iOwnTheWorld.com

Please, please, please, let him address our evil democrat, and mealy-mouthed, spineless republican, senators. And let him educate them and shame them for what they are attempting to do. Bravo Mr. Stevens!

+8

I can almost hear the sound of Paris Morgan’s eyes rolling back, and the tap-tap-tap of his fat, pasty fingers as he tweets how stuuuuupid this little man Stevens is.

+8

I wanted to salute him!

+7

Hear! Hear!
OR…as Roger Daltry might say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoPWALM2riQ
YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!

+4

Maybe Soledad O’brien can get him as a guest on her show so she can beat him up…oh, wait….she doesn’t have a show anymore! hahahahahahahahaha

+6

It’s a sad day when Harry Reid is our savior.

+6

@Bad Brad…

“It’s a sad day when Harry Reid is our savior.”

and John Kasich is our Judas.

+6

Way to go, mister!!!

People forget. You are the citizen of your STATE first, then your country. The 2nd is not just for the individual, it is to protect your state. Why does the fed feel like they need to make not only you vulnerable, but your state too?

+7

thirdtwin,

‘and John Kasich is our Judas”
And Jan Brewer too.

I’m starting to think we need to get serious about a Tea Party thats separate from the GOP.

+7

Piers Morgan’s next guest.

And Mary Jane, you are correct. It wasn’t that long ago that people in this country considered themselves citizens of each individual state rather than citizens of the U.S. Technically a “citizen of the U.S.” is a citizen of Washington D.C. or federal territory. (This is why the income tax “law” is a sham.)

+4

Every person is allowed their opinion. But someone who confuses legal regulation and denial of rights doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. Someone who cites a state constitution in a federal hearing doesn’t know how to distinguish two things. Someone who starts a testimony on how to handle violence prevalence but ignores cold hard facts does not deserve to be listened to. Someone who thinks a single word in this legislation would deprive him of a right to have guns in his home doesn’t know how to read properly. Someone who advocates for armed guards also apparently cannot read either the fact that armed guards are among the proposals that have promoted. I’m sick of people who cannot distinguish between the seemingly true and the actually true who can see the stark contrast between fact and anecdotal evidence.

0

“. . .does not deserve to be listened to.”

Really?

So in other words people are allowed to have their opinion but are not permitted to express it based on other peoples’ opinions of their opinion?

You first. Pity you won’t be commenting here anymore.

+2

@Daniel Shepard – like every good liberal, you made many accusatory, yet general statements, with no specifics to back them up.

I’m sure that you thought you made a very effective rebuttal, but you said absolutely nothing! Typical style over substance libshit.

Why don’t you try again, and this time cite the specific comments that you disagree with, and why.

+2

That wasn’t a congressional hearing. It was a hearing at the Connecticut state capital.

BFH – If that was a mistake, shame on you. If it was intended to draw out a stupid troll – RIGHT ON!

+1

Daniel Shephard = demmorhoid!

0

Exactly frickin’ right. 911 is for calling to report the dead body of the burglar you just shot, yet a large portion of our population believes it is somehow more honorable to put themselves and their entire family at the mercy of the least stable guy in their neighborhood.

+3

Wow that’s some weapons grade stupid

Every person is allowed their opinion. But someone who confuses legal regulation and denial of rights doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

The democrat politicians who are leading the charge for restrictions on the right to bear arms such as Barack 0bama, Eric Holder, Dianne Feinstein and Shmuck Schumer have made statements that they do not believe in the right of the citizens to bear arms and that they would like to replace the US constitution and Bill Of Rights with a document of “positive liberties” similar to the constitution of the forrmer Soviet Union.
This statement is full of crap.

Someone who cites a state constitution in a federal hearing doesn’t know how to distinguish two things.

Do you have any idea what the 10th Ammendment is? state and Federal law are not mutually exclusive.

Someone who starts a testimony on how to handle violence prevalence but ignores cold hard facts does not deserve to be listened to.

And what are these “cold hard facts”? Something Pierce Morgan said? Please enlighten us.

Someone who thinks a single word in this legislation would deprive him of a right to have guns in his home doesn’t know how to read properly.

Which legislation NY, CT, federal? They havent even all been writen yet, how could you have read them.t The steamer dropped by the bellowing fool NY gov is an attempt at sensationalism and using crisis as a means to pursue an agenda of restricting rights.

Someone who advocates for armed guards also apparently cannot read either the fact that armed guards are among the proposals that have promoted. I’m sick of people who cannot distinguish between the seemingly true and the actually true who can see the stark contrast between fact and anecdotal evidence.

Your entire statement is loaded with anecdotal evidence and unsubstantiated claims.

I don’t know where you usually debate issues but you appear to be relying on sloganeering and an appeal to emotion over substance.
Maybe you’d prefer Daily KOS where logic and facts are avoided like a vampire and sunlight

Please feel free to come back some better straw men or ad-hominem attacks. They don’t delete comments from people that disagree.

+4

Wow KF, well said!!!! *high five*

+1