McAuliffe retreats on carry-permit reciprocity, restores agreements with 25 states

posted at 12:01 pm on January 29, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

Just five weeks after Virginia’s attorney general unilaterally severed carry-permit reciprocity with 25 states, Governor Terry McAuliffe has reversed course, reinstating the reciprocal relationships.  The Washington Post’s Jenna Portnoy frames this as a trade of concessions between Republicans and Democrats on the issue, but it’s a full retreat with a threadbare political cover:

Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Republican leaders will announce Friday they have reached a deal on Virginia’s gun regulations in a surprising moment of compromise on an issue that had threatened to poison the remainder of the governor’s term in office.

McAuliffe (D) agreed to legislation that says the state must recognize concealed-handgun permits from nearly all states — a reversal of Attorney General Mark R. Herring’s decision last month to sever the reciprocity rights of gun owners in 25 states.

In exchange, Republicans softened their stances on issues that have long been non-starters in the GOP-controlled General Assembly. Under the deal, the state would take guns away from anyone who was under a two-year protective order for domestic-violence offenses. And State Police would have to attend all gun shows to provide background checks for private sellers if they requested the service.

Both Republicans and Democrats in Virginia were cautious to describe this as a bipartisan win. Gun-control advocates gave the game away, though:

But the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence reacted bitterly in a message on its Facebook page. The group said McAuliffe has bragged about “his administration’s aggressive new approach to confronting the National Rifle Association.”

“Now he’s preparing to cave to them,” the message said. “As far as we are aware, there is not a single gun violence prevention advocate in Virginia who was informed about this deal before it was done. We all stand in opposition to it.”

McAuliffe had little choice. The state legislature had veto-proof majorities in both chambers ready to pass a “total recognition” law that would have cut the ground out from underneath McAuliffe and Herring, and forced an expansion of reciprocity. Matt Vespa reminded readers of this last night at Townhall:

On January 18, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a state-based gun rights group, held their lobby day in Richmond, where its president, Philip Van Cleave, noted that three Democrats (Sens. John Edwards, Lynwood Lewis, and Chap Petersen) in the state senate supported SB 610, a total recognition piece of legislation, which would have given the two-thirds majority needed to override an expected McAuliffe veto; the House of Delegates already has a Republican supermajority.

To avoid that outcome, McAuliffe reversed Herring’s action. He gained only a common-sense domestic violence intervention that is keyed on a judge issuing a two-year protection order, and a commitment to provide state resources at gun shows for voluntary background checks concerning private sales. The latter would have been within McAuliffe’s power all along, and it does nothing to require that private sellers (collectors, etc) conduct background checks; they could have prior to this anyway, through an FFL.

Bob Owens is amused to see these described as major concessions:

It’s interesting to see the Washington Post attempt to call the permanent protective order a “major concession” in order to save face for McAuliffe. It was very much a minor concession in line with what most Republicans support. No one wants an violent abuser to have access to firearms.

Progressives in Virginia are up in arms … so to speak:

The reaction from the CSGV is typical of what I’m hearing from progressive Virginia legislators and gun safety advocates. Angry words like “betrayal,” “deal stinks” and “there is no explaining this” are flying around, as well as multiple sources (Virginia gun safety advocates, Democratic legislators, etc.) telling me they weren’t consulted on this beforehand at all. Also, can we say “Mark Herring, meet underside of bus?” Ugh. …

A Virginia Democratic legislator just told me, “This is a bad deal. House Republicans will ‘let’ us pass two measures that are already incredibly popular, even among most gun owners. In exchange, the AG who went out an a limb is about to have that limb cut out from under him and we go to universal reciprocity.”

This isn’t a win for McAuliffe. It’s a cave, and a demonstration that electing a Democrat to statewide office does not make Virginia a blue state. Republicans should take note.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I’ve explicitly state my intent several times-

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:30 PM

So you’re delusional.

Ready for another round?

Sure, let’s talk about facts, and the fact you’re a moron. Fact: Guns save 1100 lives a day.

2) Even criminals take the presence of a firearm seriously. More specifically, everyday 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented simply by the presence of a firearm. In less that 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever fired. (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply)

Now embarrass yourself oh so incompetent one.

NotCoach on January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM

What you do is troll and lie, and you do it for your own amusement.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 2:37 PM

Gotta wonder (not really) about the maturity level of someone who finds amusement this way.

CurtZHP on January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM

If you’ve ever taken part in a paper review you know what goes on in them.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:37 PM

By paper review, I trust you mean opening your dictionary to the appropriate page.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM

As I noted above, you conspicuously left off the bit about BMW.

hillbillyjim on January 29, 2016 at 2:30 PM

So you also can’t understand the word ‘only.’

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:39 PM

I correct the numerous fallacies that fly around here.
Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:30 PM

NO – you’re nothing more than a pidgeon trying to play chess – you just make a mess and crap all over the place and strut around thinking you’re winning, when in reality you’re just a pidgeon-brained idiot who has no clue what’s going on – and we’re all just laughing at how stupid and ridiculous you are.

dentarthurdent on January 29, 2016 at 2:40 PM

Tappity, tappity, tappity….

CurtZHP on January 29, 2016 at 2:40 PM

I expect you to read and parse.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:37 PM

That’s false. Any time people “parse”, as you put it, you moan that they are responding to something you didn’t say. Any time they cite you verbatim, you moan that they are not interpreting your “obvious” meaning.

You have no desire to reach a reasonable point of discussion with people. If you did, you could have resolved a year’s worth of your absurd claims in an hour.

All you do is troll and lie to maintain your sense of self-importance.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 2:41 PM

Gee, I only answered variations on that question about 30 times already. If you’ve ever taken part in a paper review you know what goes on in them. It’s manifestly not pertinent that the background discussions be published. There’s nothing in there that matters to the public. It’s not data. It’s just scientists backstabbing and b*tching mainly and eventually coming to a consensus.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:37 PM

Those papers contained their work and those “scientists” refused to allow any peer review. That is NOT how it’s done anywhere for any reason, and you couldn’t possibly know what went into those documents. So in other words, you’re completely full of sh!t, and have no problems lying through your teeth on any given subject that you’ve been slapped around on. Got it….

Hank_Scorpio on January 29, 2016 at 2:41 PM

Ready for another round?

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:30 PM

No, dear, you’ve had too much to drink as it is. Go home and sleep it off.

Maddie on January 29, 2016 at 2:42 PM

P.S.

Don’t even try to use the respectively bit, because it reads to any and all that you believe that the gun manufacturers and the ammo manufacturers respectively should be sued.

hillbillyjim on January 29, 2016 at 2:35 PM

Your reading failure continues. I quoted two questions and responded to them respectively.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:42 PM

Of course if the Principal of the school had a gun, she could have stopped Lanza at the front door,

dentarthurdent on January 29, 2016 at 2:37 PM

Yes, I’m aware of your idiot fallacy that every oblivious ‘good guy’ with a gun is hyper competent and will of course get the drop on an armed attacker who knows they are in a combat situation.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:44 PM

So you also can’t understand the word ‘only.’

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:39 PM

Okay, we’ll play it your way.

Only Glock and SIG Sauer.

So your stated desire to sue ammunition manufacturers contradicts your “only”.

And no other gun manufacturers – Kel-Tech, Magnum, Ruger – ONLY Glock and SIG Sauer.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 2:44 PM

an armed attacker who knows they are in a combat situation.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:44 PM

How would an armed attacker know he’s in a combat situation in a… what did you call it… preschool?

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 2:45 PM

By rejecting statistics, rejecting basic division, and rejecting scientific data, all while refusing to answer even the most basic questions of fact.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 2:37 PM

Mad I demolished you attempt to lie with stats, huh? You should know by now that numbers are not your friend.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:45 PM

Mad I demolished you attempt to lie with stats, huh?

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:45 PM

Refusal to converse reasonably with people is not demolition of anything. You can’t refute somebody’s point without lying. If you had even the slightest amount of truth on your side you could have provided real-world numbers.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM

Now embarrass yourself oh so incompetent one.

NotCoach on January 29, 2016 at 2:38 PM

Given the precendent much more likely I embarrass you, frankly.

Funny how the state you quote gets, well quoted a lot, but they never actually link to the data they claim exists. Funny that. Why don’t you find a link to it and then we can evaluate what it actually says.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM

Yes, I’m aware of your idiot fallacy that every oblivious ‘good guy’ with a gun is hyper competent and will of course get the drop on an armed attacker who knows they are in a combat situation.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:44 PM

More crap from the pidgeon-brain kid…….

Lanza was a disturbed kid who had to shoot his way through the locked door and into the school, and while he was armed, he was not a trained warrior in a “combat situation”. Anyone with a gun and basic shooting skills could have taken him out at that door. And we already made it clear to you yesterday that watching movies and playing video games doesn’t qualify as military training.

dentarthurdent on January 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM

NO – you’re nothing more than a pidgeon trying to play chess – you just make a mess and crap all over the place and strut around thinking you’re winning, when in reality you’re just a pidgeon-brained idiot who has no clue what’s going on – and we’re all just laughing at how stupid and ridiculous you are.

dentarthurdent on January 29, 2016 at 2:40 PM

Yes…so I broke my cardinal rule to not feed the pigeon today. Making bad arguments on a thread related to guns? Good times…

22044 on January 29, 2016 at 2:49 PM

NO – you’re nothing more than a pidgeon trying to play chess – you just make a mess and crap all over the place and strut around thinking you’re winning, when in reality you’re just a pidgeon-brained idiot who has no clue what’s going on – and we’re all just laughing at how stupid and ridiculous you are.

dentarthurdent on January 29, 2016 at 2:40 PM

So you chose to ignore the facts and move further from reality. Okay.

I win :)

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:49 PM

Mad I demolished you attempt to lie with stats, huh? You should know by now that numbers are not your friend.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:45 PM

Like I said – pidgeon.

dentarthurdent on January 29, 2016 at 2:51 PM

So you chose to ignore the facts and move further from reality. Okay.

I win :)

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:49 PM

Back atcha pidgeon-brain.
You have no clue.

dentarthurdent on January 29, 2016 at 2:52 PM

Funny how the state you quote gets, well quoted a lot, but they never actually link to the data they claim exists. Funny that. Why don’t you find a link to it and then we can evaluate what it actually says.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM

You wanna talk about requests to link to supporting data?

Are you sure that’s the road you want to go down?

Besides, why does he need to dig up a paper? He can just look up the term “crime prevention” in a dictionary.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 2:56 PM

Any time people “parse”, as you put it, you moan that they are responding to something you didn’t say.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 2:41 PM

No, that’s just with you because when you try to parse you insist on completely mangling the plain meaning of the words.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:00 PM

Ready for another round?

Kenny Bania on January 29, 2016 at 2:30 PM

LOL! Using a synonym for a bullet is kinda pathetic, dontcha think?

But hey, please tell us what your take is on the new bill introduced in the Hawai’i Legislature that would allow concealed carry in that Blue State.

And before making a fool out of yourself as usual, be reminded that said bill was written, sponsored and filed in that Legislature by an Asian-American Democrat Woman Lawyer.

(Starts Flea Powered Snowdial #409)

Del Dolemonte on January 29, 2016 at 3:01 PM

Those papers contained their work and those “scientists” refused to allow any peer review. That is NOT how it’s done anywhere for any reason, and you couldn’t possibly know what went into those documents. So in other words, you’re completely full of sh!t, and have no problems lying through your teeth on any given subject that you’ve been slapped around on. Got it….

Hank_Scorpio on January 29, 2016 at 2:41 PM

No those papers did not contain their work. Their work was published. The papers you demanded where background discussions about the work and whether to publish.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:02 PM

Only Glock and SIG Sauer.

So your stated desire to sue ammunition manufacturers contradicts your “only”.

And no other gun manufacturers – Kel-Tech, Magnum, Ruger – ONLY Glock and SIG Sauer.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 2:44 PM

Thank you for proving my point about your inability to read without completely distorting the plain meaning.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:05 PM

How would an armed attacker know he’s in a combat situation in a… what did you call it… preschool?

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 2:45 PM

Because he knows he’s there to kill people.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:06 PM

As I noted above, you conspicuously left off the bit about BMW.

hillbillyjim on January 29, 2016 at 2:30 PM

So you also can’t understand the word ‘only.’

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:39 PM

Again, for posterity and apparently for your failing mind, your entire post:

Or only Glock and SIG Sauer?

Would you sue the people manufacturing all that 30-06 ammunition they use?

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 1:33 PM

Yes, and ideally, respectively. Anyone who profits off of human death and misery.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 1:35 PM

There were two questions, and you answer: Yes, and ideally respectively. Anyone other than you would only take it that you intend to say that yes, you would sue the gun makers, and yes, you would sue the ammo makers as well. Respectively.

How do you resolve the bit about treating guns and cars differently?

Do you now intend to say that “Yes” BMW should be sued for Santa Barbara?

If so, say it, and prove your claim about treating cars and guns differently to be wrong.

If not, then your “Yes” didn’t apply to the omitted BMW part and thus my question was not “already answered above” as you stated.

Already answered above. Guns are fundamentally different than cars. I would treat them differently.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 1:47 PM

Again, First rule of holes.

But of course you are right. I can’t understand the word ‘only’.

hillbillyjim on January 29, 2016 at 3:07 PM

Anyone with a gun and basic shooting skills could have taken him out at that door.

dentarthurdent on January 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM

You’re so impressively brave telling people what they could and should have done in a life or death situation from behind your keyboard.

Yes, I am laughing at your attempt to come off as tough.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:09 PM

No, that’s just with you because when you try to parse you insist on completely mangling the plain meaning of the words.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:00 PM

That’s funny, considering the way you reacted when I decided to subscribe to your “plain meaning” of the term “the same people”.

You’ve been given every opportunity to present facts that specifically disprove a claim. You’ve been given every opportunity to present facts that prove your accusations against other people. You’ve even been given opportunities to dictate specific rules for others to follow in order to conduct a conversation you would consider reasonable.

You have no interest in reason or facts. You’re a troll who lies to protect your over-inflated ego.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 3:10 PM

You wanna talk about requests to link to supporting data?

Are you sure that’s the road you want to go down?

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 2:56 PM

With you? No, because you will just refuse to acknowledge that I have given you links to the things.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:11 PM

But hey, please tell us what your take is on the new bill introduced in the Hawai’i Legislature that would allow concealed carry in that Blue State.

And before making a fool out of yourself as usual, be reminded that said bill was written, sponsored and filed in that Legislature by an Asian-American Democrat Woman Lawyer.

(Starts Flea Powered Snowdial #409)

Del Dolemonte on January 29, 2016 at 3:01 PM

My take is I wonder why you think this is such a good argument that you keep repeating it.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:12 PM

Thank you for proving my point about your inability to read without completely distorting the plain meaning.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:05 PM

So now you DON’T want people to extrapolate. What a surprise.

Far be it from you to avoid this entire affair by directly answering a question instead of omitting it from your response.

Because he knows he’s there to kill people.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:06 PM

That doesn’t mean he knows there are people there who intend to kill him.

Combat is active fighting between two or more parties. If you’re the only one attacking people, that’s not combat.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 3:13 PM

With you? No, because you will just refuse to acknowledge that I have given you links to the things.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:11 PM

I’d love to see links from you Tlaloc. I’m dying to see where you get your propaganda from.

Please provide. I’m waiting with bated breath.

darwin on January 29, 2016 at 3:14 PM

There were two questions, and you answer: Yes, and ideally respectively. Anyone other than you would only take it that you intend to say that yes, you would sue the gun makers, and yes, you would sue the ammo makers as well. Respectively.

Very good, you’re finally reading it right.

How do you resolve the bit about treating guns and cars differently?

hillbillyjim on January 29, 2016 at 3:07 PM

If you are asking how do I justify treating them differently then that’s easy- cars have a utilitarian purpose, a very valuable one at a that. The harm caused by cars is regrettable, and we should work to mitigate it, but it is also incidental. With guns the harm is the entire purpose.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM

I’d love to see links from you Tlaloc. I’m dying to see where you get your propaganda from.

Please provide. I’m waiting with bated breath.

darwin on January 29, 2016 at 3:14 PM

Well, $#!+, now you’ve done it. You asked him to stand by his words and prove his claims, now it’s off to another Hillary or abortion thread, and in his mind he’ll be the winner, again.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM

That’s funny, considering the way you reacted when I decided to subscribe to what I falsely describe as your “plain meaning” of the term “the same people”.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 3:10 PM

FIFY.

Really we have enough examples of your inability to read already, no need to give us more.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:17 PM

You’re so impressively brave telling people what they could and should have done in a life or death situation from behind your keyboard.

Yes, I am laughing at your attempt to come off as tough.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:09 PM

Really – by saying ANYONE with basic shooting skills could have done that, that’s ME being tough? He11, my wife could make that shot. But you have to have a gun to even be able to TRY to make the shot. Without the gun, you’re left begging for your life in front of a psycho who just wants to kill people.

Do a search on Jeanne Assam and New Life Church – if you can figure out google or bing.

And BTW – pidgeons are smarter than you.
You have pidgeon crap for brains.

dentarthurdent on January 29, 2016 at 3:17 PM

With guns the harm is the entire purpose.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM

Why did you change your position on guns from “mass murder” to merely “harm”?

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 3:17 PM

That’s funny, considering the way you reacted when I decided to subscribe to what I falsely describe as your “plain meaning” of the term “the same people”.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 3:10 PM

FIFY.

Really we have enough examples of your inability to read already, no need to give us more.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:17 PM

Then prove me wrong. Explain how my use of the term is different from yours.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 3:18 PM

No those papers did not contain their work. Their work was published. The papers you demanded where background discussions about the work and whether to publish.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:02 PM

WRONG

Also, those papers were hidden, how would you know what was in them? Oh I know your ridiculous claim to be in on paper reviews and whatnot, but at the end of the day you couldn’t possibly know what was in those specific documents. PERIOD.

You are full of sh!t. I know it. You know it. Everyone here knows it.

The fact that you refuse to admit it shows the depths you will go in order to stick to your belief system regardless of the facts and the truth. know what that makes you? A fanatic.

Now, should I proceed to take apart your 9th century blathering about inanimate objects? Or would you rather slink away like you are wont to do when your “arguments” are destroyed in front of people?

Hank_Scorpio on January 29, 2016 at 3:20 PM

Combat is active fighting between two or more parties. If you’re the only one attacking people, that’s not combat.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 3:13 PM

Well, considering that idiot got his combat training from video games in mom’s basement……

dentarthurdent on January 29, 2016 at 3:20 PM

How do you resolve the bit about treating guns and cars differently?

hillbillyjim on January 29, 2016 at 3:07 PM

If you are asking how do I justify treating them differently then that’s easy- cars have a utilitarian purpose, a very valuable one at a that. The harm caused by cars is regrettable, and we should work to mitigate it, but it is also incidental. With guns the harm is the entire purpose.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM

Don’t be an ass. Leaving out the rest of my post doesn’t make it go away.

How do you resolve the bit about treating guns and cars differently?

Do you now intend to say that “Yes” BMW should be sued for Santa Barbara?

If so, say it, and prove your claim about treating cars and guns differently to be wrong.

If not, then your “Yes” didn’t apply to the omitted BMW part and thus my question was not “already answered above” as you stated.

hillbillyjim on January 29, 2016 at 3:32 PM

Given the precendent much more likely I embarrass you, frankly.

Funny how the state you quote gets, well quoted a lot, but they never actually link to the data they claim exists. Funny that. Why don’t you find a link to it and then we can evaluate what it actually says.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv00.pdf

Gosh, that was so hard. I mean, like, I had to cut and paste ‘National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000’ from the page I linked and do a Google search, and then take the torturous effort to look at the very first result on the page. You clearly are our intellectual superior.

NotCoach on January 29, 2016 at 3:55 PM

“Ignore The sight of Governor McAuliffe in a fetal position on the floor, clutching the shattered remnants of his b***s: he TOTALLY won this one. No, really: true story.”

NYT, MSNBC and the usual lackeys

orangemtl on January 29, 2016 at 3:58 PM

Funny how the state you quote gets, well quoted a lot, but they never actually link to the data they claim exists. Funny that. Why don’t you find a link to it and then we can evaluate what it actually says.

Tlaloc on January 29, 2016 at 2:48 PM

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv00.pdf

Gosh, that was so hard. I mean, like, I had to cut and paste ‘National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000’ from the page I linked and do a Google search, and then take the torturous effort to look at the very first result on the page. You clearly are our intellectual superior.

NotCoach on January 29, 2016 at 3:55 PM

It was a mistake to fall for this. You’re talking about the same person (literally, not as an unrelated subset) that was given like eight links to data in response to a request and just bailed on the thread.

It will be a small miracle if he comes back here, but it won’t be because he’s eager to see your data and converse reasonably.

The Schaef on January 29, 2016 at 4:00 PM

The darkness (Dreadloc) hates light and facts…the latter work as disinfectants. :)

22044 on January 29, 2016 at 4:05 PM

…a preview of what’s to come if Left-Tards continue to run on gun control…faster, please…

Pelosi Schmelosi on January 29, 2016 at 12:08 PM

The blowback must have been Saturn V moonshot worthy.

Way to go Virginia, way to go!

roy_batty on January 29, 2016 at 4:09 PM

~~~ crickets ~~~

hillbillyjim on January 29, 2016 at 4:29 PM

The fact Democrats went after reciprocity in the first place was stupid.

Just how many of Virginia’s shootings involved someone from another state with a carry permit? I’d wager not many, if any.

There was no up side to his decision. Only negatives geared to punishing law abiding citizens.

ButterflyDragon on January 29, 2016 at 4:32 PM

The darkness (Dreadloc) hates light and facts…the latter work as disinfectants. :)

22044 on January 29, 2016 at 4:05 PM

Welllll….

He went full retard. Never go full retard.

But, he always goes full retard.

dentarthurdent on January 29, 2016 at 5:01 PM

Wow, tialoc must be on piece rate tonight.

Lord Whorfin on January 29, 2016 at 5:38 PM

Wow, tialoc must be on piece rate tonight.

Lord Whorfin on January 29, 2016 at 5:38 PM

That troll’s showing more projection than a 15-screen IMAX multiplex.

CurtZHP on January 29, 2016 at 5:41 PM

Wondering if the protective order bit extends to police, politicians judges, governor’s office etc.
Seems as though the class of society that lives off of taxpayers have issues applying restrictive laws to themselves. But then again they may have cleverly left themselves an out by saying judge imposed two year restrictive order… wanna bet none the above class ever see such an order.

notalemon on January 30, 2016 at 11:34 AM

Chew on the 1M murdered babies each year for a while.
22044 on January 29, 2016 at 1:49 PM

Don’t encourage the slime. He’s probably thinking about dinner already.

Solaratov on January 30, 2016 at 7:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2