Bernie Sanders Brags About His ‘D-‘ from the NRA

[fskimospy]

Sounds like a considerable amount of manpower and work...again what good is a law which relies on essentially the honor system for compliance?

It doesn't rely on the honor system for compliance any more than any other law so I'm not sure what the issue is.

Not saying they are magical and special...the question is what type of penalty is imposed upon the seller and at that point one could ask does it even matter as chances are the gun was already used in a crime for its registration status to come into question

Well sure it matters, specifically because the gun was used in a crime. I'm open to ideas for penalties!

What is the mechanism?....again its not like a car which has to be registered and insured to be on the road...what is to stop anyone from just selling a gun for cash and not processing a background check, if a prospective buyer fails a background check is it the seller who is left in the awkward position of telling the buyer this?...logistically I fail to see any options being presented as to how exactly this would be handled.

What's to stop anyone from breaking almost any law?

Logistically it seems extremely easy for almost everyone, which would be that you transfer guns through an FFL or some sort of other intermediary that processes the background check. I guess people in remote locations might have an issue but that's a small exception and hardly a good reason to not pass common sense laws like this. I have to say every objection you've brought up seems to be really easily dealt with.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet another poll tax on our constitutional rights. I can't wait for the next National ID thread when someone brings up how amazingly hard it will be on poor people because it will cost some made up sum of money for them to get it every 10 years...

lol do you have any clue what a poll tax is? Here's a hint, it's a tax at the polls. There's no such thing as a poll tax for any non-electoral related right. I can't wait for you to bring it up in some ID thread so I can call you a moron for a second time, haha.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Wouldn't it be awesome if the police had access to a national gun registry database? Just think of all the people registering their shotgun that they use maybe once every few years. Now routine responses to domestic disputes or marijuana dealing can always be performed by a squad of officers armored and ready to fire.

 

[bozack]

Aren't most laws based on the honor system?

The difference is that a national database with fines or jail time for non compliance, just like there are for cars, would create an incentive where law abiding citizens follow the law and criminals would have to find other avenues to obtain weapons. It would also make catching good citizens turned criminal easier (for example crimes of passion).

No, most things which require you to register them upon transfer or sale have some mechanism in place where folks can't use them until they are registered.

In this case you're talking about items which we are telling people you must comply but until a law is broken there will be no way to verify that.

Also there is no clarity around who would be responsible for submitting said checks. And again should someone fail their check is it up to the seller to break that news to the possible buyer? if so seems like that would make for a very awkward situation.

 

[ivwshane]

Sounds like a great business plan for some enterprising person who supports gun control to pursue. You'd further your goal while making money on the deal. Of course that creates a situation where whatever technology is used to allow the gun to fire is just as easily stolen (e.g. RFID bracelet, etc.) or hackable (see the biometric fingerprint reader on iPhone, etc.)

The iPhone also has the ability to be disabled remotely by the owner so...

The technology already exists, it's just not ready for prime time.

Can I assume, by your response, that you would support such a requirement when it's ready? Would you also support subsidizing in order to speed up its readiness?

 

[chucky2]

I don't like frivolous laws that don't accomplish their goals any more than anyone else. Which is why I've called for the ability of the CDC or other appropriate agency to fully study the issue in the same way the CBO studies economic proposals. I'm also not opposed to sunset provisions if no impact of the law can be found after a reasonable amount of time has passed.

No, the way you'd do that is have your study first, then craft laws around that, not the other way around. The problem with this is we've got five main areas of concern with gun death by civilian:

1.) Suicide. Excepting minors getting access to a firearm and killing themselves (because they are minors they should not be allowed to make that call by themselves), this is adults wanting to have control over their own bodies - and I am sure the majority of these Gun Grabbers wouldn't want the Gov or anyone else telling adults what they can do with their own bodies (although I have this funny funny feeling we're going to see that argument made...Nick? Up for some Nick'ing?). Since no laws are going to prevent the vast majorities of these adult suicides (I'm going to go out on limb and say people wanting to off themselves aren't going to go buy their first firearm too often...it's something they already have), a reduction in this number isn't going to happen. And it shouldn't happen. If an adult doesn't want to live and wants to go out by their own hand, who are we to get in the way of that?

2.) Accidental shootings. You can lump this into AD, intentionally firing at a legitimate target but not meaning to actually shoot what the bullet hit, etc. No additional laws are going to appreciably reduce this number.

3.) Actual intentional legitimate shooting of someone, i.e. shoot the criminal. We'd never want to limit this number, the more criminals that are shot, and hopefully killed, the better. Save for a training requirement (that is, a poll tax via having to pay for training), not going to reduce this number by laws, nor should we. I'm perfectly fine with the robber or mugger or auto thief or etc. not roaming this earth any longer.

And now the final two...

4.) Dumbfucks shooting people they shouldn't be shooting. For example, an 'if I had a son' shooting another 'if I had a son' because, well, who really knows... Or, an 'if I had an uncle' shooting an 'if I had 9 year old son' because another 'if I had an uncle' had a beef with him. Brilliance! Or, Billy Bo Bob shooting his mothers cousins step-kid because he heard he stole his meth stash. No laws will prevent this stupidity because none of these people GAF about laws - they're on their own wavelength. With 300M+ firearms in the US, you will never take enough firearms off the street in a legit non-2A non-Gun Grabber manner to put a dent in this number.

5.) Mentally disturbed people who manifest their insanity by shooting up people for no valid reason. As Bummer has already confirmed, legislation isn't going to prevent this.

So given all the above (and, it's a given on the vast majority), exactly what legislation is going to solve them here in Realityland? We won't even get into it's none of the Govs fucking business what firearms I possess...

I'd prefer an investment into smart gun technology that works over that requiring a safe. That way if a gun is stolen it will have little value to a thief. Plus some people prefer to keep their gun close and readily accessible in the case of intrusion.

The problem I see with the smart weapons is they'd be too easily defeatable, not to mention it won't solve valid owners with valid access to their firearms going on a bender and killing people. Theft it might initially help but because guns are by necessity able to be broken down to be cleaned, I don't see how a smart gun could not have the 'smart' features removed. It has a smart trigger? Great. I steal a gun, get a drop in trigger mailed to wherever I need it mailed so it's not traced back to me. Poof. The smart gun is now a dumb gun. All we did was poll tax via legislation for required features and it didn't do a damn thing.

 

[chucky2]

lol do you have any clue what a poll tax is? Here's a hint, it's a tax at the polls. There's no such thing as a poll tax for any non-electoral related right. I can't wait for you to bring it up in some ID thread so I can call you a moron for a second time, haha.

Ahh Nick...Nick'ing...color me shocked you went with that route lulz... Oh Nick... :wub:

 

[ivwshane]

No, most things which require you to register them upon transfer or sale have some mechanism in place where folks can't use them until they are registered.

Like cars? No, not really.

In this case you're talking about items which we are telling people you must comply but until a law is broken there will be no way to verify that.

Yeah that's how most laws work. They deter people because the potential penalty is worse than the benefit of breaking a law.

Also there is no clarity around who would be responsible for submitting said checks. And again should someone fail their check is it up to the seller to break that news to the possible buyer? if so seems like that would make for a very awkward situation.

The check should be done by the seller, just as it is now when you go to a licensed dealer. Life is full of awkward situations. If it's such a concern to you then the checks can be required to be performed by a licensed dealer or a notary.

 

[bozack]

It doesn't rely on the honor system for compliance any more than any other law so I'm not sure what the issue is.

Seriously? name the other things which individuals can sell to another private party which require some type of background check to be performed by the seller before they can sell.

Well sure it matters, specifically because the gun was used in a crime. I'm open to ideas for penalties!

I am not in favor of laws that don't actually add any value or are beneficial so I'd think you would be the one to suggest the penalties since you are all for this.

What's to stop anyone from breaking almost any law?

Logistically it seems extremely easy for almost everyone, which would be that you transfer guns through an FFL or some sort of other intermediary that processes the background check. I guess people in remote locations might have an issue but that's a small exception and hardly a good reason to not pass common sense laws like this. I have to say every objection you've brought up seems to be really easily dealt with.

The chances and or fear of getting caught are what prevent most folks and the punishments attached to them.

How many people actually bother paying sales tax on items they order from out of state when their state says they have to?

And now your talking about further complicating the situation by mandating that everyone work through an intermediate if they wish to sell a gun, again hoping that they will bother to do so in the first place instead of just selling it out of their garage.

I have to say you have yet to address any of the objections I have brought up in this thread so you're saying they are easily dealt with just highlights your level of ignorance and the blinders you have to this as a possible logistical nightmare.

 

[glenn1]

The iPhone also has the ability to be disabled remotely by the owner so...

The technology already exists, it's just not ready for prime time.

Can I assume, by your response, that you would support such a requirement when it's ready? Would you also support subsidizing in order to speed up its readiness?

My level of support would depend on the implementation. I'm not reflexively opposed to the concept but I do somewhat feel it's a solution in search of a problem. Just for sake of argument let's say the technology worked flawlessly using requirements every citizen agreed upon (unlikely, but again it's a hypothetical), would you then advocate for it being added to other products like cars? In some ways I could honestly see England's government mandating "smart knives."

 

[bozack]

Like cars? No, not really.

What?....like I said, name something else which requires a federal background check on a private party sale and then detail how that is currently handled?

As you said Cars aren't a good example because to get them on the road you have to have them licensed, insured, and inspected...they are highly visible and plenty of police regularly patrol the highway.

Yeah that's how most laws work. They deter people because the potential penalty is worse than the benefit of breaking a law.

What will be the penalty, and what if the gun changed hands more than once, does the original owner get tracked down? what if they claim it was stolen?...again how is this enforced?

The check should be done by the seller, just as it is now when you go to a licensed dealer. Life is full of awkward situations. If it's such a concern to you then the checks can be required to be performed by a licensed dealer or a notary.

A licensed dealer is a professional who sells guns for their profession, you're now trying to equate the situation at a gun dealer with the private seller who has one and wishes to sell it?

Why should we put people in the position of telling folks they failed a background check?

What happens when the buyer gets angry and possibly something bad occurs?

The difference is that a national database with fines or jail time for non compliance, just like there are for cars, would create an incentive where law abiding citizens follow the law and criminals would have to find other avenues to obtain weapons. It would also make catching good citizens turned criminal easier (for example crimes of passion).

So this is getting blurred...you guys continually refer to a national database, or a database of record of sale....whereas all that is being proposed are background checks....

Given that no one other than you guys are talking about national databases of gun sales my question still stands...what mechanism will be in place to enforce that a background check occurs prior to a sale by a private party, and if a background check does not occur and a gun changes hands what mechanism will be in place to penalize the person who sold the gun, and what if it changed hands multiple times before it was involved in an incident.

Keeping in mind that not all states require you to register your firearms...and the ATF only traces guns to their point of retail sale, not individual, that is up to the state and even that is only as good as the folks who actually register.

 

[fskimospy]

Seriously? name the other things which individuals can sell to another private party which require some type of background check to be performed by the seller before they can sell.

'We should not subject gun sales to this regulation because we don't subject the sales of other things to this regulation' is a terrible argument.

I am not in favor of laws that don't actually add any value or are beneficial so I'd think you would be the one to suggest the penalties since you are all for this.

Meh, I'm open to suggestions as to how harsh they should be. Maybe a few months in jail.

The chances and or fear of getting caught are what prevent most folks and the punishments attached to them.

Well there you go, you answered your own question! I doubt many people would want to chance jail time, large fines, or a criminal record rather than drive over to the FFL.

How many people actually bother paying sales tax on items they order from out of state when their state says they have to?

So what? This isn't anything like not paying sales taxes.

And now your talking about further complicating the situation by mandating that everyone work through an intermediate if they wish to sell a gun, again hoping that they will bother to do so in the first place instead of just selling it out of their garage.

And by 'further complicating' you mean 'adding very little extra complexity'. You might think that selling deadly weapons should be as easy as having a yard sale, but I disagree. As for 'hoping' that they do so, I'm not 'hoping' that they follow the law any more than I hope people follow any other law. If they don't follow it then they may pay the price in the future. Some people might say 'I'll risk a few months in jail rather than drive over to the FFL', but plenty of people won't.

I have to say you have yet to address any of the objections I have brought up in this thread so you're saying they are easily dealt with just highlights your level of ignorance and the blinders you have to this as a possible logistical nightmare.

I've addressed them all actually, it's neither a logistical nightmare or an implementation one. I think you don't like the answers you're getting but that's your issue not mine.

I'm serious, I've been genuinely surprised at just how incredibly small the issues you've identified are. They basically boil down to the exact same issues that any law faces and a complaint that people might have to spend an extra 20 minutes selling a gun. Those register about as close to zero on my give a shit scale as it's possible to register.

You come from a place where you are convinced that universal background checks are a bad idea and now you're grasping for ideas to convince yourself why. It should work the other way.

 

[fskimospy]

A licensed dealer is a professional who sells guns for their profession, you're now trying to equate the situation at a gun dealer with the private seller who has one and wishes to sell it?

Why should we put people in the position of telling folks they failed a background check?

What happens when the buyer gets angry and possibly something bad occurs?

So now you're saying we shouldn't do background checks because people who fail them might become enraged and (presumably) attack someone, destroy property, etc.

I have to say that sounds like a really good reason in SUPPORT of background checks, haha. Thanks for the help!

 

[ivwshane]

No, the way you'd do that is have your study first, then craft laws around that, not the other way around. The problem with this is we've got five main areas of concern with gun death by civilian:

I thought that was implied by my post. If it wasn't, now you know.

1.) Suicide. Excepting minors getting access to a firearm and killing themselves (because they are minors they should not be allowed to make that call by themselves), this is adults wanting to have control over their own bodies - and I am sure the majority of these Gun Grabbers wouldn't want the Gov or anyone else telling adults what they can do with their own bodies (although I have this funny funny feeling we're going to see that argument made...Nick? Up for some Nick'ing?). Since no laws are going to prevent the vast majorities of these adult suicides (I'm going to go out on limb and say people wanting to off themselves aren't going to go buy their first firearm too often...it's something they already have), a reduction in this number isn't going to happen. And it shouldn't happen. If an adult doesn't want to live and wants to go out by their own hand, who are we to get in the way of that?

2.) Accidental shootings. You can lump this into AD, intentionally firing at a legitimate target but not meaning to actually shoot what the bullet hit, etc. No additional laws are going to appreciably reduce this number.

3.) Actual intentional legitimate shooting of someone, i.e. shoot the criminal. We'd never want to limit this number, the more criminals that are shot, and hopefully killed, the better. Save for a training requirement (that is, a poll tax via having to pay for training), not going to reduce this number by laws, nor should we. I'm perfectly fine with the robber or mugger or auto thief or etc. not roaming this earth any longer.

And now the final two...

4.) Dumbfucks shooting people they shouldn't be shooting. For example, an 'if I had a son' shooting another 'if I had a son' because, well, who really knows... Or, an 'if I had an uncle' shooting an 'if I had 9 year old son' because another 'if I had an uncle' had a beef with him. Brilliance! Or, Billy Bo Bob shooting his mothers cousins step-kid because he heard he stole his meth stash. No laws will prevent this stupidity because none of these people GAF about laws - they're on their own wavelength. With 300M+ firearms in the US, you will never take enough firearms off the street in a legit non-2A non-Gun Grabber manner to put a dent in this number.

5.) Mentally disturbed people who manifest their insanity by shooting up people for no valid reason. As Bummer has already confirmed, legislation isn't going to prevent this.

So given all the above (and, it's a given on the vast majority), exactly what legislation is going to solve them here in Realityland? We won't even get into it's none of the Govs fucking business what firearms I possess...


You are falling into illogical territory. Laws do not prevent crime from happening, they make the incentive for committing that crime smaller and in turn less likely to happen.
Btw, no one cares what you do with your firearms or how many you have so long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights and having a database of what you have that can be traced back to you should be enough of a deterrent to not commit a crime to any rational person.



The problem I see with the smart weapons is they'd be too easily defeatable, not to mention it won't solve valid owners with valid access to their firearms going on a bender and killing people. Theft it might initially help but because guns are by necessity able to be broken down to be cleaned, I don't see how a smart gun could not have the 'smart' features removed. It has a smart trigger? Great. I steal a gun, get a drop in trigger mailed to wherever I need it mailed so it's not traced back to me. Poof. The smart gun is now a dumb gun. All we did was poll tax via legislation for required features and it didn't do a damn thing.

You are now grasping at straws. You could also just 3D print your own gun or mill your own gun as well, why steal it? Like I said no law is perfect and laws aren't designed to stop a particular behavior they are to minimize the likelihood of that behavior occurring by disincentivizing it.

 

[ivwshane]

My level of support would depend on the implementation. I'm not reflexively opposed to the concept but I do somewhat feel it's a solution in search of a problem. Just for sake of argument let's say the technology worked flawlessly using requirements every citizen agreed upon (unlikely, but again it's a hypothetical), would you then advocate for it being added to other products like cars? In some ways I could honestly see England's government mandating "smart knives."

Again, I'm not for frivolous laws, so any proposed laws that would mandate smart technology would have to show a need for it. If death by car theft became an issue and this was a good deterrent then hell yes I'd be for it.

 

[BoberFett]

What part of "background checks for all sales" do you not understand? The "gun show loophole" isn't about dealers, it's about private sales. It's horrible wording has been used by gun nutters to discredit the loophole for years without ever having to address the issue.



**edit Eskimospy beat me to it, damn it!

Gun grabbers using the phrase "gun show loophole" is somehow the fault of "gun nutters".

LOL, Democrats can't even take responsibility for themselves, but believe they should be given responsibility over others.

 

[ivwshane]

Thank you. I really don't have the patience to answer such ridiculous questions. Especially since they are issues that affect every law.

'We should not subject gun sales to this regulation because we don't subject the sales of other things to this regulation' is a terrible argument.



Meh, I'm open to suggestions as to how harsh they should be. Maybe a few months in jail.



Well there you go, you answered your own question! I doubt many people would want to chance jail time, large fines, or a criminal record rather than drive over to the FFL.



So what? This isn't anything like not paying sales taxes.



And by 'further complicating' you mean 'adding very little extra complexity'. You might think that selling deadly weapons should be as easy as having a yard sale, but I disagree. As for 'hoping' that they do so, I'm not 'hoping' that they follow the law any more than I hope people follow any other law. If they don't follow it then they may pay the price in the future. Some people might say 'I'll risk a few months in jail rather than drive over to the FFL', but plenty of people won't.



I've addressed them all actually, it's neither a logistical nightmare or an implementation one. I think you don't like the answers you're getting but that's your issue not mine.

I'm serious, I've been genuinely surprised at just how incredibly small the issues you've identified are. They basically boil down to the exact same issues that any law faces and a complaint that people might have to spend an extra 20 minutes selling a gun. Those register about as close to zero on my give a shit scale as it's possible to register.

You come from a place where you are convinced that universal background checks are a bad idea and now you're grasping for ideas to convince yourself why. It should work the other way.

 

[BoberFett]

My intent was to illustrate the blatant dishonesty of gun control advocates who narrowly frame the issue as a gun show loophole when they really intend to apply significant restrictions broadly to all private sales between family and friends instead. It's a lie that progressives appear to be quite comfortable with it seems.

Typical Democrat dishonesty. They say "gun show loophole" in polls because it's a convenient bogeyman to get their "overwhelming support" for "common sense" laws. Then they turn around and use those poll results to say "See, everyone wants to close the private sale loophole." and claim that it's obviously what they meant, and that people taking polls obviously know that words mean something different than what they actually mean.

It's all got a very Frank Luntz feel to it. And we all know how Democrats hate Republican tactics... unless they're the ones using them.

 

[ivwshane]

Gun grabbers using the phrase "gun show loophole" is somehow the fault of "gun nutters".

LOL, Democrats can't even take responsibility for themselves, but believe they should be given responsibility over others.

Yawn!! Your bit is tiring and old. Get a new shtick.

 

[ivwshane]

Typical Democrat dishonesty. They say "gun show loophole" in polls because it's a convenient bogeyman to get their "overwhelming support" for "common sense" laws. Then they turn around and use those poll results to say "See, everyone wants to close the private sale loophole." and claim that it's obviously what they meant, and that people taking polls obviously know that words mean something different than what they actually mean.

It's all got a very Frank Luntz feel to it. And we all know how Democrats hate Republican tactics... unless they're the ones using them.

Lol, no shithead, you hate Democrats using Republican tactics. That's why you never complain when it's the Republicans doing it. You are the kid that cheats on a test and then tells on the guy next to you who is cheating too, you are a hypocrite.

 

[fskimospy]

Typical Democrat dishonesty. They say "gun show loophole" in polls because it's a convenient bogeyman to get their "overwhelming support" for "common sense" laws. Then they turn around and use those poll results to say "See, everyone wants to close the private sale loophole." and claim that it's obviously what they meant, and that people taking polls obviously know that words mean something different than what they actually mean.

Not sure where you got this idea from but it's hilariously wrong. I think you may have been taken in by typical Republican dishonesty like the kind that DSF was displaying there. I imagine this will cause you to speak at length about the dishonesty of Republicans and conservatives, because you just play it down the middle, right?

Here's a great example of the kind of poll question that gets 90%+ support for background checks:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-...y-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2057

59. Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

Can't get any simpler or more straightforward than that, can you?

It's all got a very Frank Luntz feel to it. And we all know how Democrats hate Republican tactics... unless they're the ones using them.

Looks like you got duped again, huh.

 

[chucky2]

You are falling into illogical territory. Laws do not prevent crime from happening, they make the incentive for committing that crime smaller and in turn less likely to happen.

But clearly we already have all the laws we need on the books, and look where we are at today. More laws are not going to do anything. People who ignore the laws because they DGAF (whether it's because they're that type of person and/or they're mental) aren't going to magically start following these new "Common Sense" laws because gosh golly, we really mean it this time! I followed the law when I got my Glock, because for the most part I respect the law and currently wish to follow it. If I regress to a non-law abiding individual and want to make a shady firearm sale, guess what? Not a f*cking law you have on the books is going to stop me. So what is the point of the new "Common Sense" laws then?

Btw, no one cares what you do with your firearms or how many you have so long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights and having a database of what you have that can be traced back to you should be enough of a deterrent to not commit a crime to any rational person.

If no one cares, that's great! I don't need to be in a database then since they don't care. What's that? Someone cares (today, tomorrow, whenever)? Sounds like I have a valid concern (well, except for the firearms that fell overboard on a boating trip...those are gone forever I guess........)

You are now grasping at straws. You could also just 3D print your own gun or mill your own gun as well, why steal it? Like I said no law is perfect and laws aren't designed to stop a particular behavior they are to minimize the likelihood of that behavior occurring by disincentivizing it.

I wasn't being a smart @ss, I was being completely genuine. Go and look at some firearm websites and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. There are a lot of options, especially for the modular pistols that are ever so popular with the crowd that stringently follows all those laws you think are perfectly adhered to. How many aftermarket triggers for just a Glock G19 alone? Jesus don't even bring AR platform into this. Then you get into parts of the trigger. What you'd have to do with your idea is to have the manufacturers come up with a lower design that has different mounting points for the assemblies that are 'smart', such that retrofitting current non-'smart' parts into a new 'smart' lower would not be possible. Then you'd have to treat any sale of non-'smart' parts for these new 'smart' lowers like they do for burst/auto ARs, except probably be even more psycho about it. Otherwise I buy your smart gun (in theory an idea that at least can help combat my #1 for minor and #4, if the gun owner hasn't allowed the 'smart' gun to be used by the minor or if the firearm is recovered for the shooting in #4), get whatever I need to make it non-'smart', and now your legislation and poll tax passed onto me the gun buyer to pay for the new 'smart' features is completely worthless (well, worthless in Realityland...it was worth something to the Politicians who got their brownie points with their pet Gun Grabber constituency for 'do something!, anything!, to fight this epidemic! ((and get that mm while you can!))).

Seriously, go look at how many lower triggers there are out there...

 

[BoberFett]

OK, I got lost again.

I though this was about background checks,

Now that is about I see that is about National Registration Plan. I need to change the way I look at it.


.

Of course you're lost, you're supposed to be. They keep using words that they say mean something else, move the goalposts, and then tell you that YOU'RE the problem when you try to pin them down on anything factual. It's very slimy. But then we are talking about Democrats, the other side of the Republican coin.

 

[bozack]

Thank you. I really don't have the patience to answer such ridiculous questions. Especially since they are issues that affect every law.

Thank him for what? not really answering anything.

Neither you nor he have provided any useful information as to how this would work. You're both advocating for it without having a real grasp on what it would actually accomplish.

 

[BoberFett]

Hmm...for the life of me I can't think of any groups that the right has successfully helped to get rid of or is trying to get rid of now. Can you? Nah! That's never happened, otherwise we would have seen a post from you about it condemning the right for such unpatriotic action!

Go troll somewhere else hack!

So you think that it's good that the Republicans want Planned Parenthood dissolved?

You have suffered serious brain damage at some point in your life.