Newsweak link (archived) for those who want to read the article:
Seven preventable mass shootings in a decade, I'm pretty sure letting islamists shoot shit up IS their job:
Well gee, the FBM has been nothing but forthright and aboveboard about everything so I guess I'll trust them. It's not like there's a pattern with the FBM and islamists going on shooting sprees, nossir:
Nope, 100% trust in the agency that kneels for BLM.
Preaching to the choir my friend.
As for the language, you're 100% right that it's "vague" because that's how they'll ultimately outlaw all guns.
"We need to pass commonsense legislation that requires mental health exams to be a gun owner."
<A short time later>
"It's been determined that wanting to own a gun is a mental illness, therefore, you're denied the ability to own a gun."
It's a VERY slippery fucking slope, greased by those who are suckered in by appeals to emotion rather than logic.
Shooter had a social media history full of anti-conservative posts, as well as anti-islamophobia rants and reportedly, sympathies for ISIS. He murdered 10 white people in cold blood, yet this is somehow not terrorism?
Fuck Jared, the MSM and the rest of the clowns who refuse to call out fundamentalism.
"It’s simply about saying we need reasonable gun safety laws."
Reasonable is code for infringement, period.
“Let us all agree that we need background checks."
In the case of both shootings in the past week, both passed background checks...
"People who will have been found to be a danger to themselves and others should not be able to purchase a gun."
Agreed. The islamist supposedly had an assault charge on his record but wasn't prevented from buying a gun. Why? Despite a supposed history of mental illness, and family members stating they saw him playing with a new gun just a couple of days before the shooting, they did nothing. Despite CO's (unconstitutional) red flag law which would've enabled them to report him and have the gun taken away, they did what? Nothing. So now, because they failed to act, law-abiding citizens are expected to give up more rights in return for what?
"Let’s just be practical and agree. "
Again, code for infringement, period.
“"It is now also incumbent on the media to review its coverage and come clean with viewers and readers. When its breathless coverage turns out to be deeply misleading, it should explain how and why they got it wrong,” she added."
Yet they took the exact opposite stance during the Trump administration, despite being called out as fake news on countless occasions. The hypocrisy is almost as ugly as the person spewing it.
"Americans simply won't do this manual labor at just about any price it seems."
No, they won't do it for slave labor wages. Illegals can afford to be paid less because of a number of factors, including not paying for things like car insurance. "Both" parties exploit illegals for their own benefit, to the detriment of citizens.
Yale was already being sued for discriminating against asians (until Bo Jiden's DoJ dropped the suit last month). Given the current climate, she won't lose, she'll settle out of court for an undisclosed sum and that will be that.