dailycaller.com
NY career politician Charlie Rangel (yep, same one convicted of 11 ethics violations but remaining in office) sums it all up.
>"Ordinary citizens don't need guns."
>Reporter points out all the armed security surrounding him and other representatives
>"Well that's different... [extended boutique of condescending laughter]... we deserve, er, need more protection."
Our elite lives matter, your lives don't.
Other urls found in this thread:
cnn.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
nbcnews.com
twitter.com
our civil liberties are secured.
Of course, thats what happens when they see themselves as nobiltiy.
Send this to BLM
Anyone who needs police protection will get it. Politicians obviously need it.
I don't see any contradiction here.
So an individual should not be able to protect his home and family?
the british model works best overall, where weapons are discouraged.
compare the crime rates for similar places in USA and UK, and you will see that they have reduced crime while we have not.
but thats wrong ya dingus
there couldn't be other factors that contribute to US' crime rates. nope. no DARK secret there at all.
HYPOCRISY MANIFEST!!!
Shall not be infringed
Fuck off shill
except thats wrong since crime didnt fall in the UK and instead gun crime just shifted into other forms of crime involving knives, etc.
>but thats wrong ya dingus
I have to venture outside of Sup Forums once in a while to regain my sanity. You should too.
well yes and no. very few white americans actually get attacked in their homes by african americans, while lots of white americans die gun related deaths in their homes every day.
it's time for common sense gun regulations.
you will never ever see a crime where 50 people die and 50 are injured by one knife welding suspect.
>
>you will never ever see a crime where 50 people die and 50 are injured by one knife welding suspect.
its only a matter of time
remember how hard it was for 10 cops to stop a nig
If you need to use photoshopped images to win the argument, you're admitting that you've lost the argument.
Isn't this the same guy who oversaw the Hughes Amendment vote?
U wot m8
convicted of tax evasion. never went to jail only removed from the Tax Committee he chaired! Again both sides of the aisle protect other criminals.
I'm mostly libtard but Charlie Rangel and all of these opportunistic assholes are the worst.
If the US had wanted to follow the British model they would have established a monarchy in 1780.
No worries, tho. It is rapidly morphing into just that. Government office in the US has long ago lost the orientation of "by, of and for the people." The Democratic party, and sadly Republicans too, have been steering the US ever farther toward some sick form of oligarchy under which citizens surrender ever more of their personal liberty to the power elite. Same elite which, by Hillary's example, can enrich themselves while selectively destroying any evidence of accountability which might challenge the lies.
>Anyone who needs police protection will get it. Politicians obviously need it.
Unless they can afford to buy the officers off-duty time right, or private security? There is no defense for Rangel to say something that fucked up, other than it showing his actual intent.
A simple google search says otherwise:
cnn.com
en.wikipedia.org
>implying the tool used to commit a crime matters
en.wikipedia.org
>implying you need a rifle to kill a bunch of people
nbcnews.com
>implying breivik used an AR
>implying woo bum-kon didn't steal a shitton of grenades from the equivalent of the national guard armory and a couple fucking m2's
>implying shawn nelson didn't steal a fucking tank from the national guard in san diego
we should really make crime illegal, that would solve all our problems
Libtards gun control argument summed up beautifully in one image.
No argument to that. Nice quote user.
Yes he should have used the one where they ran out of guns to confiscate so they began an antigun campaign on PELLET RIFLES.
I do believe it is on now.
>A reminder that since Port Arthur happened, Australia's government changed the definition of a mass shooter from 3 victims to 5 victims.
>This is the ONLY reason they can say that we have had "no mass shootings" since the law changed.