ChiGoose

The thing that’s really frustrating about these discussions is that they only occur after mass shootings, which, while awful and far too frequent, represent only a fraction of gun deaths. If we truly valued lives, we’d have a discussion on all gun deaths and how they can be prevented. There are steps between “take all the guns away” and “muh freedoms” that would actually save lives. But it requires us talking about the actual issue and not scapegoating mental health as if we are the only country with mentally ill people.

Breakdown of the 11th circuit hearing on the NARA Lago case. DoJ seeking to either dismiss Trump’s suit currently before Judge Cannon or, alternatively, overturn the injunction she issued, which limits the DoJ’s access to documents seized from Mar a Lago. tl;dr DoJ very likely to succeed, at least on the injunction. https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-has-bad-day-eleventh-circuit

Of course not. What I’m saying is that they wouldn’t commit mass shootings if they didn’t have access to guns.

Call it whatever you want, but it’s certainly not pro-life.

Once again, the good guys with guns scenario almost never happens even in a country with guns everywhere. And thanks for bringing up Chicago, which actually refutes your argument. Most of the guns used in crime here come from Indian, Wisconsin, and other states. What Chicago proves is that we need effective national gun laws or else criminals will just buy guns in lax states to use in stricter states. There are potential solutions that don’t involve taking away everyone’s guns but we’ll never be able to implement them because “responsible gun owners” will continue to oppose them. So we’ll either just go on being a final embarrassment or it’ll finally boil over and the government will end up confiscating guns. All because the “2A” people simply don’t care if their fellow Americans are gunned down. Nope, still a gun issue. People who survive suicide attempts rarely end up dying by suicide. The attempt occurs during a drastically awful moment in their lives and if they get through that, they generally end up living a productive life. Non-firearm methods of suicide like pills or cutting end up in death something like 5-20% of the time. Firearm attempts are closer to 95%. Bottom line: if the person in crisis doesn’t have access to a gun in that moment, they most likely will not die by suicide.

Just a regular reminder that the forced birth crowd does not support action that would prevent elective abortions but instead implements laws that endanger the lives of pregnant women while also opposing anything that would help reduce gun deaths. They’re not pro-life, they are pro-death.

Well, this is all fiction. It’s the kind of myth people buy into without evidence because it sounds like common sense at first, but it’s actually wrong and not backed by data. States with looser gun laws have more gun deaths per capita. The “good guy with a gun” scenario plays out in about 1% of mass shootings. Most gun deaths are suicides.

Another day, another mass shooting in the only rich country where this happens.

Good luck finding one in the GOP caucus. McCarthy is probably the best chance they have.

DoJ won’t indict a sitting president, so he could do all the crimes he wanted and they wouldn’t indict him. The solution, as pointed out by Mueller, would be impeachment. That’s a political process, not a legal one, so no matter the facts, there was no chance of success.

It’s not, so they don’t. And that poorly reasoned drivel is exactly what I expected from The Federalist.

I don’t understand how this didn’t get kicked out because Trump promised to release his tax returns and that was like 6 years ago so I’m assuming he’s already done it, right?

I think it’s more likely than not that he’s indicted on the NARA-Lago case. It’s pretty clear cut. Not sure on the timing though.

Well, we didn’t. That’s why. “But there is nothing in the Constitution or federal law that says the winner must be determined in the hours immediately after the polls close. And for much of American history, that would have been impossible.The outcome of many presidential elections remained unresolved for days, weeks and — in one case — months.

I love the idea that you can just decide not to participate in a criminal investigation into your activities.

The media got the story wrong. The talking points from the usual right wing bad faith actors will also likely turn out to be wrong. The FBI is investigating Hunter and that’s good. If the GOP House wants to do an actual investigation, that’s good. If they want a show trial just to try to hurt the President, that’s bad. Probably 99% of Americans don’t care about this and the fact that it’s even a big talking point is a symptom of the fact that the GOP leadership seems to have succumbed to terminal online brain. That’s likely bad for them when trying to go up against one of the least online people in Joe Biden because the Dem talking points won’t sound like foaming mouth conspiracies from the depths of the internet. That’s good. I don’t randomly tag people in random threads but apparently you can’t keep me out of your mind. That’s weird.

Oh hey. You’re still tagging me in random threads because you have a huge crush on me. I get it, I’m pretty awesome. Basically the whole package. But I’m not interested. No idea what you’re talking about, because just like 99% of Americans, I don’t give a crap about Hunter Biden.

I have not read through the entire bill yet, but my understanding is yes. More than 40 religious institutions worked with Congress on the bill to ensure religious freedom and it ended up being endorsed by several faiths, including the Mormon Church.

That’s basically what the respect for marriage act does.

Is the Babylon Bee going to post a joke at some point?

False

I really appreciate this joke. Had a great laugh, thank you.

I encourage you to actually read the DoJ filings. In the meantime, all of this is pretty consistent with an attack on the Pelosi house when Nancy was away and security was probably lighter than usual. We have officers saying either they opened the door or the door was opened. We have DePape himself stating that Pelosi opened the door with one arm while fighting him for the hammer with the other. We have consistent testimony that both Pelosi and DePape were in the foyer (so right by the door) and that when the police entered the picture, thety were wrestling over the hammer and then there was a brief conversation before Pelosi was attacked. I'm just going to take a second to point out that I nailed the Sussman trial prediction just by looking at the filings, and I can tell you that it is incredibly unlikely that DePape was someone known to the Pelosi's (and definitely not in a romantic relationship with either of them). The facts of this case support the simplest explanation: he was a crazy person who wanted to hurt Nancy Pelosi.