Lindsey Graham: 'Being Able to Track People, Put Them Into Systems' One Way to Prevent Mass Shootings

But, says Graham, people have freedoms


booking photo

The mass shooting at an AME church in Charleston, S.C., Wednesday night perpetrated by a white man who confessed he was trying to start a race war has led to the predictable emotional appeals to old party lines, from gun control to more salvation and less government, especially in a 24 hour news cycle.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R), who's running for president, says his niece attended school with Dylann Roof, and that he seemed like an "Adam Lanza" type. While Graham didn't refer to other seemingly obvious motivations, like trying to start a race war, he did offer a solution that matches the response to radical Islamist terrorism more closely policy-wise, if not rhetorically.

Graham's comments, via CBS News:

"I bet there were some indicators early on that this guy was not quite there. Just being able to track people - put them into systems where they can be deterred or stopped. But it's very complicated in a nation of 300 million people where you have freedom of movement and freedom of thought. 300 million of us and unfortunately every now and then, something like this happens. And we'll see."

The perceived treatment of white suspects as mentally ill "lone wolves" by the media where non-white suspects are treated as terrorists and thugs is a common complaint in the wake of mass shootings by white men.  Lindsey Graham goes both ways here, using the lone wolf rhetoric, offering a counter-terrorism solution—tracking people in systems, and then almost dismissing it as the price of  free society. Were Dylann Roof interested in joining ISIS, Lindsey Graham would be ready to blow him up just for thinking the thought.

For a government looking to get people to trade more liberty for the promise of more security and looking to expand its domestic policing and surveillance apparatuses, it's easy to acquiesce to demands Roof and the threat of white supremacist terrorism be treated more like the threat of radical Islamist terrorism. And such demands make it harder to realize that the threat posed by free people, white or non-white, Christian, Muslim, whatever, is exaggerated and exploited toward the end of more surveillance, more policing, at home and abroad, and more control.

NEXT: Clarence Thomas and the Confederate Flag

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If only we were numbered and tracked like in a prison where everyone has zero freedom and is totally secure and free from having to worry about being the victim of acts of violence.

    1. Well there is no violence or crime in prison so Lindsey must be right.

    2. If we only tattooed serial numbers on the wrists of the citizens subjects it would stop crime, stop drought, cure cancer, and feed the children.

  2. I look forward to my official "not quite there" designation. I'm sure that will be useful for determining my future crimes.

    1. I believe it's already in your Permanent Record.

      1. But don't be so depressed....

  3. Sure, that's one thing you can do with a system like that. I can think of a few other uses too.

    1. I've never seen a realistic method for creating any database, and from the track record of government created lists, its a given it would do nothing to help the stated cause and be worthless and/or abused.

      There's no way to track hundreds of thousands to millions of people who end up on 'lists.' And a lot of those responsible for these sorts of mass shootings wouldn't have made it, regardless, while the veteran who sought help for his PTSD almost certainly would.

      1. I've never seen a realistic method for creating any database,

        CREATE DATABASE db_name;

        1. Don't forget to put a primary key on each of those tables, even the date dimension, and don't listen to Kimball on this one, let the order-sorted date integer key be your only intelligent surrogate key.

          Sorry Ralph!

  4. All Lindsey is saying here is "if we knew who was going to do this, we could do something to stop them". No shit Lindsey. If we knew who was dangerous rather than just odd or crazy but not dangerous, we would be able to prevent these things. Of course figuring that out is the entire problem you fucking half wit.

    1. ...you fucking half wit.

      I think you give him too much credit.

      1. As do I.

    2. Look John, if we just had a time machine we could stop everything bad. Why do you oppose diverting our entire economy into time machine research? Is it the children you hate?

  5. "put them into systems where they can be deterred or stopped"

    or hacked. (Disclaimer: In the computer science sense.)

    1. He wants them to be 'chipped.'

      Also, in the computer science sense.

  6. People can complain all they want about the lone wolf narrative, but what else do you call it? Adam Lanza and this guy weren't connected by a common ideology or motive. If those realities are inconvenient to the narrative of some, too damn bad.

    This one could be called a terrorist since he had a larger ideological goal, even if he held it alone.

    The Muslims who go and shoot a place like Charlie Hebdo up or go after Muhammad cartoonists are in fact terrorists, as well.

    What you call this attack or call the perpetrators doesn't really fucking matter. There's no way to stop random assholes from acting out whether they be lone Muslims or basement dwellers.

    1. I think the problem is less that we treat white guys as mentally ill, and more that we DON'T treat non-whites as mentally ill.

      It also seems pretty clear that white guys are doing these things a lot more often.
      There just aren't that man examples of black guys walking into a school and randomly shooting a bunch of kids, or a movie theater and shooting the place up. And so on. There's plenty of violence perpetrated by blacks, but it seems to be directed at rational targets.
      I mean, you don't see black guys strapping bombs to their chest and blowing up shopping malls, which is really kind of surprising, all things considered.

      1. John Allen Muhammed and Lee Malvo ring a bell?

        Let's not play a stupid race game. Crazy people come in all colors. No particular shade of color has a monopoly on crazy.

        1. Oh, well, at least I got the links.

        2. In our society a 12 year old black kid can be shot for playing with a toy gun, while a 21 year old white fugitive who is armed and shown a ready willingness to kill is captured "without incident".

          1. Interesting juxtaposition, but I'm not sure it's helpful. It speaks more to the individual police departments than "society".

      2. Not sure that's true. "Rational targets" is a bit nebulous. Also consider demographic proportions here.

      3. The only issue I have is with the word 'rational.' Are flash mobs that indiscriminately attack white people considered rational? Or the other forms of violent crime that blacks are more likely to perpetrate that are just as random? We have also had mass shooters who were black. The DC snipers, the naval yard shooting.

        The mass shooters are predominately white. And they gain far more attention than events typically treated as local crime stories.

        The only point splitting words has is if it will help solve the problem. And I've yet to see any meaningful solution proposed. It boils down to people looking to score political points for their pet causes.

        1. The mass shooters are predominately white.

          The US is 63.7% white (looks like they include Arabs here), 12.2% black, 4.7% Asian, and 16.4% Hispanic. Based on shootingtracker.com's data, mass murders are 47.5% white, 2.5% Arab, 27.5% black, 5% Asian, and 17.5% Hispanic.

          1. Stop woodchipping down

      4. It also seems pretty clear that white guys are doing these things a lot more often.

        Last time someone said that to me, they send me to http://www.shootingtracker.com/ to prove how many whites commit mass murder.

        I didn't quite believe them, so I found news articles about each murder to determine the race of each perpetrator. What I found was that blacks committed mass murder at twice the rate of their percentage of population and Asians were also overrepresented. Whites and Hispanics were underrepresented. (Note that the site counts anyone who shoots more than 4 people as mass murder. If someone kills 3 people and then commits suicide, they are counted as a mass murderer. Most other researchers do not include the gunman's death as part of a mass murder, so I excluded them.)

        However, quite a few of them were committed by someone of unknown race, particularly the mass murders in Puerto Rico (most of these were related to drugs), so I may have undercounted Hispanics.

        Outside of Puerto Rico, the vast majority of mass murders are fathers involved in a divorce shooting their wife, kids, any other family members in the house, and then themselves. The ones I excluded followed this pattern except they were usually only a wife and two kids.

        1. It began to look to me that the idea that white guys commit mass murder more often for the same reason white women go missing more often.

    2. This touches on what I wanted to say. Ed seems think there's some sort of bias when Muslims who commit violence like this are seen as more of a threat. That's because they are more of a threat. This should be obvious, but I'll explain. When the Dylann Roofs and Adam Lanzas and Tim McVeighs of the world do their things, they represent (at most) a tiny fringe ideology, with almost zero popular support. What percent of the white population wants to start a race war? I doubt it's even 1%.

      In contrast, when a "lone wolf" Muslim commits a violent act in the name of his ideology, there's always a significant fraction of the Muslim world that cheers him on. It may be only a few percent in the U.S., but it's easy to find countries in which Muslim support for such violence is in the double digits. And if the questions are phrased more generally (support for sharia, death for apostasy or insulting the prophet), it's not hard to find countries with majority support.

      1. I supported a race war because I thought it was like "death race 2000". Boy was I embarrassed when I got to the meeting.

  7. This idiot just keeps getting worse. By September I expect to start hearing how gulags have their uses, if they can be kept within limits.

    1. "Hillary/Lindsey 2016"

      1. We know who the top in that relationship would be...

        1. I think you've got it pegged.

    2. That sounds very familiar...


      My Gawd. It's all so clear now.

      1. I did originally write it as, "gulags are fine in principle," and then maybe make a reference to an Imagination Land... but I didn't feel like going there. It's Friday!

  8. The perceived treatment of white suspects as mentally ill "lone wolves" by the media where non-white suspects are treated as terrorists and thugs is a common complaint

    Oh, very well, then. "*Mentally-ill* terrorists and thugs."

  9. Lindsey Graham channels his inner Friend Computer.

    1. Nice.


  10. OT: Gawker's Hamilton Nolan writes post critical of Obama:

    "President" Obama Thinks His Cushy Life Is Like Prison--Really, Sir?

    I see. I see, sir. Sir. Sir: you, sir, are a disgrace to the hardworking Americans of this very nation?America. It must be nice, living in subsidized housing all day and "raising the roof" partying in "Madea's House" every night. But hardworking Americans, sir, do not want their tax dollars going to funding a never-ending "House Party Vol. 69" starring you, Mr. Barak Obama, the leader of the free world. We want our tax dollars going to keeping marijuana dealers and other perverts in prison where they belong?not welcoming them to the lawn of the White House.

    Reading the comments is the best part. All of the Gawker readers are convinced it is either satire or Nolan has lost it.

    1. When really all he is doing is setting up a pivot to Hillary. She will have to start trashing Obama to win the general.

      1. And alienate the black vote? I don't see how she threads that needle.

        1. Who are they going to vote for otherwise?

          1. Yeah, they'll vote for the (D), but Obama got huge extra boosts due to massive turnout. Kerry and Gore and Clinton did not get black turnout like that. I doubt if Hillary will.

            1. And the more she criticizes or even distances herself from Obama, the less enthusiasm she'll see from black Democrats.

            2. Those that vote will vote D, no doubt.

              It's the percentage of black voters who actually go to the polls and vote that is in play.

    2. "marijuana dealers and other perverts"

      I don't even know what to say about this

      1. Nice band name?

        1. Too long. More like a good name for an album.

          1. I just started a new band.

            We're called The 999 Megabytes

            We don't have a gig yet though.

            1. Good luck. I hope your first performance isn't a hard drive away.

    3. That actually does seem like satire, although mocking Obama for comparing his life to prison is very well deserved.

      1. Yeah I read it again, and now I am not sure.

        Another reason why Nolan is terrible.

  11. I love this idea that if we just had the government track lots of people they could prevent problems.

    Here's the thing: A ton of the terrorist attacks have been carried out by people the government WAS ALREADY WATCHING. They were warned by the Russians about the Tsarnaev's and both shooters in Garland were previously known to the FBI.

    The reason this doesn't work is because when you have tons of people the government is watching, there are too many people for the government to actually know what potentially dangerous people are doing. So you end up surveilling tons of citizens and they don't even effectively stop terrorist attacks.

    1. The only attacks the government has managed to stop were planned by agent provocateurs.

    2. Well, to be fair, it's always a tough call. They're watching people who might do something. If they arrest them too soon, there are complaints it's just bias. If they lure them into action, there are claims it's just a plot invented by the government. But if they just wait for a violent act, they might not be able to stop it in time.

      1. If they arrest them too soon, there are complaints it's just bias

        The lack of probable cause (since there hasn't been any crime committed) might also be a factor.

        1. Of course. So even if they had the resources to watch every suspicious person 24/7, they still can't act too soon, and it's easy to act too late.

    3. Right. As if the feds would've picked out this one guy in SC and stopped him. This will be even less likely as Graham's proposal would add even more noise to the intel community.

      His dad got him a gun, he walked into a church and pretended to pray for an hour. No one would have stopped him.

      1. I wonder how people would react if a white guy goes to a black church alone now.

        Probably set people on edge.

      2. Is it confirmed that his dad got him a gun? I also read that he stole it from his mother.

  12. The ones who end up government gun-ban lists: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/k.....t-n1985787

    Who isn't going to end up on it? A 21 year old who people think may be slightly off, but who has no record of a clinical diagnosis. Or a minor with mental health issues who steals his mom's guns to shoot up a kindergarten for reasons unknown.

    Or, apparently, a whack job in Colorado who everyone knew was a threat already, but no one bothered to do what the law already says they should do. Or minors in another Colorado town who just want to shoot up their school.

  13. The only defense against nuts like this is people arming themselves. Except that doesn't count since it's not government "doing something."

  14. We'll have a Department of Precrime soon enough. Today's paranoia is tomorrow's headlines.

    1. This.

      And in addition to peeing in a cup, you will *think* into a (metaphorical) cup.

  15. The Feds were given a direct warning with regard to the brothers Tsarnaev and still managed to fuck that up, so I can't imagine a "see something say something" approach to mental health would do much good while invariably ruining a lot of lives in the process

  16. Operating a Department of pre-crime doesn't just violate civil liberties, it would probably be as reliable as reading chicken entrails.

    Remember how Columbine showed that bullying victims were prone to become shooters? Yeah, that must have been fun for bullying victims, getting profiled along with all the other stuff they went through.

    And of course it turns out that the Columbine shooters weren't victims of bullies, but megalomaniacal Loeb/Leopold types who saw themselves as supermen visiting their wrath on inferior people.

    Lord knows who's going to be profiled this time around.

    1. Ask not for whom the bell tolls...

  17. The obvious pattern is one of mental illness in young white males. They all fit that description - Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza, that batman movie guy.

    I wonder if this is because mental illness is more common in whites, or if it's just that mentally ill black people tend to get killed off or imprisoned a lot sooner. Or maybe they get integrated into street gangs that moderate and direct their behavior.

    1. Or they're Colin Ferguson. Who knows?

      1. And don't forget the young man who went around with that older guy killing people around Washington, DC.

    2. You're reaching. If you look at the race of mass shooters and consider the percentage of those groups within the population, there's no racial component at all. Mother Jones actually had an article claiming whites commit too many mass shootings, but if you look at the chart, whites actually commit a smaller percentage of mass shootings than their proportion of the population.

      The reason people think white people are more prone to this kind of killing is just an illusion of statistics. Because whites make up 65% of the country's population, even if they commit a smaller proportion of shootings than their percentage of the population, you still end up with more than 50% of mass shootings committed by whites. It's just that this isn't disproportionate - it's the result of the fact that white people make up well over 50% of the population.

      1. Yep! I remember seeing someone post that MotherJones stuff last year, with the claim that white men are mass shooters by a vastly disproportionate amount. I looked at the (few) numbers of mass shooters that the article had, and as I recall, blacks and Asians were slightly overrepresented.

        But that's only because the data set was something like 40 people. You only need a few shooters of each demographic to hit the right proportions.

    3. I wonder if this is because mental illness is more common in whites, or if it's just that mentally ill black people tend to get killed off or imprisoned a lot sooner. Or maybe they get integrated into street gangs that moderate and direct their behavior.

      Or maybe white people make up two-thirds of the population.

      1. Or, you know, what Irish said.

  18. What a waste!
    Just throw everybody in jail.

  19. Obviously the solution is to assign everyone a "watch-mate". If your partner steps out of line, you both go down. And think of the JOBS!

    1. They could be called the Gestapo.

  20. OT:

    Duck! Incredible 360 degree video shows the moment barnstorming duo fly through standing structure in formation just feet apart and a yard off the ground at 185mph

    Pretty cool.

    1. Why do I get the feeling that if they had done that here the FAA would yank their licenses.

  21. Lindsey Graham has said that you cannot have wars without having collateral damage. He also wants to start more wars. Therefore, Lindsey Graham wants to kill innocent people. Put him in a system.

    1. Crusty Juggler for Systems Czar!

      1. I am creating a system for stupid-heads just for you!

  22. "Dylann Roof, and that he seemed like an "Adam Lanza" type."

    I don't like the look of that kid. Seize him. Just in case...

  23. Meanwhile, over at the New York Times, the real threat is clear:

    But headlines can mislead. The main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists. Just ask the police.

    In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction; 39 percent listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. And only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe, compared with 7 percent for anti-government and other forms of extremism.

    The self-proclaimed Islamic State's efforts to radicalize American Muslims, which began just after the survey ended, may have increased threat perceptions somewhat, but not by much, as we found in follow-up interviews over the past year with counterterrorism specialists at 19 law enforcement agencies. These officers, selected from urban and rural areas around the country, said that radicalization from the Middle East was a concern, but not as dangerous as radicalization among right-wing extremists.

    1. That's it, I officially renounce my whiteness!

    2. Police feel threatened by right wing extremists because right wing extremists aim their hate at the government and its lapdogs. Muslims just kill indiscriminately.

      1. Muslims just kill indiscriminately.

        Charlie Hebdo was chosen at random? Pim Fortyun just got unlucky? Theo van Gogh was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

        Muslim-on-Muslim violence is often internecine in nature. You or I might see their petty squabbles as meaningless, but to many of them heresy and apostasy are graver sins than ignorance or incredulity.

    3. The way they come to this conclusion is by concluding that Nazi and skinhead groups are 'right-wing' even though they're all just racist white socialists. They aren't right-wing in the American sense since the American right has historically been primarily about limited government. By claiming neo-Nazis are somehow 'right-wing,' even though they bear no connection to the American right, they inflate attacks that are supposedly carried out by 'the right' and use it impugn their political opponents.

      1. "the American right has historically been primarily about limited government."

        Not so.

        William F. Buckley founded The National Review, in part, to fight against civil rights. The primary basis for his opposition was his belief in the natural inferiority of blacks and the manifest superiority of whites. In 1961, Mr. Buckley wrote, "It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists" and that "1) black Africans, with some but insufficient exceptions, cannot handle their own political and economic affairs; 2) they tend to revert to savagery." In Buckley's view, because blacks were uncivilized savages, they were not entitled to political participation ("the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage"). In order to preserve white supremacy over blacks, Buckley advocated violence: "Sometimes, it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical [white] minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence."

        1. You have quotation marks, but do you have any actual citations?

      2. Not all white supremacist groups are Neo-Nazis. Also, socialism as conceived by Nazis and Neo-Nazis is very different from traditional left-wing socialism. It incorporates elements of it, but fundamentally rejects egalitarianism (even in a non-racial sense) and other central tenets of traditional socialism. Fascist economics are closer to corporatism (blending socialism with crony capitalism) than actual socialism. If you go to Neo-Nazi or white supremacist sites, very very few of them would identify as left-wing. I agree that it's stupid to try to blame mainstream conservatism for stuff committed by people well outside of it, but an extremist ideology having large differences with groups that are much closer to the center on the left-right spectrum doesn't mean it can't be on the same side as that group - though I will say that I find the left-right spectrum to be bullshit for the most part. But if we're going to use it, by that logic Stalinism wouldn't be left-wing because of the massive differences it has with mainstream American liberalism.

        1. It incorporates elements of it, but fundamentally rejects egalitarianism

          It certainly doesn't reject egalitarianism. The Nazis were very egalitarian, just within their 'nation'. Left-right has nothing to do with it. National Socialism is in fact, socialism.

          1. No they weren't. Even just within Aryan Germans, it explicitly rejected the notion of equality and did not see corporate hierarchy as inherently bad - Nazis sought to resolve class differences, traditional socialists sought to eliminate them (of course, their plans in reality also necessitated replacing the old elite with themselves - but even in theory or argument, the Nazis did not favor that as socialists did). Mussolini wasn't a Nazi, but obviously was the most important early fascist thinker of that era, and he was originally a socialist. It was his rejection of egalitarianism, as well as socialist rejection of nationalism, that caused him to become a fascist.

  24. If you want to make such people harder to detect early and divert into treatment, put a horrible stigma on being treated or even psychoanalyzed.

    1. My sarcometer just exploded. Well done.

      1. Oh. I'm serious. The drive to register potential schizophrenics/bipolar patients/depressive wives in California, track their whereabouts, deprive them of Constitutionally-enshrined rights, and forcibly admit them for several days at a time is just going to drive people who genuinely need help further into the shadows. It turns out people don't like being treated like criminals.

        FFS Graham, you're describing a system to reaffirm the paranoia of people psychologically predisposed to paranoia.

        1. This 100%. I've worried about with some people I know who have PTSD and also love guns. If they knew their VA counselor could unilaterally put them on a government list without them even knowing, a number wouldn't get treatment that they need.

          Giving reality to the paranoia of people who are actually mentally ill is the same. They already have issues trusting those providing treatment, and their is already a real stigma attached to the diagnosis that many would rather avoid along with the medications.

        2. Why do you think I've never sought any help for my many mental disorders? I like my guns, thank you very much.

  25. If we gave up all our rights, maybe the government could save us from everything!

    For instance, they're could have this Drug War thing won for good tomorrow. If only we gave them more power and stopped complaining about them violating our rights.

    1. Are you interested in joining the Graham campaign staff? We could use a man like you.

  26. iPublic debates on terrorism focus intensely on Muslims. But this focus does not square with the low number of plots in the United States by Muslims, and it does a disservice to a minority group that suffers from increasingly hostile public opinion. As state and local police agencies remind us, right-wing, anti-government extremism is the leading source of ideological violence in America.

    Buried in the article is a nod to the tiny risk terrorism from any source actually represents, but The Times want you to remember: the real threat to America is Americans.

    Get your minds, right, people. Learn to love Big Brother.

  27. Lindsey Graham goes both ways here,

    What Ed did there, I see it

  28. No gold-star jokes?

  29. would you guys stop printing the scum's face? And name

    1. Lindsey? oh you meant the racist murderer...how about both?

  30. You first Lyndsey. And when people out how much time you spend at the Blue Oyster Bar, you're gonna have some fun press conferences.

    No offense to anybody who patronizes the Blue Oyster or similar establishments.

  31. Here's my thought:

    If you're making a proposal after a mass shooting to prevent future mass shootings, and it wouldn't have prevented this particular mass shooting, your proposal should be thrown away, and you should be mocked as an idiot.

    These proposals are like trying to solve the problem of dead car batteries by giving people a voucher for gas.

    1. Their proposals are (for the most part) binned and they are mocked as idiots.

      Unfortunately they have reams of new proposals and an army of supportive idiots backing them.

    2. My thought is that they come up with these proposals, and then wait for an incident like this to try to push them through. They don't give a whit about actually preventing mass shooting. They're just looking for an opportunity to use emotions generated by mass shootings to push through legislation that would otherwise be laughed at.
      Likewise I'm quite sure that there is a pile of draconian legislation sitting in a file somewhere that will be brought forth if/when there is another terrorist attack on American soil.

  32. One problem the article missed. The casting of Dylann Roof as like Adam Lanza, supposedly "mentally ill" instead of just plain murderous, invariably leads to calls to strengthen laws permitting the commitment and other deprivations of liberty of law-abiding supposedly "mentally ill" people. This is not only a form of preventative detention that our constitutional tradition abhors, but it's a kind that doesn't even make actuarial sense, because "mentally ill" people are no more likely to commit serious crimes than those without such labels, if they are more likely to be crime victims.

    RIP Thomas Szasz, long live Thomas Szasz!

    1. So, you DO then believe that evil exists in the world and always has, and will. I've got a perennial best seller you should read.

      1. Most of it's silly and archaic but there's some good allegorical fiction in there.

        1. I know what you mean. Almost....well....prophetic.

  33. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.....55106.html


    Graph of background checks show effect of authoritarian rhetoric on sales.

    Interestingly, checks are down 11.5% year-over-year yet prices, at least anecdotally for me*, have increased about 5%.

    *I have a basket of firearms that I watch at a certain website.

    1. I acquired a number of Colt M-4's just before Sandy Hook, watched my purchase price almost double, stayed greedy long enough to now, can make only a hundred or so above my purchase price.

      But, I'm a patient man, and I rest assured that I will double my money after the next tragic event hyped by the demagogues. And there will be one. NIB for $1800 for fellow reaonoids, but only because I'm a swell guy.

  34. I buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people arenâ????t aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the best deals is
    BEST PROFIT DEAL CHECK ,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.workweb40.com

  35. Lindsey Graham will be introducing this bill:
    Save Our Children from Mass Murder Pre-Crime Detention Act of 2015

  36. I really would like to know who it is who keeps voting for this pretentious blowhard. Can't think of any conservatives who can stand him.

  37. Dear Mr. Graham,

    Your idea might be a good one, if we could trust the government to have our best interests at heart, and to make decisions based on science and medicine instead of politics and panic.

    Since that doesn't describe any government ever recorded in human history, please pound sand. I'll take my chances with the armed nutcases.

  38. Lindsey Graham is a nut case. Keep him away from sharp objects and especially wood chippers.

    There is always a price to pay:

    The KGB tracked enemies of the state, and those people paid a price. Americans are free, and we often pay the price - as we saw in this case.

    The only thing you cannot avoid, is paying a price, no matter what option you choose.

    Let the tracking begin with Lindsey Graham and the rest of our elected officials.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.