background check for mentally ill repealed

[pete311]

I thought it was the mentally ill that was the problem, not guns? wtf is this bullshit. gun sales down? No excuses when a nut grabs and gun and starts shooting.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/house-vote-guns-mental-illnesses/index.html

[Black Diamond]

Who defines mentally ill and how is mentally ill defined?

[pete311]

Note the bill targeted "severely mentally ill"

Definition of mentally ill
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mental-illness/basics/definition/con-20033813

Doctors diagnose

[NightTrain]

You could have gone to any number of sites other than CNN and gotten your answers.

But here you go :


Last May, Katie reported on how the Obama White House tried to strip gun rights from people who receive financial help managing Social Security benefits. Under the gun control measure, those individuals could be deemed mentally unfit and placed into the NICS background check system as ineligible to purchase a firearm without due process.

It is this anti-gun effort that Congress decided to do away with on Thursday.


Even the ACLU was against this 0bama gun grab, bizarre as it sounds.


More : http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/02/02/left-freaks-that-congress-just-scaled-back-gun-background-checks-n2280678

[Black Diamond]

Fucking Americans clinging to their religion and their guns.

[Balu]

Even the ACLU was against this 0bama gun grab, bizarre as it sounds.



Is it a kind of a joke you put Zero instead of 'O'? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/blush2.gif

[Elessar]

When did you get your examination, Pete?

All the bile and tripe you put out here in your single line barbs.

When was your evaluation done?

[NightTrain]

Is it a kind of a joke you put Zero instead of 'O'? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/blush2.gif

Whoops! Must be a Freudian Slip on my part.

[Balu]

Whoops! Must be a Freudian Slip on my part.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[pete311]

Even the ACLU was against this 0bama gun grab, bizarre as it sounds.


More : http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/02/02/left-freaks-that-congress-just-scaled-back-gun-background-checks-n2280678

I have a family member who is bi-polar schizophrenic who is herion addicted who receives financial help managing Social Security benefits. This family member is not stable enough to own a gun. This family member already tried to stab my mother with a knife.

[Abbey Marie]

Dems object to the slightest restriction on abortion as they claim to fear a slippery slope of eroding abortion rights. Yet they are always ready to argue that restrictions on gun rights "just make sense".

Interestingly, both gun rights advocates and abortion rights advocates have fought hard against a waiting period. There are no doubt many other parallels.

At the risk of everyone getting ticked with me, shouldn't both sides chill a bit about every attempt at enacting sensible restrictions? Or should we all hold firm, due to the very real risk that giving in on any right probably means opening the door to a massive dilution of rights down the road?

Perhaps it's the recent big health scare, but I'm feeling philosophical lately...

[NightTrain]

I have a family member who is bi-polar schizophrenic who is herion addicted who receives financial help managing Social Security benefits. This family member is not stable enough to own a gun. This family member already tried to stab my mother with a knife.

Sounds to me like your family member should not own a gun.

Or a knife.

Or a car.

Or a large stick.

Or anything that can be used as a weapon.

A psycho hospital might just be the right move there. Just a suggestion.

[Balu]

I have a family member who is bi-polar schizophrenic who is herion addicted who receives financial help managing Social Security benefits. This family member is not stable enough to own a gun. This family member already tried to stab my mother with a knife.
I don't know how it is in your country, but in Russia the patient is always asked about the family deceases during medical examination. This may be a great help to diagnose.
I am worrying...

[Abbey Marie]

I don't know how it is in your country, but in Russia the patient is always asked about the family deceases during medical examination. This may be a great help to diagnose.
I am worrying...

:laugh2:

[SassyLady]

I have a family member who is bi-polar schizophrenic who is herion addicted who receives financial help managing Social Security benefits. This family member is not stable enough to own a gun. This family member already tried to stab my mother with a knife.

So, you're OK with taking away the rights of the majority because you know someone who is mentally ill and on social security? I'm on social security and every time I file taxes the SSA screws with my benefit so I go down to the SSA office to get help fixing it. Why should I have my guns confiscated because I'm asking for help with my SSA benefits?

[pete311]

Why should I have my guns confiscated because I'm asking for help with my SSA benefits?
The law was about people incapable of managing SS funds. Not inquiring for help. There is a big difference.

[CSM]

The law was about people incapable of managing SS funds. Not inquiring for help. There is a big difference.

If that is the case, then no Congressman should be allowed to own a firearm... they have mismanaged SS since its inception.

[Abbey Marie]

If that is the case, then no Congressman should be allowed to own a firearm... they have mismanaged SS since its inception.


:clap:

[Gunny]

Much as it gripes my ass to do so, I have to agree with Petey on this one. Some people shouldn't be allowed to have a plastic spork. I'm for vetting gun owners the same as I am immigrants.

I am all for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and a total 2nd Amendment advocate. So what if I have to fill out some paperwork and wait for it to clear? You can check me all the way back to whenever. Who cares?

And if I want to kill someone, I don't need to make a run to the gun store. I'll use a pencil if I'm THAT pissed off. Or my bare hands. As Abs pointed out ... little common sense goes a long way.

[BoogyMan]

I thought it was the mentally ill that was the problem, not guns? wtf is this bullshit. gun sales down? No excuses when a nut grabs and gun and starts shooting.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/house-vote-guns-mental-illnesses/index.html

What part of due process is problematic for you? Actually put up and argument against due process and we can discuss.

[Gunny]

What part of due process is problematic for you? Actually put up and argument against due process and we can discuss.

I see his point, Boogy. Was a time I was rabide about gun ownership. The anti-gunners are the ones that created cycle. I consider them ignorant and/or just dumb. Or privileged.

At the same time, certain things make no sense to me. I have a special needs grandchild. I'd no sooner put a weapon in her hand than root for the Patriots. And it's not funny but it IS fact.

Remember that Va Tech shooting? Everyone said the boy was nuts, was reported, and some PC vacillating judge refused to do anything. He walked right in and got his off the shelf. Responsible gun ownership is not just for the gun owners. It should extend to those that sell them being responsible for who they sell them to.

DO note the difference between being responsible for who they sell them to and being liable for someone who checks clean in the system. In the above stated case, the judge should have been held liable for not being willing to judge a nutcase a nutcase.

[BoogyMan]

I see his point, Boogy. Was a time I was rabide about gun ownership. The anti-gunners are the ones that created cycle. I consider them ignorant and/or just dumb. Or privileged.

At the same time, certain things make no sense to me. I have a special needs grandchild. I'd no sooner put a weapon in her hand than root for the Patriots. And it's not funny but it IS fact.

Remember that Va Tech shooting? Everyone said the boy was nuts, was reported, and some PC vacillating judge refused to do anything. He walked right in and got his off the shelf. Responsible gun ownership is not just for the gun owners. It should extend to those that sell them being responsible for who they sell them to.

DO note the difference between being responsible for who they sell them to and being liable for someone who checks clean in the system. In the above stated case, the judge should have been held liable for not being willing to judge a nutcase a nutcase.

I don't disagree with your concern but due process MUST be maintained for all Americans or it will soon exist for NO Americans. There has to be a way to properly handle this issue WITHIN the construct of our liberties.

[Gunny]

I don't disagree with your concern but due process MUST be maintained for all Americans or it will soon exist for NO Americans. There has to be a way to properly handle this issue WITHIN the construct of our liberties.
I have no problem with due process. But the process needs to accomplish what it is designed to do.

Not mentioned is I can drive 3 hours south across the border and buy whatever I want. Most crimes are not committed by legally purchased firearms.

As far as sales being down, some people on the left need to face facts. When O-blah-blah was elected you couldn't find a round in this city, then the gun shops put them on quota so you could only buy so many per week.

O-blah-blah out and a huge sigh of relief. No Hitlery? Another huge sigh of relief. Of course the MSM is going to paint this in a negative light. They took the fall with their party. I'm sure the gun industry is just fine.

[BoogyMan]

I have no problem with due process. But the process needs to accomplish what it is designed to do.

Not mentioned is I can drive 3 hours south across the border and buy whatever I want. Most crimes are not committed by legally purchased firearms.

As far as sales being down, some people on the left need to face facts. When O-blah-blah was elected you couldn't find a round in this city, then the gun shops put them on quota so you could only buy so many per week.

O-blah-blah out and a huge sigh of relief. No Hitlery? Another huge sigh of relief. Of course the MSM is going to paint this in a negative light. They took the fall with their party. I'm sure the gun industry is just fine.

The skeptic in me looks at the article and wonders if CNN is trying to get Mr. Trump's supporters to turn on him with an issue that is important to them. It is a goofy scenario but CNN has been pretty open and transparent in their belief that Mr. Trump's supporters are stupid so it wouldn't surprise me to see a scenario like this behind the story.

[fj1200]

I don't disagree with your concern but due process MUST be maintained for all Americans or it will soon exist for NO Americans. There has to be a way to properly handle this issue WITHIN the construct of our liberties.

Isn't it the same background check, and same due process, as before but with a new database to search?

[Kathianne]

The skeptic in me looks at the article and wonders if CNN is trying to get Mr. Trump's supporters to turn on him with an issue that is important to them. It is a goofy scenario but CNN has been pretty open and transparent in their belief that Mr. Trump's supporters are stupid so it wouldn't surprise me to see a scenario like this behind the story.

I'd not underestimate CNN or any MSM source for trying to create dissention. However, on this particular issue, there has to be some consistency. One either believes that due process is right or not. Can't pick it being a protection for those one finds acceptable and too burdensome for those one wishes for a different outcome.

Personally I think that it should be easier to get mental health intervention for many. There's no doubt that many homeless are the result of self-medicating or those who stopped medications. While I think that there should be due process in having people committed, it should not be nearly impossible to do so for someone 18 or older.

[gabosaurus]

Personally I think that it should be easier to get mental health intervention for many. There's no doubt that many homeless are the result of self-medicating or those who stopped medications. While I think that there should be due process in having people committed, it should not be nearly impossible to do so for someone 18 or older.

How perverse and disgusting is it that it is easier for a mentally ill person to buy a gun than to get the help that they need?
John Hinckley is out of prison now. Maybe he can buy himself a gun and start talking with Jodie Foster again.

[Black Diamond]

How perverse and disgusting is it that it is easier for a mentally ill person to buy a gun than to get the help that they need?
John Hinckley is out of prison now. Maybe he can buy himself a gun and start talking with Jodie Foster again.
So now you can buy one.

[Gunny]

The skeptic in me looks at the article and wonders if CNN is trying to get Mr. Trump's supporters to turn on him with an issue that is important to them. It is a goofy scenario but CNN has been pretty open and transparent in their belief that Mr. Trump's supporters are stupid so it wouldn't surprise me to see a scenario like this behind the story.

The realist in ME says you bet your a$$ they are going to try and turn everyone they can on Trump. Keep in mind he already isn't all that popular on the right. He is the lesser of 2 evils for a lot of us. The left/MSM are predictable in their gameplan and habits. They're still crying about Bush. What have you heard about Obama screwing up everything he touched? Nothing. He has been held accountable for not one thng by the left/MSM.

They did the sme thing with Bush. Everything Clinton jacked up was Bush's fault before he was even sworn in. So just plan on Trump getting blamed for everything the colossal f-up did the past 8 years.

My own personal opinion on owning firearms is I don't see why people need semi-auto assault rifles. Whatever the hell an assault rifle is.

And I'm all for background checks. I love my freedoms, or what's left of them. But with those freedoms comes responsibility. As a society we seem to have forgotten the latter.

[Elessar]

Sounds to me like your family member should not own a gun.

Or a knife.

Or a car.

Or a large stick.

Or anything that can be used as a weapon.

A psycho hospital might just be the right move there. Just a suggestion.

I can make a weapon out of anything within my grasp.

liberals always bear down to 'guns' when they have no logical reply.

[Elessar]

My own personal opinion on owning firearms is I don't see why people need semi-auto assault rifles. Whatever the hell an assault rifle is.



I agree with this, and Yes....what is an assault rifle domestically? They do not exist. By ATF laws,
they are prohibited from being owned unless one holds a legal permit.

[Gunny]

I can make a weapon out of anything within my grasp.

liberals always bear down to 'guns' when they have no logical reply.

No sh*t. I am the weapon. What tool I choose to use matters little.

[aboutime]

Thanks petey. You have just removed....ALL DOUBT!

[Surf Fishing Guru]

I have a family member who is bi-polar schizophrenic who is herion addicted who receives financial help managing Social Security benefits. This family member is not stable enough to own a gun. This family member already tried to stab my mother with a knife.

Well, being an addict your family member meets the actual, legal, codified as USC 18, §922(g)(3) criteria for imposing firearms dispossession.

In addition, if his/her illness was severe enough and they were involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated mentally defective, then subsection (g)(4) is met as well.

The Obummer invented SS financial affairs thingamajig was not needed to bar your family member from possessing a gun or ammo.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Dems object to the slightest restriction on abortion as they claim to fear a slippery slope of eroding abortion rights. Yet they are always ready to argue that restrictions on gun rights "just make sense".

Interestingly, both gun rights advocates and abortion rights advocates have fought hard against a waiting period. There are no doubt many other parallels.

At the risk of everyone getting ticked with me, shouldn't both sides chill a bit about every attempt at enacting sensible restrictions? Or should we all hold firm, due to the very real risk that giving in on any right probably means opening the door to a massive dilution of rights down the road?

Abortion is inextricably tied to the right to arms because the foundational legal theory that recognized the right to privacy depends upon the pre-existing and inviolate nature of our enumerated rights.

I laugh at anti-gun but pro-abortion leftists because they don't understand that leftist hostility for the right to arms throws into doubt the legal theory by which the right to privacy and the derivative rights (contraception, abortion, LGBT, etc.) were recognized and have been secured.

I like to ask lefties . . . If the theory is that the right to privacy is found in the "emanations and penumbras" of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, (which is deemed to be a "rational continuum of liberty"), how can one of the links in that continuum be cut away without harming the whole?

How can a right that only exists in the "emanations and penumbras" of the rights secured in the Bill of Rights be held as more vital, more important and more secure than a right that is expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

I NEVER get any answers . . .

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Remember that Va Tech shooting? Everyone said the boy was nuts, was reported, and some PC vacillating judge refused to do anything.

That Cho was never involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective meant he could not have been placed in the NICS database. The judge and the shrink agreed to outpatient therapy and that is not any part of the prohibiting criteria.

The criteria is established by Congress and it demands due process (the actions of a doctor or a judge) before firearm rights are taken. That "everyone" knew he was nuts doesn't make the grade (thankfully) and that my and your rights aren't in the hands of a "PC judge" to take away because he doesn't like my politics of if the pizza delivery guy says you are a kook, is a good thing.

[Gunny]

I agree with this, and Yes....what is an assault rifle domestically? They do not exist. By ATF laws,
they are prohibited from being owned unless one holds a legal permit.

I missed this one. The anti gunners have a specific definition for an "assault rifle"; which, anyone who has ever been in the military knows is a total joke. A bayonet lug? Really? A military sling. Really? Guess what? A Remington 700 has none of the above. No sling keepers. No strap. No bayonet. It can "assault: you at 1500 meters at 1800 fps.

The law is stupid. Why don't we just call criminals criminals and bust their a$$es? Oh but that would be profiling. I'll profile your a$$ the second I see you and I'll lay in the sand for a week studying your habits. I'll know when you're going to the head before you do. And I'll take you out with a pocket knife.

All of this "assault" this or that is just bullshit. As I said ... I am the weapon. The tool I choose to use is irrelevant..

[Elessar]

I missed this one. The anti gunners have a specific definition for an "assault rifle"; which, anyone who has ever been in the military knows is a total joke. A bayonet lug? Really? A military sling. Really? Guess what? A Remington 700 has none of the above. No sling keepers. No strap. No bayonet. It can "assault: you at 1500 meters at 1800 fps.

The law is stupid. Why don't we just call criminals criminals and bust their a$$es? Oh but that would be profiling. I'll profile your a$$ the second I see you and I'll lay in the sand for a week studying your habits. I'll know when you're going to the head before you do. And I'll take you out with a pocket knife.

All of this "assault" this or that is just bullshit. As I said ... I am the weapon. The tool I choose to use is irrelevant..

Most anti-gun idiots don't know the difference between a squirt gun, pellet gun, or a pump shotgun. The list is
endless. I can rapid fire my pump shotgun and combat speed load it. Does that make it an assault gun? No,
it does not. But I've been trained how to handle one, just as you have.

Another topic, I know - but what is the thing with the liberals opposed to a death penalty, but encourage abortion?
A bit of Hypocrisy there.

[NightTrain]

Another topic, I know - but what is the thing with the liberals opposed to a death penalty, but encourage abortion?
A bit of Hypocrisy there.

Indeed.
Noir still hasn't figured out how to reconcile how he enthusiastically supports (financially, too!) abortions while becoming unhinged at the thought of killing a cow for food.

[Black Diamond]

That Cho was never involuntarily committed or adjudicated mentally defective meant he could not have been placed in the NICS database. The judge and the shrink agreed to outpatient therapy and that is not any part of the prohibiting criteria.

The criteria is established by Congress and it demands due process (the actions of a doctor or a judge) before firearm rights are taken. That "everyone" knew he was nuts doesn't make the grade (thankfully) and that my and your rights aren't in the hands of a "PC judge" to take away because he doesn't like my politics of if the pizza delivery guy says you are a kook, is a good thing.
You remind me of the old man and the sea.

[Black Diamond]

Indeed.
@Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517) still hasn't figured out how to reconcile how he enthusiastically supports (financially, too!) abortions while becoming unhinged at the thought of killing a cow for food.
Yeah something is wrong.

[gabosaurus]

Through the first trimester, abortion is removing cells from the human body. The death penalty kills a living person. Animals are tasty.

[aboutime]

Through the first trimester, abortion is removing cells from the human body. The death penalty kills a living person. Animals are tasty.


So...you support, and have no problem with this gabby?

http://icansayit.com/images/pba.gif

Can you look at your daughter, and say you COULD have done this to her?

[Elessar]

Through the first trimester, abortion is removing cells from the human body. The death penalty kills a living person. Animals are tasty.

You are still blankly advocating the death of a conceived human. Yet you oppose the
death penalty for a convicted murderer or mass rapist?

liberals are never clear on what they believe. Say one thing and out of the other side
of your mouth say something else.

I've got a stock of wooden spoons to pound on your highchair trays.

[darin]

My own personal opinion on owning firearms is I don't see why people need semi-auto assault rifles. Whatever the hell an assault rifle is.


Subjectively defined "need" should not determine objectively-defined rights. This is a non-story - or should be to anyone with a Freedom-liberty-inclined mindset. If somebody is liberty-minded and is upset by this new policy they may want to re-define themselves.

[Balu]

Looking from Russia...
I thought over all the arguments pro and contra as to obtaining firearms by civilians, those who don't have them for service and have a dual attitude to this subject.
So, combat arms are primarily designed and are used to kill. These arms have specific characteristics enabling to fulfill this very task. The civilians have another task - to defend themselves by stopping, injuring and as an exclusion even to kill. The maim characteristic for such arms is a stopping power to prevent a person from further actions. The rest is for police.
Therefore the characteristics of these types of arms must differ. I don't think that anybody can convince me that for self defense it is necessary to obtain bazooka, machine gun, sub-machine gun or carbine with shooting accuracy of several hundreds yards.
Sure, as any arm is potentially dangerous there must be certain regulations to obtain it: age, health and skills. I think that all these is quite reasonable.

[CSM]

Looking from Russia...
I thought over all the arguments pro and contra as to obtaining firearms by civilians, those who don't have them for service and have a dual attitude to this subject.
So, combat arms are primarily designed and are used to kill. These arms have specific characteristics enabling to fulfill this very task. The civilians have another task - to defend themselves by stopping, injuring and as an exclusion even to kill. The maim characteristic for such arms is a stopping power to prevent a person from further actions. The rest is for police.
Therefore the characteristics of these types of arms must differ. I don't think that anybody can convince me that for self defense it is necessary to obtain bazooka, machine gun, sub-machine gun or carbine with shooting accuracy of several hundreds yards.
Sure, as any arm is potentially dangerous there must be certain regulations to obtain it: age, health and skills. I think that all these is quite reasonable.

For me, I want the type of weapon that has the characteristics that allow defense of home and hearth AND those that enable the quick, efficient killing of my enemies. As for bazookas, machine guns, etc. I believe citizens have the right to own such weapons. The founding fathers did not exclude any type of arms from the 2d amendment, though weapons such as cannons, grenades and even battleships existed. Yeah, I know, some think no one would ever NEED such weapons. They believe that right up until they NEED them to overthrow an oppressive government.

[Gunny]

Subjectively defined "need" should not determine objectively-defined rights. This is a non-story - or should be to anyone with a Freedom-liberty-inclined mindset. If somebody is liberty-minded and is upset by this new policy they may want to re-define themselves.

Subjectively, "need" is a personal requirement based on a situation. "Want" is a personal desire based on emotion. I was merely stating my opinion, not disagreeing with anyone's needs or desires. I could care less what people run out and guy as long as it doesn't affect me.

A nutcase with a weapon affects everyone around him/her.

[Gunny]

For me, I want the type of weapon that has the characteristics that allow defense of home and hearth AND those that enable the quick, efficient killing of my enemies. As for bazookas, machine guns, etc. I believe citizens have the right to own such weapons. The founding fathers did not exclude any type of arms from the 2d amendment, though weapons such as cannons, grenades and even battleships existed. Yeah, I know, some think no one would ever NEED such weapons. They believe that right up until they NEED them to overthrow an oppressive government.

Again, I do not disagree. I don't care what anyone else has. Telling others what they need or want was not my point. I was stating my own personal preference for me.

I DO however believe in a background check. There ARE those people that shouldn't be allowed to have a butter knife.

[CSM]

Again, I do not disagree. I don't care what anyone else has. Telling others what they need or want was not my point. I was stating my own personal preference for me.

I DO however believe in a background check. There ARE those people that shouldn't be allowed to have a butter knife.

We are in agreement for sure. I keep and use firearms that I like based on performance, ease of use, etc. Those arms that I am more than familiar with and train with regularly. Even at my age and degraded eyesight, I can still shoot pretty well. I leave the heavy crew served weapons stuff to younger folks though I can still use one effectively if I had to.
And I ALWAYS carry a pocket knife ... heh.

[darin]

Subjectively, "need" is a personal requirement based on a situation. "Want" is a personal desire based on emotion. I was merely stating my opinion, not disagreeing with anyone's needs or desires. I couldn't care less what people run out and buy as long as it doesn't affect me.

A nutcase with a weapon affects everyone around him/her.

I consider it dangerous-talk when folks bring 'need' or 'want' into a discussion of rights because rights require no justification as they are bestowed upon the people by their creator - not by grant or compassion or benevolence of Government.

[Gunny]

We are in agreement for sure. I keep and use firearms that I like based on performance, ease of use, etc. Those arms that I am more than familiar with and train with regularly. Even at my age and degraded eyesight, I can still shoot pretty well. I leave the heavy crew served weapons stuff to younger folks though I can still use one effectively if I had to.
And I ALWAYS carry a pocket knife ... heh.

Got a 6" Buck under the pillow. I carry a blade in my PJ's. Have to be more careful with the firearms because of the special needs grandchild. Most are in storage and a few stashed in my truck.

You cn just bet I already have 3 routes out of my room to my truck that don't include going through the house. :)

[BoogyMan]

Isn't it the same background check, and same due process, as before but with a new database to search?

Not as I understand it. As I understand it this one is a purely one sided governmental decision. I could be wrong.

[CSM]

Got a 6" Buck under the pillow. I carry a blade in my PJ's. Have to be more careful with the firearms because of the special needs grandchild. Most are in storage and a few stashed in my truck.

You cn just bet I already have 3 routes out of my room to my truck that don't include going through the house. :)

Yep. Got my SOG Bowie at hand in the house (among many other blades) and plenty of other stuff (firearms, ammo, reloading gear) if need be. The tactical planning goes without saying.... ingress, egress routes, fields of fire, fall back positions, etc. No kids at my place but still have an appropriate amount of safety in place too.

[Noir]

Indeed.
@Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517) still hasn't figured out how to reconcile how he enthusiastically supports (financially, too!) abortions while becoming unhinged at the thought of killing a cow for food.

I'm sure you support the right to chose abortion in some cases (most sane people do), I support them in some more cases than you would.
You also support animal abuse in some cases, I support it in less cases than you would.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm sure you support the right to chose abortion in some cases (most sane people do), I support them in some more cases than you would.
You also support animal abuse in some cases, I support it in less cases than you would.


How about we compromise and not kill or abuse anything that is innocent and defenseless?