^That's just sick!
Printable View
^That's just sick!
The true believers mate.:)
Man dies after being shot by child playing with gun
ST. LOUIS - A St. Louis man was shot and killed Saturday afternoon and a small child was behind the gun. St. Louis Police were called to the 5400 block of Arlington Avenue in North St. Louis around 2:45pm. A child had been playing with a gun when it went off. The discharged bullet struck a man in his mid-20's in the neck.
Police say the man died at the scene. His name has not been released
Man dies after being shot by child playing with gun | FOX2now.com
As Ant would say, the only thing that stops a bad small child with a gun is a good small child with a gun.
USA! USA! USA!
You can have my gun when you pry it from my tiny, childrens, cold, dead fingers. Or give me some sweets.
Seems the school shootings are starting young, even if by accident.
Police: Toddler shot 2 other kids at Michigan home day care
Well that's one way to teach 'em about their Second Amendment rights.
2 children shot by child playing with gun at babysitting house in Dearborn
DEARBORN, Mich. - Two children were shot Wednesday morning at a home where several children were being cared for in Dearborn, according to police.
The shooting happened in the 3000 block of Harding Street.
Police said a toddler was playing with a firearm and shot the two victims. The victims are both 3 years old and are listed in critical condition, but stable condition.
“They’re both shot, they’re both young and they’re both critical,” Chief Ronald Haddad said.
Police said there were several children and at least one adult was in the home at the time of the shooting.
“Obviously there were weapons in close proximity of where kids were and it’s totally unacceptable,” Haddad said
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...me-in-dearborn
Yes, it's called "America" and you're damned right it's totally unacceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobo746
Has your U.S. Congress person received donations from the NRA?
By Aaron Williams Updated Oct. 2, 2017
Since 1998, the National Rifle Association has donated $3,555,194 to current members of Congress. Explore below to see how much money has been donated to members of Congress in your state.
The NRA has donated $3,555,194 tomembers of Congress who are currently in office.
49 of 100 U.S. senators have accepted NRA donations.
258 of 435 U.S. House Representatives have accepted NRA donations.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this graphic stated sitting members of Congress received $2,996,519 in donations. The correct number is $3,781,803 (in 2016). Several members of Congress had incorrect titles. All titles and figures have been updated. Additionally, Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) was listed as receiving a $1,000 donation, but he did not accept it.
Contribution data is from the 1998 through 2016 Congressional cycles and don't include individual expenditures and communication costs.
Published June 12, 2016
Sources: Federal Election Commission and the Center for Responsive Politics
...for the graphic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...mepage%2Fstory
Compared to the top contributions for just the current 2018 cycle:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomcat
Top Interest Groups Giving to Members of Congress, 2018 Cycle | OpenSecrets
...^a quick review of the list: not one of the organizations/folks listed directly enables mass murderers/street thug killings/children shooting each other/or any of a hundred other grisly horrors...looks like the NRA stands out in that regard...
It seems they don't have to worry about the 2018 cycle as they 'contributed' $6 million last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKkin
Perhaps they're saving up for next year's elections?
And they've spent $53 million lobbying in the last five years.
So if that was some kind of feeble attempt at non-sequitur, it didn't work.
Oh, and they use proxies.
https://www.opensecrets.org/industri...us.php?ind=Q13
Why the big drop off in average contributions I wonder...from your link.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
^ If you do not understand that graph then you are really dumb. I can see stores in the shadows shaking his head.
^^Russians stopped their monthly donations after the election. Hence the drop off
I understand. These idiots think it will be different with Trump since Obama was leaving office(It won't).Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Hence contributions went down after 2016.
Alternatively they don't have to spend money lobbying or supporting campaigns because they control a majority of puppets in both houses.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKkin
That may change come the mid terms.
wishful thinking: Revenge of the Trailer Park is a popular show...Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
NRA Sets 1,000 Killed In School Shooting As Amount It Would Take For Them To Reconsider Much Of Anything
'Yeah, Something Like 1,000 Dead Kids,' Reports Spokesperson
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
NRA officials said the school would have to be "super, super bloody" after the shooting for the organization to question their pro-gun stance.
FAIRFAX, VA—National Rifle Association Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre said Monday that somewhere around 1,000 kids would have to die in a school shooting in order for the organization to reconsider their longstanding opposition to gun control.
"Yeah, that's probably the only way we'd reassess much of anything at this point: 1,000 dead kids, shot up pretty good, lying face down in the school auditorium or something like that," LaPierre said, noting that anything less than 1,000 dead kids would not be enough for the NRA to stop urging Congress to pass pro-gun legislation. "I mean, that's just a ballpark number, but I imagine seeing 1,000 or so body bags being wheeled out of a school and a whole town of crying parents would probably make us reflect on our values for at least a little bit."
"So yeah, more or less 1,000 dead kids," LaPierre added. "Something around there. And teachers don't count."
In his 21st year leading the right-wing lobbying group, LaPierre reiterated that "350 or 470 dead kids or some low number like that" would have no impact on the NRA's belief that there should be more firearms on college campuses or that concealed carry laws should be more lax.
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
In order to reconsider their position on the Brady Bill, this amount of kids multiplied by 200 would have to be shot to death in school.
In addition, LaPierre added that while 800 dead kids in one school shooting would "certainly be a little closer to the number we're talking about here," ultimately that amount would, according to the NRA, constitute more of a society issue than a gun issue.
"For us to come anywhere close to reassessing our beliefs, it's gotta be one of those deals where a ton of kids get their heads blown off in school and there is one of those big, town-wide memorial services where they read off all the names of all the dead kids and you feel like, wow, that has to be somewhere around 1,000 names," said LaPierre, adding that seeing pictures of all the dead kids in front of the "pastor or whoever is doing the eulogies or whatever" might be a sobering enough visual for the NRA to reconsider whether it should be harder, not easier, to acquire firearms. "And I think the shooter would also have to use around 30 different types of guns in the shooting in order for us to rethink what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Second Amendment."
The former member of the American Conservative Union's board of directors further qualified his statement, adding that the NRA's response to 1,000 or so kids being mowed down by a school shooter would more than likely vary based on the age of the students, the school's demographics, and the extenuating circumstances of the situation as a whole.
Though he didn't offer a reason why, LaPierre said 1,000 dead 14-year-olds is "not even close to the same thing" as 1,000 dead 18-year-olds.
"If we're talking about one of those big high schools with 4,000 students then 1,000 dead ones aren't really even a drop in the bucket, you know?" LaPierre said, explaining that if an uzi-carrying 16-year-old only kills 45 percent of a school's total population, the NRA would still be more inclined to blame the shooting on poor parenting, and wouldn't consider soft gun laws to be part of the problem. "Oh, and of course, if it's a giant state university or something like that then I'd imagine we'd need to see numbers closer to 8,000 dead kids before we really even begin to talk about potentially having a conversation about changing our philosophy."
"And for argument's sake, let's say it's a situation where 999 people die and the 1,000th person is just the school shooter blowing his brains out," LaPierre continued. "Do you honestly expect me to take that seriously? To me, that seems more like an isolated incident that shouldn't really impact everyone's rights, you know?"
While some believed that LaPierre's remarks finally indicated a slight loosening of the NRA's pro-gun stance, LaPierre was forced to clarify his comments after his membership criticized him for introducing the idea that a playground full of bullet-riddled dead kids might cause the NRA to reconsider their position on gun control if even for a second.
"At the end of the day, I want to make it very clear that the NRA is in absolutely no rush to change anything," LaPierre later said in a written statement. "One thousand dead kids would have very little impact on us. Now if 50,000 kids died in a school shooting that might be a different story. Something around 50,000 to 80,000 dead kids. You know what, forget that. Maybe something closer to 250,000. Yeah, 250,000 dead kids."
^Gotta be the Onion or something similar
FFS what can you say.Slick will be along to back them up very shortly.