Another said Russert “should be shot,” before quickly adding that she shouldn’t say that on a conference call.
What is it with anti-gun lefty democrats talking about shooting people lately? First Peter "Petey" Hamm and now a Hillary supporter on a campaign conference call...
Who among my ideological opponents can I talk about shooting without getting myself in trouble? If I can't do it, why can they?
Let's reverse what the Hillary supporter said--suppose that comment was made about her candidate? Anybody think the Secret Service wouldn't be crawling all over it--serious statement or not?
Lot of projection going on with these emotionally troubled antis, don't you think? It's been said before, the reason they don't trust anybody else is because they really don't trust themselves.
4 comments:
This suggess a simple solution: pro-gun people should own and carry guns since we have no desire to go around shooting people, while anti-gun people should not have guns since they think it is OK to kill everyone who they disagree with. Everybody wins!
Exactly, Kent. The primary motivator on the anti side is their fear of what they themselves would do with a gun. They project that fear onto those of us who do not fear what we would do with a gun.
It must be terrible to live with a mindset that every 'law-abiding' person is just someone who lacks the opportunity or means to commit a crime.
Or it could just be they don't want to run the risk of return fire.
They are not afraid of what they would do with a gun, they are afraid that the people they do it to could shoot back.
Markie Marxist sez: "As you know from experience in the 20th century, we Marxists are all about shooting people we don't like. We just haven't disarmed America enough to get away with it on a frequent basis yet. We're looking forward to President Hillary helping with that. That is, both the disarming and the shooting too. As you can tell from the comment made on the conference call with Hillary, we just don't have a problem with that."
Post a Comment