>>You have ignored part of what I said (again) taken part of it out of context (again) and deleted part of what I said (again) in your reply. This is what you do when you've been proven wrong - because if you include everything we've said it's obvious this is the case. Lame.

Your full post:

>>hh huhh... so he 'advocated ' for something when he wasn't in politics and and no control over it. Meanwhile, when he CAN do something - all he's done is sign a bill blocking Obama-era background checks on guns for people with mental illnesses. He prevented a new data source from included the system that runs background checks. Another worthless politician who's been paid off by the NRA to the tune of over 30 MILLION dollars -- don't fool yourself into thinking he's some savior of the anti-gun violence folks lol lol.

First and last sentences are just mean flails with no merit.

2nd sentence:
>>Meanwhile, when he CAN do something - all he's done is sign a bill blocking Obama-era background checks on guns for people with mental illnesses
That's the sentence I replied to.

3rd sentence:
>>He prevented a new data source from included the system that runs background checks.
I answered this too- since that "new data source" seems to be discrimination per Amendment 4 unless there's due cause or evidence of danger from the affected group. Is it true that people on disability who need assistance, are such a risk that they deserve to be singled out? I doubt it. There's plenty of mental impairments that cause decent citizens to need assistance without making them a danger to others, Victor.

You say I'm proven wrong: so go for it, leave out the hating and just provide the evidence that this group is such a risk that they deserve to be singled out specially.