I'm all about the discounts

Yeah, I'm pretty sure your MSNBC- watching ass couldn't hang

Forget what? You insulted a group a people, then when one of those people call you out on it, you claim it wasn't directed at them. I understand that it wasn't directed at solely me, but I am included in the group you insulted. Now, care to discuss the topic at hand, or are you just going to keep going off on tangents because the basis of your argument has no substance.

So again, what has Obama done that he's been blocked on?

I put words in your mouth? "Which is conveniently forgotten by these Fox News-watching half-wits so they'll experience no cognitive dissonance when blaming him for the problem."
That was quoted directly from your comment. Now, please tell me, which words did I put in your mouth? If not me, whom were you speaking of?

So you call people names, then imply you didn't and try to argue semantics, rather than the argument itself. Typical strategy for those without facts and evidence to back up their original premise of a debate.

Me and others, yes

If you're saying he has and does try to help veterans, please show us what he has tried to do and how he has been blocked? You called me a "Fox News-watching half wit", but I'm the close-minded one? I can present evidence that shows the spin this administration has performed.

What has he been blocked on from helping the vets? This administration has bungled the VA time and time again and has used distraction and spin at every turn. Care to go toe to toe with evidence?

You're being a dick in that you're dismissing the message through minor grammatical errors that could easily be attributed to an iPhone keyboard typo

Yes, it's pandering to women. Implying that women are affected more by healthcare decisions because of rape is ignoring the fact that men are rape victims as well. By omitting those victims, by definition, he is pandering to women.

Then I apologize

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

If people are breaking the law, then absolutely, they need to be held accountable. Changing the law, however, won't make them compliant with the law. I feel we should have much stricter penalties and enforcement on people that break existing gun laws before we create a bunch of new ones. I don't mind any disagreement about this, but ambiguous terms like "assault weapon" make my blood boil, because they are terms used by those who should know better, to mislead people that don't. An example is Alan Grayson saying an AR-15 shoots 700 rounds a minute.

Also, you may not purchase "anything you can imagine." Automatic weapons are illegal to sell or purchase, without obtaining extremely expensive and rare permits.

At gun shows, a federally licensed gun dealer is not permitted to sell a firearm without a federal background check. Person to person sales are legal without background checks, but only to a person within the same state, and it is not permitted to sell a firearm to either someone they know or to someone to whom they have a belief will do harm. If you are "engaged in the business of selling firearms", you must obtain a federal firearm dealer's license. While that is a subjective term, people selling as few as two firearms have been convicted of illegally selling firearms. Those are the federal guidelines, states may have more stringent laws, but not more relaxed. The "gun show loophole" is misleading, at best.

So you're telling me that you can buy the equivalent of an AR-15 in a grocery store with no background check? That would be a felony on the part of the grocery store.