Letter: Don’t Fall For Barack Obama’s Anti-Gun Rhetoric

“NO GOVERNMENT WILL TELL ME HOW TO PROTECT MY FAMILY” Dear Editor, How can President Barack Obama blame guns for the tragedy that occurred in Oregon when we are killing innocent little boys and girls everyday in the wars we are fighting with guns?  He and his family are protected…


Dear Editor,

How can President Barack Obama blame guns for the tragedy that occurred in Oregon when we are killing innocent little boys and girls everyday in the wars we are fighting with guns?  He and his family are protected by guns. But “We The People” cannot have them?

The answer is not taking our guns away but instead of facing the injustices that exist in our country then our world. We must address the mental, economical, political injustices if we are serious about stopping senseless acts of violence.

I do not care what color, political party, etc. our president is.  I voted for President Obama twice but he is dead wrong on this issue.  No government will tell me how to protect my family because I am student of history and I understand what the government did on December 29, 1890.  That’s when 297 Sioux Indians were murdered at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.

These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection.”

The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms.  The cavalry began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp.  Two hundred of the 297 victims were women and children.

Do not take my words for it: Conduct your own investigation.  I know there will be critics who will say that happen over 120 years ago. I simply respond by saying history repeats itself in America!

My heart goes out to the victims of all senseless acts of violence and for being used for political gain.  Have you realized after every major tragedy involving guns, on the “same day” the politicians call for gun control?

I am done with these politicians.  They need to focus less on their agendas and more on the victims of these attacks. #BCF #TheTimeIsNow #BreaktheCycle


chris sullivan

Chris Sullivan
Columbia, S.C.

Wanna sound off? Send your letter to the editor HERE …

Related posts


Murdaugh Retrial Hearing: Interview With Bill Young

Will Folks
State House

Conservative South Carolina Lawmakers Lead Fight Against CRT

Mark Powell

‘Murdaugh Murders’ Saga: Trial Could Last Into March

Will Folks


Pete October 6, 2015 at 1:21 pm

This will be Obama’s Waterloo. America may flirt with certain gun control laws but she is not about to give them up, especially to Obama.

flip October 6, 2015 at 1:25 pm

Clinton to this day believes Gore lost because he threatened to take away guns.

Rakkasan October 6, 2015 at 5:05 pm

He lost because of Clinton

Rocky Verdad October 6, 2015 at 3:47 pm

Been hearing that for seven years.

tomstickler October 6, 2015 at 3:48 pm

He might as well forget getting re-elected in 2016!!!!

Waterloo October 7, 2015 at 9:13 am

Obama has had no Waterloo. He is almost in the last year of his administration, still has a successful health care reform as law, and is merely twiddling thumbs in his remaining months in office. He has paid lip service to gun control crowds, but nothing more.

BeachBum October 6, 2015 at 1:24 pm

Unlike many of the issues where President Obama has used executive orders to bully the public about, this is one with straightforward constitutional provisions and one very close to the majority of the US.

His actions will certainly affect the election.

stumpknocker October 6, 2015 at 1:58 pm

except the majority of americans want laws to make gun owners more accountable

Uh Huh October 6, 2015 at 2:57 pm

More accountable? lol

I guess “murder” charges aren’t accountable enough.

_min October 6, 2015 at 2:58 pm

*Citation needed*

blueyescrying October 6, 2015 at 4:55 pm

More accountable for what exactly? Law abiding gun owners already have had background check and their handguns are registered in the system. So what, pray tell, should they be held accountable for? What gun law specifically would have prevented that mentally ill individual from committing that horrendous crime in Oregon?

CorruptionInColumbia October 6, 2015 at 5:44 pm

Exactly. What people don’t seem capable of comprehending is that gun laws only impact the law abiding, the exact people who are NOT the problem. Criminals will not be stopped or inhibited by additional gun laws because they are criminals.

Tazmaniac October 6, 2015 at 6:12 pm

Once again the Effing laws weren’t enforced. The shooter had Asperger’s and graduated from a School for EMOTIONALLY DISABLED students. Why would the school system not share this with the NICS system? We all know why.Why would his Mother who also has AS, be allowed to assist in collecting the arms? When the F are people going to see the pattern in these shootings. After they happen, no one is shocked that the suspect did it. So maybe before we throw the 2nd Amendment away some common sense can kick in.



Rakkasan October 6, 2015 at 8:24 pm

Are you sure that is a mental condition that would show up as block to buying a gun? Why would would the school system not share? Cause they’d get sued for privacy violation. Not about common scence, Pee Wee

CorruptionInColumbia October 6, 2015 at 9:03 pm

Then if privacy concerns keep mental issues from showing up on background checks, what is the purpose of expanding the checks?

Tazmaniac October 6, 2015 at 9:14 pm

Duuuuhhh…….I don’t know what I’m talking about but I wanted to sound smart! I swear some of the posters make GT sound like Aristotle.

erneba October 7, 2015 at 7:52 pm

You are right on that one.
I try to ignore them.

Rakkasan October 7, 2015 at 4:21 am

Not ALL mental conditions. If you read the posted it is a response to Taz’s comment about the Oregon shooter i.e. Asperger’s.

Limbaughsaphatkhunt October 6, 2015 at 10:23 pm

So you are suggesting all shooters have a mental illness?

Be careful how you answer here…I have lots of follow up counter points for you once you fall into my logic trap….

Limbaughsaphatkhunt October 6, 2015 at 10:21 pm

Get so sick of these talking points. I feel like I’m listening to Wayne LaPeeDouche on a loop.

Fact, other western democracies have gun control (not outright gun confiscation) and the instances of death by guns is dramatically less.

CorruptionInColumbia October 6, 2015 at 11:53 pm

“Gun control (not outright gun confiscation)”

Yes, where what, a tiny percentage of adults with money, connections, or both, have permission to possess a gun in their home? In some of those places they probably are required to keep them locked in a safe and unloaded at all times. Probably little if any carry privs outside of their home. Thanks, but no thanks. My right to protect myself should not end where my driveway meets the street.

I’ll take my chances with the illegally armed cruds (guns, knives, bludgeons, brute force or mob) so long as I too can be armed.

Limbaughsaphatkhunt October 7, 2015 at 12:28 am

Fair enough ass hat. What’s a few deaths in the tens of thousands per year for the freedom to own guns? Collateral damage I say. Cause ‘Murica

Rakkasan October 7, 2015 at 4:22 am

Amazing that your country (the one in your mind) is so dangerous, so unstable, so scary and threatening to you that you feel you need to do that. Or maybe something else is driving that fear?

CorruptionInColumbia October 7, 2015 at 6:22 am

Do you read the paper or watch TV? Every day there are armed robberies, aggravated assaults, even murders, somewhere in the Midlands and in most other places.

I’ve seen up close and first-hand the bad things that too frequently happen to good people who aren’t prepared to deal with them.

Fair Question October 7, 2015 at 9:09 am

Do you wear your gun in the shower? You know, in case someone breaks into your house and tries to rob you while you’re shampooing your hair?

CorruptionInColumbia October 7, 2015 at 9:25 am

No, but I do have a small North American Arms .22WMR hidden but in easy reach in the bathroom. Think about it, if some POS is going to initiate a home invasion, where in your home are you most likely at a disadvantage when you hear your door kicked off the hinges than on the crapper or in the shower.

Wow, I Was Just Joking October 7, 2015 at 9:27 am

Do you smuggle a compact revolver up your anus in case you’re on the john and a thug comes up through the commode to mug you?

CorruptionInColumbia October 7, 2015 at 9:34 am

No. The strategically-placed .22 WMR would likely suffice in that event, too.

Church Shootings October 7, 2015 at 9:08 am

I had to laugh when these idiots blamed Gun Free Zones for the Charleston shooting. Why do you have to take a gun with you everywhere you go? You can’t even trust your own church? Not putting much faith in the Lord to protect you during your worship of him now are ya?

CorruptionInColumbia October 7, 2015 at 9:22 am

Uhhhh, because of people like Dylann Roof, maybe? It wasn’t the church that couldn’t be trusted, it was people like Dylann Roof.

Who was it, Ben Franklin, who said that “God helps those who help themselves”, or words to that effect. This was what happens when good people were totally not in a position to help themselves.

Church Shootings October 7, 2015 at 9:28 am

I guess the ushers need to be armed too, in case a five year old thug tries to steal a few quarters out of the tithing bowl? Those criminals are everywhere!

CorruptionInColumbia October 7, 2015 at 9:32 am

Well, in this case, Dylann Roof was there. That was all that was necessary for 9 good people to die at the hands of that insect. I am sure the outcome was pleasing to you since none of the people in the church were (God fobid) armed.

God Didn't Forbid It October 7, 2015 at 9:34 am

Kudos for the “God forbid” joke.

Most of the people who died in that church were elderly people, and even if they were armed and capable, who is to say that it wouldn’t have ended the very same way that the Oregon shooting did? Not a gun free zone, armed students, nothing stopped the shooter but the shooter himself.

CorruptionInColumbia October 7, 2015 at 9:51 am

Okay, so the lone armed citizen(s) at the Oregon college had an apparent case of the chickenshits and failed to act. It doesn’t always work out the way it should. I’m sure there have been a few cases where armed police, individuals or as a group, performed just as dismally. That doesn’t mean that the occasional armed citizen(s) will not do what is needed, when needed, anymore than it means police or military won’t do good when needed because the occasional member in their ranks looses his guts.

Nothing in this life, except death and taxes, is guaranteed. Who is to say that an old timer in that church with proper mindset wouldn’t have taken care of Roof’s problem? As it appears, most of the victims in that church subscribed to the Pastor’s doctrine of “guns are bad”.

I recall an old deputy (now deceased) in my home county telling about the church services in the rural northern part of the county from around the 1920’s to the 1950’s or later. He noted it was kind of comical when the congregation had to stand to sing or whatever, how when they sat down you would hear, “clunk, clunk, clunk,…”. It was the guns in the mens’ coat pockets. I don’t think they had many churches shot up by idiots in those days. I wonder why.

Rakkasan October 7, 2015 at 11:08 am

Back in Strom Thurmond”s daddy’s time, all gentlemen had pistol pockets sown into their suit coats. Just in case someone offended their honor. Just one example of signs of the times, like yours. But don’t kid yourself, there was much more violence back then. Read “All God’s Children: The history of violence in America”. It starts in the present with a murderer in NYC and goes back to Edgefield County in those days.

el pOgO flip October 7, 2015 at 9:49 am

Oregon Community Rocked By Campus Shooting: We Don’t Want Obama Here
Town Hall? – 1 day agoJust hours after the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in … President Barack Obama will travel to Oregonthis week to visit privately with families of the victims of …
Obama visit to Roseburg stirs local anger about his support for gun control after shooting
OregonLive.com? – 12 hours ago
Oregon Town Blasts Obama’s “Inappropriate,” “Disrespectful” Visit After College Shooting
Bearing Arms? – 21 hours ago

Common folks ain’t buying the bull shit from YOUR ‘closet’ Muslim pResident.They want to make sure Obama’s Radical Islamic friends and Black Lives Matter aren’t the only ones with guns.

blueyescrying October 7, 2015 at 8:44 am

Spot on. Look at all the acts of violence, including terror were thousands have been killed without the use of guns. Also, look at the countries who have gun laws and look at the criminals in those countries that are committing violent acts with…wait for it…guns! The hostage situation in Sydney, Australia is a perfect example. Bad guys had guns, law abiding citizens had to wait on police and there were still casualties and fatalities.

Derp Alert October 7, 2015 at 9:11 am

How often do armed bad guys cause trouble in Australia?

How often do armed bad guys cause trouble in Columbia?

An entire continent versus one American city, care to guess which one has more gun violence?

blueyescrying October 7, 2015 at 9:21 am

Your argument doesn’t help the gun control cause. You said it yourself BAD GUYS cause trouble. Punishing the good guys for the act of the bad guys does not cause people to stop being bad. They will find other means of harming people if they can’t get guns. But to put it simple, bad guys will find a way to get a gun and/or harm other people, while the good guys, if they were to turn in their guns, would be left defenseless.

Crime And Punishment October 7, 2015 at 9:32 am

It still stands that no other country deals with the gun violence that we do, and that’s because of the amount of guns and ammo freely available to people. The only way to make them not freely available is to generally disallow most people from carrying guns. You may not like that idea but it stands as the only proven way to reduce gun violence.

You don’t want to compare an entire continent to one major American city because the answer is obvious which one has more crimes involving guns, more deaths involving guns, and so on.

CorruptionInColumbia October 7, 2015 at 9:59 am

One major American city???? How about several? DC, Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, LA, St Louis, Newark, etc, etc, etc…

blueyescrying October 7, 2015 at 11:36 am

You say the only way to deal with gun violence is to disallow most people with carrying guns, but how do you choose which ones to allow to have guns and which ones not to choose? I have no problem with the idea that most people shouldn’t have guns, however unless you begin to stereotype people that’s going to be a problem deciding who should and should not be allowed to legally own firearms. One thing that needs to be done is to reopen mental institutions and commit people who are clinically insane who have mental disorders that can’t be rehabilitated (which is most mental disorders) instead of letting them roam freely in society. Most of the mass shootings are carried out by people diagnosed with a mental disorder, and yes they passed the background checks because mental health falls under HIPPA and doctor/patient privilege. If we got the mentally disturbed off the streets and in an institution where they can be constantly monitored that would cut down on a lot of crime. However that still leaves the gangbangers that have access to guns. Solution, lock them up in prison and give stricter sentences for the crimes they commit. There are too many people out on probation and parole that should have stayed behind bars. A lot of the criminal activity occurs from repeat offenders, so the justice system needs to be reworked to punish the bad guys, not rework the constitution to punish the good guys.

Rakkasan October 7, 2015 at 11:03 am

How about suicide deaths and deaths of children? Give up the “bad guys/good guys” and “mental health” argument myths. More guns = more violence–which includes suicides and accidents

Rakkasan October 6, 2015 at 8:30 pm

How about, just for starters, the background check is actually completed before they get to take home the gun. What friggin bunch of SC excuses for legislators passed that POS? Wait. What? The one you currently have?

Tazmaniac October 6, 2015 at 9:10 pm

Have you ever purchased a firearm or are you simply feigning ignorance so you can agitate with your big, big brain?

Rkkasan October 7, 2015 at 4:26 am

Not submitted –completed by the agencies involved. See current discussions in SC legislature on this topic.

blueyescrying October 7, 2015 at 8:42 am

The background check is completed before they are allowed to take home the gun, and even if it weren’t how is that the gun owners fault and why should they be accountable for what the dealer does? Shouldn’t that be at the fault/responsibility of the dealer? Not sure if you own guns or where you purchase them from, but I know first hand that the background check is done and complete before the customer is allowed to leave the store, much less purchase the gun.

RAkkasan October 7, 2015 at 11:24 am

Dylann Roof, the alleged Charleston shooter, was able to buy a gun before a background check was complete because of the three-day waiting period rule and errors in the federal background-checking system.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article37386096.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/news/local/article28202095.html#storylink=cpy

blueyescrying October 7, 2015 at 3:03 pm

In essence you are somewhat correct, however the background check was completed on the stores part. The FBI failed on their end to come up with a conclusion as to whether or not to issue a gun. The store was within their legal right to complete the sale. Now, I do agree that the law should be changed that they should have to wait to complete the sale until the FBI has finished everything on their end. But, in this day and age it should not take the FBI longer than three days to gather the proper information. So legally, the store completed the background check, morally they should have waited, but technically the FBI should have completed their job in a timely manner.

Tazmaniac October 7, 2015 at 10:17 pm

No, the 3 days is completely reasonable. Look at current administration we have now. If it weren’t for the 3 day the asshat in chief would simply leave all checks in limbo for virtual gun control. You can get a credit decision in less than 5 minutes. The FBI can’t check you out in 5 hours? Again you can be a raving lunatic and your privacy is trumping public safety.

blueyescrying October 8, 2015 at 8:27 am

Agreed, 3 days is completely reasonable and the FBI should be able to complete the check in that time frame, especially in this day and age (as I stated above.) And in this particular situation it was not the store’s fault that the almighty Federal Government couldn’t figure out how to do their job.

Rakkasan October 6, 2015 at 5:12 pm

How about INTERPRETATIONS of the constitution? What happened to “A well-regulated militia…” It’s also been taken off the side of the NRA HQ building but no one on this site has the huevos to answer my question as to why that happened. American gun ownership is very concentration with multiple guns for a few individuals. Americans like guns cause it helps them feel better; a compensation effort to slow or reverse their sense that the (white) America of 50 years ago is quickly slipping away. Very threatening to already insure people

himmy October 6, 2015 at 8:19 pm


Rakkasan October 6, 2015 at 8:20 pm

well thought, well reason, great post. Thanks Pee Wee

RogueElephant October 7, 2015 at 8:21 am

Add accurate to that list and you have it.

Limbaughsaphatkhunt October 6, 2015 at 10:19 pm

Or that slaves counted as 3/5 of a person. What a classic.

Who’d have thought that a panel of unelected, all white, all protestant, all male slave owners could draft up our purty freedom document.

Kasey Tyler October 7, 2015 at 3:35 am

WORK AT HOME::Get $97/HOUR…I just purchased themselves a McLaren F1 when I got my check for $19993 this past 4 weeks and just over 17 thousand lass month . this is really the nicest-work Ive had . I began this 10-months ago and straight away started making more than $97… p/h .learn the facts here now
???? http://GoogleSuperTechJobsHomeEmploymentMega/get/top… ??????????????????????????????????????????

Your Average Republican October 7, 2015 at 9:05 am

We want a government run strictly by the constitution, and by that we mean the parts of the constitution we like.

Andy October 6, 2015 at 1:25 pm

Sixteen reasons and counting : Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Al Qaeda, Isis, Criminals, Terrorist, Obama, Hillary, Sanders, Biden, Chicago, Baltimore, New York, porous borders, THE SECOND AMENDMENT! Any one alone is enough reason.

Rakkasan October 6, 2015 at 8:27 pm

No. Someone’s INTERPRETATION of the 2nd amendment made it the reason. NRA had made you their bitch

Breaking It Down For You October 7, 2015 at 9:17 am

Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, are dead.

Al Qaeda and ISIS are in the Middle East, pretty sure your guns can’t aim that far.

Criminals is a fair reason.

Terrorists? Have fun shooting a hole in the plane trying to stop a hijacker, or shooting a guy wearing a suicide vest and still getting blown to bits.

Obama, Hillary, Sanders, Biden, sounds like the Secret Service needs to pay you a visit.

Chicago, Baltimore, New York, you can mitigate the risk of those cities by not living in or going to them.

Porous borders, you can mitigate the risk of that by not hiring illegal immigrants to do work for you and by boycotting any business that uses illegal immigrant labor.

One arguable reason and a bunch of crazy bullshit.

RogueElephant October 6, 2015 at 1:42 pm

Never ever never vote for a Democrat. And you have to be careful with Republicans. Some of them are subject to waver.

CorruptionInColumbia October 6, 2015 at 1:52 pm

There are, albeit very few, pro-gun Democrats. I have voted for Democrats as lesser evils for every office but President over the course of my adult life. Likewise, we have a lot of anti-gun or pretend only “pro-gun” Republicans who I would never vote for.

Sic Semper Tyrannis October 6, 2015 at 2:40 pm

All waver, fixed it.

stumpknocker October 6, 2015 at 1:53 pm

if a democrat gets elected president too many old giezers are on the supreme court, she or he will load the bench and remedy this craziness, it is only a matter of time

CorruptionInColumbia October 6, 2015 at 2:56 pm

Great article. Chris! I am sorry that it took you two election cycles to figure out what 0bama was going to try to do to us, but am glad to have you on our side. Keep them coming!

Rocky Verdad October 6, 2015 at 3:04 pm

John Parker Jr., an Umpqua student and Air Force veteran, told multiple media outlets that he was armed and on campus at the time of the attack last week. Parker and other student veterans (perhaps also armed) thought about intervening. “Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” Parker told MSNBC. “We were quite a distance away from the actual building where it was happening, which could have opened us up to being potential targets ourselves.”

Parker’s story changed when he spoke to Fox News’ Sean Hannity. Instead of saying he “made the choice” not to get involved, Parker said school staff prevented him from helping.

jimlewisowb October 6, 2015 at 7:01 pm

Buck Farack

tbnclt October 6, 2015 at 7:13 pm

The founding Fathers knew that a well armed citizenry is a condom if you will on govt. It not only keeps foreign invaders but also domestic as well as a tyrannical overreaching govt such as the Obama administration.

Rakkasan October 6, 2015 at 8:26 pm

Our founding fathers also said some about a well regulated militia. I guess that slipped your mind

Limbaughsaphatkhunt October 6, 2015 at 10:18 pm

O.k…fingers in ears all ye gun nuts…but for those who want rational and factual data about the “good guy with a gun myth”…I present to you:


daddy don't piss on my grave! October 6, 2015 at 10:50 pm

Speaking of Politico, faggot:

Joe Biden has been making his 2016 deliberations all about his late son since August.

Aug. 1, to be exact — the day renowned Hillary Clinton-critic Maureen Dowd published a column that marked a turning point in the presidential speculation.

According to multiple sources, it was Biden himself who talked to her, painting a tragic portrait of a dying son, Beau’s face partially paralyzed, sitting his father down and trying to make him promise to run for president because “the White House should not revert to the Clintons and that the country would be better off with Biden values.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/joe-biden-beau-2016-214459#ixzz3nqOKiWY5

What a shame this POS has to hide behind his dead son.

Limbaughsaphatkhunt October 6, 2015 at 11:10 pm

Git now…git back in yer sex box gimp. Pappy’ll be along shortly.

CorruptionInColumbia October 7, 2015 at 12:03 am

Well damn, man. Reading that article has convinced me. I am better off just going unarmed and accepting whatever some POS choses to do to me, my family, or friends, than to lift a finger to resist them.
I guess, I’ll put all my guns up for sale in The Trader, tomorrow.

Limbaughsaphatkhunt October 7, 2015 at 12:29 am

No, you’re better off wiping the snide smirk off your face, turning off Fox News and actually being part of the solution to this epidemic by lending your voice to legislation to curb access to guns.

CorruptionInColumbia October 7, 2015 at 4:13 am

LOL! Is the “Fox News” line really the best argument in your archives? I hate to break it to you but if it is, you already lost the argument. FWIW, and for the umpteenth time, I don’t even watch Fox News and I don’t listen to Rush. Perhaps you need to push back from CNN and MSNBC.

California has done quite a bit to curb access to guns. AFAIK, places like LA still have quite a few murders, both with and without guns. Go ahead and plug your ears as I have two words for you that I’m sure you’ve heard before; Chicago, Illinois.

Why Are You Still Talking? October 7, 2015 at 9:24 am

The Oregon campus was not a gun free zone, there were armed students, and yet the only person that managed to kill the shooter WAS the shooter. All your shit talking points about how good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns and how laws stopping people from bringing their guns causes these things? It’s fucking crap.

So now instead of acknowledging that you’re full of it you are going to bring up California gun laws when whatever the fuck California decides has nothing to do with Oregon or the fact that the non-GFZ, good guy with a gun present campus still didn’t stop the shooting.

It seems that an unarmed person did more to hinder the shooter than any armed person. Hello! Wake up! Stop bringing up unrelated crap!

CorruptionInColumbia October 7, 2015 at 10:08 am

Not unrelated crap. He said we needed to curb access to guns. I pointed out that CA has done a lot to curb access, yet they are still a bastion for murders committed with and without guns.

Maybe you need to take your own advice and dispense with the unrelated crap.

Rakkasan October 7, 2015 at 4:28 am

Why do you travel around or with POSs?

CorruptionInColumbia October 7, 2015 at 6:17 am

I don’t travel around with them. They are everywhere, though. That is something I have no control over. What I do have control over is to maintain the means to protect myself and/or others from them should that become necessary.

Rakkasan October 7, 2015 at 8:44 am

So, you’re feeling a loss of control in your life? And no, they’re not EVERYWHERE. Anxiety is over interpretation of a threat. Were you bullied as a kid? Of course you were.

CorruptionInColumbia October 7, 2015 at 10:03 am

Well maybe not in every access-controlled gated community, but even in those places, they do turn up.

RAkkasan October 7, 2015 at 11:26 am

So does 1000-year rainfall.

You sure you have enough security set up for you house? The boogie man could be right outside at any time and he wants to take what you have

Republican Solutions October 7, 2015 at 9:03 am

The shooting at Oregon happened in a college that WAS NOT a Gun Free Zone.

The shooting at Oregon occurred when a Good Guy With A Gun was present, he did not attempt to fire because he didn’t want the police to mistake him for the shooter.

Republicans won’t increase funding for mental health treatment nor will they improve background checks to help catch mentally ill gun buyers. This may not stop many shootings but it at least would be a good gesture.

Republicans will default into one of two idiotic things to dismiss the shooting.

“There’s nothing we can do, so let’s just ignore it!”

“It’s a conspiracy by the Illuminutty, all of the experts are bought and paid for so watch these amateurs on YouTube!”

Calvin Thompson October 8, 2015 at 8:25 am

If you don’t think I should have guns come and take them…I dare you.


Leave a Comment