not difficult to understand. Take away a person's right to self defense and you create a disarmed victim. Only law abiding citizens obey gun control laws, so gun control is disarming the wrong side and encouraging violent criminals, essentially creating gun free crime zones where criminals know their victims are defenseless.
The crime problem is caused by complex social issues involving unemployment rates, drug use, and childhood social development. Banning guns is a naive attempt at a quick fix that demonstrably doesn't work. It only enables criminals and in the long run, it enables government tyranny.
The latter was the primary justification for our 2nd amendment, to ensure that the political power remained with We the People. Our founders had just used firearms to overthrow one tyrannical government and had seen numerous examples in Europe where a disarmed populace was abused by their government and powerless to prevent government tyranny.
If you think tyranny can't happen in our country because we are somehow unique in the world and thus immune, you'd better take a look out your window. It's happening right now, and our 2nd amendment is one of the most powerful reasons it isn't worse than it already is.
I think that we should follow the original intent of the founders when we look at the gun control issue. I believe that there should be no government interference in anyone owning as many muzzle loading, flintlock rifles or pistols as they want.
At the time The Flintlocks owned by individuals in the US were the equivalent of fully automatic rifles today. It wasn't until the 1930s that there as any more regulation for a machine gun than a flintlock. If we follow the founders intent joe public could buy a shiny new grenade launcher, and it is only since the 1986 machine gun ban that he isn't able to.
What about my right to life and hapiness? Getting a gun should not be easier than getting a drivers license. To protect your personal liberty, you would not want someone who can't pass a basic driving test barreling down the road at you 70mph. Same thing with guns. Show me you know the basics and won't shoot me or my friends by accident and I fell that's enough to protect my liberty.
"What about my right to life and hapiness? Getting a gun should not be easier than getting a drivers license. To protect your personal liberty, you would not want someone who can't pass a basic driving test barreling down the road at you 70mph. Same thing with guns. Show me you know the basics and won't shoot me or my friends by accident and I fell that's enough to protect my liberty."
It's reassuring to know that you won't be killed on the highways because motorists are licensed.
Show me how how drivers' licenses have reduced the carnage on our highways and I'll consider your crack brained scheme for a gun licensing.
There are roughly 250 million cars in the US and 240 million privately owned guns. You are much more likely to die from an automobile than from a gun (suicides and murder included). When you look at accidental death the rates aren't anywhere near each other. In 2006 44,700 people in the US died in motor vehicle accidents. In that same year only 680 people died from firearms accidents. http://www.nsc.org/lrs/injuriesinamerica08.aspx
Fascism does'nt just show up, it creeps into a society in small steps. An unarmed populace is far more controllable than an armed one. We are already living in a semi-police state now, gun banning will only make things worse.
If you trust President Chimpy, and the gangsters in Washington, and you are OK with calling 911 and waiting (you will be waiting for a while) then go ahead and give up your gun.
I have a solution: Let the Liberal gun-haters go after the gun nuts, to collect their guns. That gets rid of two problems. I can't take his argument anymore. The Libs scream "Save us from the Devil weapons!!" and the gun nuts scream "I need a bazooka for home defense".
In the middle are a bunch of responsible, normal gun owners who think of a gun as a tool - not a manhood test. They go hunting and target shooting; and sometimes they even use a gun to defend their homes. They even teach their kids about gun safety. They don't ride around waving their guns, shouting "Its shootin' time Weeehaa!!". I say, let responsible people have their guns. Lets start enforcing gun laws for a change, lets start REALLY regulating the manufacture and sale of fire-arms. Banning them is a stupid idea that will never work anyway.
80,000,000 gun owners. For those that can't fathom all those zeros, eighty million gun owners. Men, women, young and old.
Between 12,000 and 13,000 gun murders a year. Notice a difference in the zeros?
14,000 suicides by gun a year. Do you really think taking away guns is going to eliminate that whole number?
18,000 people a year commit suicide without a firearm in the US.
Someone care to do the math?
Someone want to figure out why the suicide rate in Canada is higher, yet gun restrictions are more severe? Maybe after you get done studying on Canada you can turn your attention to the suicide rate in Japan or any of the other 42 countries with higher suicide rates than the US.
Anyone want to look at the UK and their knife ban? What's next, a pointy stick ban?
I have defended two lives with a firearm against two guys with knives. No mention of it ever made the paper or the news even though both guys were arrested and sent to prison. Next time to make the headlines I'll have to shoot, I guess.
The 'have to shoot' mentality is the crux of anti-gun legislation.
Criminals arm themselves as an assurance that they'll be able to overpower their victim(s). If an addict looking for a fix (or just a down-and-out nogoodnik) routinely runs into armed victims, his strategy will adapt to re-establish the balance of power. This includes unreasonable measures such as holding victims at gunpoint, or wounding/killing a victim outright in an attempt to incapacitate. Addicts, gangsters and criminals aren't often reasonable people.
'Have to shoot' has its precedents in the ghettos of urban America. Civilians arm themselves because they know they must. The criminals and gangsters retaliate in kind: fully automatic weapons, a 'shoot first' mentality, and the formation of gangs to promote security in numbers. As the power struggle continues to escalate, urban America slides evermore toward this ghetto dynamic. In this place of no alternatives, it's live or die by the gun. Nobody is any safer, criminal activity is undeterred, and mortality statistics continue to climb year after year.
This being said, the US constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It's a miserable right (anachronistic, hard to curtail, hard to limit, and pitifully devoid of any measure of responsibility to earn it), but it's a right nevertheless. With the constitution being increasingly torn apart these days, it seems to me wise to cling to the thing, even in its lesser respects.
Some would argue that violence is the keystone of American society. It pervades the nation's history, its constitution, its foreign policy, its entertainment, and fills its great cities. Violent resistance to tyranny (whether real or perceived) is an integral part of US culture. Although I don't wholly share this belief, having every US citizen armed to the teeth as they walk to the convenience store in their 'safe' cities certainly would lend credence to it.
It's really a misconception, envouraged by the feds and the media, that self defense from hoodlums and drugies are why people need guns, or why they should stay legal.
First off, the major reason why so many gang members and drug related types have guns is because of the profits involved with drug prohibition creating a black market, just like with alcohol prohibition--they can afford the guns with these obscene profits and need em to controll their turf and settle disputes since they are engaged in a criminal activity that in a sane world would be a simple business transaction between consenting adults, and the people who sold the drugs would be businessmen, not young punks and sociopaths--but I digress.
The reason guns are needed in society is not to protect you from your neighbors or fellow citizens(though they come in handy for that) and not for hunting(which is, imho, an unnecessary and cruel activity untill and unless we can no longer get meat and fabrics from a store, or if you have no income and must hunt to survive) but to protect yourself from the powers that be. That is why we HAVE a 2nd ammendment, the same reason as the 1st ammendment, and most others, to protect the people from the government, a necessary evil that has grown far beyond it's constitutionally alotted size and scope by slow accretion of power that belongs to the states and the people.
Although the feds won't admit it, the powers of government in our constitutional republic(we've never been a democracy, the founders feared it as mob rule) are supposed to be limited to foreign policy and regulation of interstate trade. if a power is not EXPRESSLY granted by the constituiton, the feds don't have that power--period. Now they have some how convinced most people that the reverse is true: that if a certain civil right is not expressly granted then IT doesn't exist. This fascist trend will only get worse before it gets any better because not many will really fight it untill it becomes almost apocalyptic, and then it may well be too late.
I agree that citizens should be well trained in handling a firearm for safety and security, they should also be trained in civics and basic constitutional law and how our republic is SUPPOSED to function, but I doubt that this is ever going to be on the agenda of anyone with power. Remember, government exists to gain and wield power, and even those who believe they are doing good and helping the people want the power to force that help--wanted or not--on those people. There are NO exceptions. Gov't is a slightly beneficial parasite that must be tolerated but watched like a hawk and smacked on the nose with a proverbial newspaper every once in a while, it is NOT parent to support, control and decide what's best for it's "children"--whether they like it or not.
Regardless of the lethality of guns, they are needed to protect our liberty untill and unless we reach utopia(an unlikely scenario given what we know of human nature), besides, as someone pointed out: cars are lethal, should they be banned? what about blunt instruments? Sharp instruments? Should sky diving be outlawed with drugs to protect us from ourselves? How about legislation requiring us all to wear fullbody nerf suits at all times to protect us from the dangers of every day life? Dammit, are we "free" or not? The only limits to a person's rights are that they don't violate ANOTHER PERSON'S rights of life, liberty and property.
At least that's my opinion, I could be wrong=)
Criminals will still find guns, banned or not.
I would rather go down shooting then have some crack head try and rob me.
Most of the world understands that America leads with a fist first and not the mind..........This hurts the world as a unit!
It was reported that Canada had more guns per person that Americans but they had less homicides caused by guns........
Why is Scarface still so popular?
American love to use force...........the freedom to take over all 50 states led to greed..........led to the idea that freedom of choice is the most important idea..........
We must as American remember how are actions affect our own lives and those all around the world! Maybe guns deaths and a nation may care for its own.........and talk first without firing
Freedom of speech is scary. We should make it illegal.
Oh come on, everyone just loves to be scared now and then.
They say the truth hurts, well then, lets do some more hurting.
The problem with freedom of speech is that some believe that it means you can spread filth and smut.
I personally don't believe that our for fathers had that in mind, I would like to think they meant that people, as a decent society had the right to speak out against those things that were wrong, and build on constructive ideas in order to advance man kind to a higher plane in life.
There is the truth, and then, there is the truth!
No amount of belief establishes a fact...belief is vain.
I wish Fiore would do one about liberals who are hypocrites, like Rose O'Donnell blasting gun rights while she herself surrounds herself with armed bodyguards.
"Blasting gun rights" - was that deliberate? Brilliant use of English. You are an imbecile nonetheless.
More information about formatting options