He only understands his leg tingles.
If Matthews had a brain, he'd be dangerous.

Not that Chris Matthews would understand it anyway

I'm suddenly reminded of when a then DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (whose hair reminds me of Medusa) could not tell Chris Matthews the difference between a socialist and a Democrat.

You are basically right. Sanders was a bit more honest. He admitted to being a socialist directly.

"...with the democrats or outright socialists" Term2, I think it's safe now to remove the "or" function in that statement as the Democrats have become the outright socialists. They just hold on to the legacy moniker "Democrat" because it's a useful tool to fool useful idiots - and themselves.

Sounds like Daytona, Florida. Beautiful part of the world. My relative in New Smyrna Beach passed away recently, so I won't be going back there, but my brother just bought a place outside Titusville.

Watched a lot of lightning shows in New Smyrna.

Why I'm a law-abiding 9mm rule breaker.

I regard him to be a poisonous sneaky snake camouflaged to blend in with his surroundings..

"person who does not allow entrance of persons if said persons have weapons for self-defense a legal duty to keep those persons safe."
Yes. I never understood the basis of them creating a gun-free zone without any screening in place. It seems foreseeable that this policy guarantees at some point there will be an armed criminal there with all law-abiding people unarmed.

Eventually they will, but then they'll leave the GOP.

I don't believe Ryan is weak. I believe he is a Democrat in sheep's clothing, and always has been.

Nasty homojerkus critters.

who turn aggressive and violent if one doesnt recognize their entitlements and superior standing

I've spent time on the metal catwalks of prison towers. When working the back gate tower, I've had to raise and lower a bucket with guns and keys during thunderstorms.
Not fun at all.

That revelation about his wife explains things. Thanks.

Ryan will never do anything Trump wants. He is a shill for the One World Government crowd. The man is married to someone who like Soros and is a one worlder. He goal was never to drain the swamp.
We need for him to be gone.

Probably hit the well, good thing you wer ` nt in the tub. I remember the flash, but not the bang, 80 feet up on an open catwalk. Got my attention.

PC just told me that's central Florida. During the 60s I was in the Panhandle washing dishes for my mama before an open window, It was overcast and some distant thunder was rumbling. Done with the chore, I pulled the drain open, walked away five steps and heard a terrific GONG!
Steam was rising from the sink. When I walked back a bit shaken, the sink looked dry as a bone.
I did not feel like touching it, though. Not for while.

and filled with parasites.

I like the way you think.
I'm now fully retired but have been a semi-retired armed bank guard that someone had to pay and was well aware I was the #1 obstruction bank robbers would want to take out.
Therefore, whenever I am in a so-called gun free zone without a metal detector and with or without a security guard, I'm concealed carry and no one knows it because the gun is, gee whiz, concealed
I don't trust anyone but me to protect my life especially when a situation necessitates called cops being on the way.
I know security guards have to use the restroom.
Security guards also do not have eyes in the backs of their heads, especially when bank managers sometimes distract them with something stupid to do.

Valid driver's licenses from any state are valid throughout the USA. Part of the homosexuals' basis for wanting "reciprocity" for marriage licenses was based on this precedent. If its okay for homosexual marriage, then "a license is a license" should be valid for concealed-carry licenses as well...

Ryan is the worst turncoat since Iago.

the swamp is deep and wide

" It is better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6. The Constitution doesnt require me to ask for permission to exercise my God given rights, if God wants to revoke my rights, I live in the lightning capitol of America. So far, so good - I think that one time on the iron in the 90s was a fluke...

I think a common-sense way to handle the underlying concerns of "let me keep myself safe" would be implementing one single change which, after a while, would have important ripple effects. That change: impose upon any business, government, entity, or person who does not allow entrance of persons if said persons have weapons for self-defense a legal duty to keep those persons safe. I am a personal injury attorney, and I think this would be a good compromise: it does not strip businesses of their right to exclude certain classes of people (who do not want to follow their rules) from entering their establishment, but it also requires them to assume the burden to protect their patrons. It would start with a small ripple effect -- individual gun-free zones that have shootings or stabbings would suddenly realize it's more dangerous to their bottom line to strip people of the tools to defend themselves and assume the duty itself, rather than NOT have that legal duty and leave the self-protection to the individuals. Then eventually, other businesses/people/government agencies would realize it as well.

This is the smallest change to law that would achieve the "let me defend myself" end, and it fits within current negligence burdens. Currently, when someone places someone else in a particularly vulnerable/dangerous state (usually termed "created" the danger), then that person has a duty to protect the person they endangered. Failure to act according to that duty becomes negligence if the breach of duty causes harm to the person who was owed a duty. Extending that to the self-defense/firearm context, if a business/government/person said "no weapons allowed," it could/should be seen as creating a situation of danger for that person. Therefore, if that person ends up being injured as a result of that depravation (i.e., if "the worst" happens and the deprived person does not have the necessary weapons to defend him/herself from a deranged third party), then the entity that said "no weapons allowed" could be responsible for the harm resulting from the deranged third-party's criminal acts. This application isn't currently law where I am (Minnesota), but some states are working on it.



National concealed carry is problematic because the legal basis on which drivers' license reciprocity is based was voluntarily agreed to by the states--it was not a federal law.

Imposing a duty on an entity that deprives people of self-defense tools seems like the best way to allow entities to make their own choices re: risks.