today’s wedgiest


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Comment by DougM (flawed) — June 14, 2017 @ 10:53 am

  2. I expect congressional security details will be up-arming. The two officers had to engage the shooter with pistols from about 100 feet. “Not a fair fight”, as a police spokesman put it.

    While flipping channels, I came across the CBS team suggesting a highly charged partisan atmosphere was to blame. Ya think? It’s past time for the media to examine their role in creating that atmosphere. But that won’t happen. They’ll probably try to blame it on Trump and his “heated rhetoric”.

    Comment by Daemon — June 14, 2017 @ 1:57 pm

  3. That whole “heated rhetoric” bullshit annoys the hell out of me.
    Soros and his paid goons were the violent tinder at anything resembling Trump or Republican events.
    8 years of law unenforcement and hating America were enough for most Americans, so they jumped for the candidate that pretended he was with them.
    I wasn’t a Trump supporter, but it was pretty clear that Trump changing his party (and his money) from “D” to pretend “R” didn’t come without consequences from the entrenched communist Ds.

    Comment by Buzz — June 14, 2017 @ 2:12 pm

  4. I’m OUTRAGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I paid like $700 for mine, where are these <$500 AR-15s?
    Heck, you can't even get a WASR-10 (Romanian AK) for less than $500 anymore.

    I demand he tell us where these AR-15s are!!!!!!!

    Comment by Veeshir — June 14, 2017 @ 2:38 pm

  5. Problem is, Continental Congress almost bought 100 Belton Flintlocks – a single load, multiround firearm – in 1777. They decided Belton wanted too much money.

    Here’s the correspondence between Belton and Congress.

    Comment by stoo — June 14, 2017 @ 4:51 pm

  6. ^4
    Veeshir – I’m with you … less than $500? Damn!

    Comment by bo1921 — June 14, 2017 @ 5:45 pm

  7. How is it that there was such piss poor security?

    Was there inside “help”?

    Comment by Joe Bandmember ® ≠ "damn right I'm not equal to that" ™ — June 14, 2017 @ 9:33 pm

  8. Was there inside “help”?
    I’d like to know how a no-name guy from Illinois knew there was a Republican Congressional practice at that little field, well outside of DC, so early in the morning.
    I thought I read a lot, but I didn’t see anything about it.
    One of those 90 out-of-work Dem staffers who left Chaffetz’s team in a huff?

    Comment by dick, not quite dead white guy — June 14, 2017 @ 10:35 pm

  9. How does $399 sound, Veeshir?

    Comment by Buzz — June 15, 2017 @ 3:49 am

  10. “Available for under $500″


    $500 dollars was a ton of money back then!
    We need federally subsidized AR-15 purchasing programs, basically a Second Amendment Care Act to help lower income prospective buyers.

    Comment by accipiterNW — June 15, 2017 @ 7:34 am

  11. Thanks Buzz, you learn something new every day.
    The sale must have ended, it was $475 when I clicked.
    Still under $500, I haven’t seen any scary black rifles for that cheap since before Obama.

    Comment by Veeshir — June 15, 2017 @ 7:40 am

  12. I’m just gonna go with The Mistress of Snark’s take on this:

    Comment by rickn8or — June 15, 2017 @ 12:09 pm

  13. Check CDNN for black rifles at low price. They should have a pretty fair selection at or under 500. The market is glutted at this time.

    Comment by Brad — June 15, 2017 @ 10:19 pm

  14. The framers of the Constitution wanted individuals to be able to purchase and own what the Continental Army was using: Top of the line military 1780′s assault rifles.

    Today’s Army uses M-4 rifles with burst fire selector switches, and belt-fed machineguns.

    These are the weapons protected by the second amendment. Not your daddy’s Rem-chester deer rifle.

    Comment by Kristophr — June 16, 2017 @ 12:29 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.210 Powered by WordPress