Another howler of a "pro gun control" news article!!

[virginia mountainman]

Careful with this one! He is in full, “pissin' pants”, and "make it up as we go along" mode, talk about hand wringing!!!! Here are a few excerpts!

Thus, it is not surprising that Milwaukee is one of the top ten most violent cities in the United States, with 5,289 cases of violent crime in 2007.

What Logic are you using?! How would you explain DC, and Chicago being a "gun controllers" paradise, account for their HIGHER crime rates?? A simple glance at the data, shows you don't know what your talking about...

Yet by far the most infuriating aspect of the Wisconsin gun laws is the lack of restrictions on wholesale sellers and gun shows. By law, wholesale retail providers and gun shows - as well as antique sellers - are not required to perform any kind of background check. Even more outrageous, the mandatory waiting period for purchasing a firearm is removed in both of these cases.

Really, their is NO restrictions on gun sellers at gun shows?! No background checks at ALL??! What a load of bullshit!! Federal law, applies everywhere, once again, you opened your mouth, and proved just how LITTLE you know...

Gun shows and wholesale retail sellers are two of the main outlets for criminals to obtain guns.

Not according to the FBI, less than 2% of Crime guns, come from gun shows, your way off, and once more, you prove how little you know...

Countless of other states have seen dramatic progress in lowering crime through use of these licensing systems, as well as a great decrease in the number of guns falling into the hands of criminals.

O really?! Than point out the dramatic effects of lowering crime, with licensing?? Actually, show me a crime, PREVENTED by gun licensing.... LOL!!!!

Dan Rose ([e-mail]) is a sophomore majoring in journalism and pre-med.

Well, if your medical studies are as effective as your journalism studies, lets just say, I hope you have no adversion to french fries.

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2009/06/05/wisconsin_gun_contro.php

[krispos42]

1. Wholesalers sell to retailers... who are FFLs.

Because they are federally licensed, they don't need to go through NICS.

Antiques sellers either are selling stuff that is grandfathered in, or to people with C&R federal licenses.


And "gun shows" don't sell anything except table space to retailers.



Finally, Wisconsin doesn't allow concealed carry, period. They don't issue licenses.

[Euromutt]

9. Evidently, Wisconsin needs better civics classes

... because it's nothing short of astounding that Mr. Rose there is utterly unaware of the existence of federal legislation. I'm pretty certain the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Act of 1993 apply to Wisconsin, which means NICS background checks have to be carried out by any FFL retailer on the sale of cartridge firearms. No, there's no background check required for black powder weapons, no. When's the last time somebody went on the rampage with a brace of cap and ball revolvers? 1870? Like your average Milwaukee gang-banger would even know how to load one (and prevent a chain-fire).

Wisconsin lawmakers should also move toward the licensing of rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Countless of other states have seen dramatic progress in lowering crime through use of these licensing systems, as well as a great decrease in the number of guns falling into the hands of criminals.

Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce. New York city? Chicago? Washington D.C.? Baltimore?

[sharesunited]

2. Too wishy washy. Too namby pamby.

Just advocate (1) radically reducing the manufacture of guns and ammunition and (2) ceasing their sale to the public.

The crusade against child porn had to start with the political will for zero tolerance.

Same with firearms.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. Won't work in a representative democracy

Not with 30% or so of Americans owning guns

[sharesunited]

4. The analogy which comes to mind is same-sex marriage licenses in California.

No more new ones being issued.

[bossy22]

5. won't happen

majority of americans are in favor of gun ownership for the general public in one form or another

[sharesunited]

6. As the great Newton Minow once said...

"What interests the public isn't necessarily in the public interest."

[Merchant Marine]

7. Good Thing

You're here to lead us into the light with your enlightened viewpoint, right?

[sharesunited]

11. Dude, if dynamite were easier to obtain, more goofs would buy dynamite.

You got something against public safety?

[Merchant Marine]

14. I believe

we can do the same thing to guns that we have to drugs; create an underground black market over which we have no control.

Why do you want to provide criminal gangs with a lucrative new source of smuggling revenue?

[sharesunited]

16. If we shut down the manufacturing sources, eventually there's nothing to smuggle.

What's the first thing the plumber does to fix a leak? Shuts the main supply off.

You like guns, that's where you're coming from. But you've allowed your gun worship to overwhelm your common sense.

It's like that saying about when you're a hammer the whole world looks like a nail.

[Merchant Marine]

18. You may have the power

to shut down domestic US manufacturing.

But you then must stop Norinco and the Chinese. And Russia's Tula Arsenal. Not the mention the Pakistani hill people that make full-auto AK-47s with hammers and sheet metal, and nitrocellulose gunpowder out of old film rolls. And the hundreds of manufacturing facilities worldwide that make unmarked knockoffs of US and Foreign weapons and ship them to Mexico. Mexico's anti-gun laws did nothing to the cartels- they were already shipping in kilos of coke, so a few crates of knockoff AKs were nothing new. You think you can stop gun smugglers when we can't stop criminal gangs from supplying the drug demands of 300m people? I hope you can train a cosmoline sniffing dog.

Nice ad-hominem by the way. I love being personally attacked by my friends in the party of tolerance and understanding.

[sharesunited]

22. Which makes and models of guns are causing U.S. homicides and suicides?

Not those to which you refer.

The red herrings you toss up are like shooting clay pigeons. How's that for a mixed metaphor.

And what ad hominem did I use? Gun worshipper? That's like calling a Christian a Jesus worshipper. Not only accurate, but something they should be proud to admit to.

You are actually on DU evangelizing for guns, so the reference is particularly apt.

No offense intended. Just feel the need to answer posts which praise or defend guns, or proselytize that more of them is some kind of good thing.

[Euromutt]

30. No guns cause homicides and suicides

That's ascribing magical powers to inanimate pieces of steel, aluminum and/or polymer.

If you mean "what makes and models of firearm are currently being used to commit homicides and suicides in the United States," then yes, the overwhelming number aren't manufactured in China, or Spain or Eastern Europe (like most European crime guns are). That's because there are currently plenty of American- and western European-manufactured firearms available via thefts and straw purchases.

But cutting off American-made guns at the source isn't going to stop homicides and suicides from happening. The suicides will resort to rope and the other means people use in countries that have tighter gun laws but higher suicide rates than the United States. The criminals (and 90% of American homicides are committed by people with a prior criminal history) will have their guns illicitly imported (i.e. smuggled), just like western European criminals already do. Somehow, nobody who's ever seriously wanted a gun to commit a homicide in western Europe has had difficulty getting hold of one. There are tons of drugs being smuggled into the United States every year from as far away as Afghanistan. Why should it be any harder to bring in guns from eastern Europe or east Asia?

The ad hominem you used (as if it really needed pointing out) was "you've allowed your gun worship to overwhelm your common sense." If I were to tell you that you're incapable of rational argument on this issue because you've succumbed to the belief that inanimate objects possess magical powers allowing them to compel peaceful people to murder others, or happy people to kill themselves, and others to worship them as idols, that would be an argument "at the man," wouldn't you say?

More to the point, an argumentem ad hominem is an illegitimate rhetorical tactic, not because the claim being made isn't true, but because it fails to address the argument the other person is making. A good example would be "How can you argue that factory farming is inhumane? You own a leather jacket!" or "Of you'd argue against affirmative action; you're white."

[virginia mountainman]

20. HOW??

I know several folks, who MAKE, guns, as a hobby, machining small blocks of steel into parts, and recivers...

A muffler shop, has all the equipment on hand, to start cranking out submachine guns, all they would need that they would not have on hand, is some widely available spring steel, and some random, scrap steel to make pins, and levers with... simple barrels can be made from cast iron water pipe.

And simple submachine guns, are EASSSSSSYYYYYYYY to make....

Ammunition is absolutely no problem, bullets can be made out of lead, and propellants and primers made out of "strike anywhere matches"

Your using the same logic, as if someone wanted to "ban" fire, by doing away with matches and lighters....

You cannot un-invent anything.... Especially in the age of the internet...

EDIT, Watch this movie, people building AK47's with little more than hand tools, notice, they are building all kinds of guns their, with little more than a file and few tools...

Americans, have a whole host of high quality machine tools at their disposal, it would be much easier for us to build them weapons.... And since it would be illegal, their would no reason, not to go ahead and get the full auto, since the "time would be the same"

Kinda like Meth, with an important difference, the majority of Americans BELIEVE IT IS THEIR CIVIL RIGHT....Yea. that will work...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGVianQJsmQ

[Merchant Marine]

21. Chechen Handywork

Here's what desperate, innovative people can do in a war zone...



Yes folks, that's a grenade launcher- big 10 in the federal pen if you try that at home.

Here's an even better one- homemade 14.7mm anti-material rifle!



Homemade fully-automatic SMGs, another big ATF no-no.

[sharesunited]

24. Sure, people are resourceful. MAKE them be that resourceful.

Don't mass produce the stuff and make it available for retail purchase at a store which a shooter can stop in at the way to work, where he is headed to take care of what he considers to be a problem boss or problem co-workers.

If someone wants to fabricate guns in his muffler shop, he will be discovered and shut down eventually. Just like when he is producing contraband of any other kind.

[virginia mountainman]

27. You just don't get it...

Their was already an "attempt" to restrict a popular item in America, that was Proabition..

Did you forget about what happened then?? Do you wish a repeat?? Are you really that blood thirsty?

People, already balk at laws, that are deemed "to strict" so, your going to ban, something that is widely believed to be a CIVIL RIGHT to own??

Your asking for lots of people, to be killed, in the attempt, at enforcement, on BOTH SIDES. Much like proabition....

Not to mention, the public's reaction at the polls. But hey, if you like Gun Control that much, just stay in Chicago....It seems to work so well their... ROFLMAO!!!!

And besides, your point of view, is so far out of the mainstream as to be funny...

I am ready for bed, my playtime is over....

[Merchant Marine]

29. Bloody Hell

Our borders are porous. The guns will be foreign, they will be bought and sold on the street-corner by the same scum that already push coke.

In your world only the lawbreakers will be armed. The citizenry will be disarmed and helpless. Gun crime may go down, but the spike in all other types of criminal activity will follow the same trend as in Australia- 300%.

[gorfle]

34. How well has that worked...

How well has that worked with shutting down the drug manufacturing sources?

[AtheistCrusader]

42. You can make a firearm in a middle school metal shop.

So, good luck with that.

[X_Digger]

43. Much to the chagrin of middle school shop teachers! (mine was bald for a reson.) n/t

[rl6214]

46. Here we go with the ridicule, name calling,

and labels that anti-gun zealots like to use to try to drive their point...

"you've allowed your gun worship to overwhelm your common sense."

[krispos42]

48. Uh-huh

It's gone now, but there was a sight that explained in detail how to make full-autotmatic submachine guns and machine pistols from stuff you can easily get at the hardware store.

Just out of curiousity, I downloaded the PDF and studied it. It's jaw-droppingly simple. No machining required. Some pounding, some drilling, some grinding, some cutting, some filing, and you have a full-auto firearm.



Most gun deaths are due to crime; most crime gun deaths are due to gangs. Gangs that have the organization and ability to have these things made, or to import them with their drugs, or to buy or steal them from the hundreds of millions of guns already in existance in the country.

Destroying the gangs is far easier than destroying the guns. Legalize drugs.


Instead of enacting even more restrictions on our citizens, you'd be increasing personal freedom.




Besides, the goad of any program should be reducing total deaths, not gun deaths. Gun bans and confiscation has not been shown to reduce homicide rates, just GUN homicide rates.

[virginia mountainman]

54. Like this one? LOL

Using "plumbing componants" and bits of sheet steel??

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6118520/expedient-homemade-firearms-bsp-9mm-smg-p

Only a fool, would try to un-invent something...

[krispos42]

64. Looks like it... "Expediant Homemade Firearms"

I remember that linking to "thehomegunsmith.com" causes several members to freak out! "OMG! What are you doing posting that information?!?!?" :-)


:shrug:


What can I say? The open-bolt submachine gun is a masterpiece of simplicity!

[gorfle]

33. Straw Man.

This is a straw man. No one has suggested easier access to explosives.

The reason why explosives are considered differently from small arms is that they are, generally speaking, an indiscriminate weapon.

While a semi-automatic firearm requires a conscious aiming and firing at a single, specific target, explosives are much more difficult to so target.

Moreover, explosives, while certainly a crucial part of any fight against oppression, can be easily improvised on demand should the need ever arise. Firearms are not so easily improvised.

[Caliman73]

10. So you are for using the same bigoted tactics that have been used to deny fundamental rights to LGBT

I thought this was DU? Huh imagine that?

[sharesunited]

12. Same sex marriage is the civil rights struggle of our time.

But I think equal protection is probably better served by getting the state out of the marriage sanctioning business entirely.

The only reason I brought up Prop 8 and the California Supreme Court ruling in this discussion about guns is to demonstrate the capacity of the law to cut off the admission of new members to a sanctioned class.

Gun ownership can be handled in the exact same way. Like same sex California marriage licenses or big city taxicab medallions.

[Caliman73]

13. I know what you were alluding to...still wrong.

The right to self defense is also a fundamental human and civil right. You shouldn't advocate bigoted strategies just because you don't like the right and the tools being protected.

[Statistical]

15. The court (wrongly in IMHO but that is another issue) ruled marriage is not protected ..

by the constitution.

The court didn't rule that it was protected and take it away, it simple ruled the definition "marriage" is not protected.

The right to keep and bears arms is a pre-existing right codified and protected by the 2nd amendment of the United States.

Not even getting to the merits of the issue how do you get around the 2nd?

[sharesunited]

17. The RKBA refers to single-shot, front loading, flint lock technology.

That's the extent of its Constitutional protection, and that's only if you can get past the requirement that it be exercised in the context of a well regulated militia.

To those who say the 2A protects the right of the People to engage in armed rebellion against the United States, I would answer that this was settled by the American Civil War, and settled against any such right of rebellion.

[Merchant Marine]

19. Perhaps

Mr. Kennedy can enlighten you

John F. Kennedy: "By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the 2nd amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration… in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the 2nd Amendment will always be important. … If we make peaceful revolution impossible, we make violent revolution inevitable." John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann

[sharesunited]

26. JFK was running for President of a nation of gun nuts.

What would you expect him to say??

[jeepnstein]

38. So you're calling John F. Kennedy a liar?

Wow. The guy had so much money and privilege that he needed to be President like I need a second job washing dogs.

If he said it, I believe him.

[virginia mountainman]

23. What a dangerous "idea" going "Amish" on the Bill of Rights..

How would you feel if someone applied YOUR logic to the rest of the bill of rights??

For Example;

The 1st Amendment, would only apply to hand cranked press, NOT to the telephone or the INternet...

How regressive of you...

[sharesunited]

25. Big difference. The RKBA is the only right which can take away all your other rights.

By killing your ass.

[virginia mountainman]

28. Nope, don't work that way....

[gorfle]

36. It is also...

Big difference. The RKBA is the only right which can take away all your other rights. By killing your ass.

It is also the only right which can preserve all your other rights. By killing the asses of those who would take them away.

[inkool]

32. I have read the 2nd amendment a few times.

It is not very long, but I may have missed the part about single shot, front loading, flint lock firearms. Could you please show me where the 2nd refers to the type of arms protected?

About the militia, please read heller, it will explain to why you are wrong.

I am not sure that anyone says that the 2nd protects the right to engage in armed rebellion. Just that the 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms which could be used in a rebellion. A rebellion which would be very illegal unless it was won. Kind of like the revolutionary war. Not very legal under British law, but since we won we no longer had to care about British law.

[sharesunited]

45. I'm not inclined to accept Scalia's views on anything.

He's a right-wing crackpot.

The Heller decision must and will be re-visited.

The 7th Circuit Appellate Court has already ruled post-Heller that the 2A only restrains the federal government.

I know that we are all becoming numbed by the growing number of random mass-shootings. But it is a public safety problem which eventually must be confronted and dealt with by removing the dangerous product from society.

[jeepnstein]

47. It'll get re-visited alright.

The 7th District's decision is most likely heading for the Supreme Court. Who's sitting on the Supreme Court right now? Remember as well that the current Chief Justice is young and in good health. I suspect this is not going to turn out to your liking.

[inkool]

49. Like it or not it is the law.

The Heller decision is not likely to be revisited by the court. All the 7th ruled on was that the 2nd was not incorporated against the states. The 9th however ruled that it was, so that is off to the SCOTUS to sort out. If the SCOTUS rule that it is incorporated then the 2nd will be applied to the states as defined under Heller.


Now do you care to explain how the 2nd only covers single shot, front loading, and flint lock firearms.

[sharesunited]

50. Original intent as envisioned by the framers. I'm a living Constitution guy...

EXCEPT when it comes to this provision. I favor the strictest interpretation possible of the 2A. Frozen in time, in 1789 technology, as the ultimate boundary of any protection of such a right at the Constitutional level. For the sake of the common good. For the sake of life, limb, and tranquility.

Any more advanced technology may be suffered by the People as a matter of political will only. Not as a Constitutional right. No way! By what justification? To engage in armed rebellion against the police or the army?

[inkool]

51. Ahh, you just don't like the 2nd,

and interpret it differently then the rest of the constitution because of this dislike. I can respect you opinion, but logically it makes no sense.

Is this a question?

By what justification? To engage in armed rebellion against the police or the army?

If so look at #32 for my answer.

[sharesunited]

53. I have no need to like it or dislike it. I just do what judges do.

I weigh the good it purports to contain against the harm it demonstrably does when interpreted so loosely as to promote general mayhem in society.

What this honest weighing does is convince me that stricter is better in respect to finding a Constitutional right in it.

[Statistical]

55. That is NOT what a judge does. Thankfuly you are not and never will be a judge.

You are substituting your opinion of what is best for rule of law.

Original intent for all aspects of the Constitution save the 2nd.

How sad. A good dictator you would make not a good jurist.

[sharesunited]

56. No, that's backwards. Original intent most strictly applied to the 2nd.

Frozen in time as to available technology.

If the political will exists to suffer a more advanced level of death dealing in the hands of Joe Sixpack, then it's up to the legislature.

But if the legislature finds it is in the public interest to restrict such technology, it can be dialed all the way back to 1789 levels of sophistication without any Constitutional infringement whatsoever.

That's where I'm at with this.

[Statistical]

57. Original INTENT.

Based on historical records there is no evidence they founders INTENDED to limit the 2nd to the BofR.

All of the amendments of the BofR are concepts. Concepts more powerful than technology or time.

Is DNA evidence compulsory without a warrant? The founders couldn't even CONCEIVE on the concept of DNA.

Of course it does because the INTENT was that evidence not be obtained without a warrant. Period. Even evidence they couldn't imagine. If someday we invent a device that can read memories use of the device would require a warrant too. Even though today we can't imagine how such a device would work.

There is NO historical evidence to indicate the founders INTENTION was to cripple the 2nd. They were smart enough to know arms change over time. Limiting the 2nd to current arms would essentially be putting a 50-100 year expiration date on the amendment.

Your concept of original intent lacks the understand of a high school student much less a jurist.

Even gun control groups aren't stupid enough to come out with dribble like that. Why didn't DC or Chicago use such "legal arguments" in their cases. Maybe because it lacks any foundation. That not only would they lose they would be laughed at by the courts.

[sharesunited]

59. 4th Amendment protection is a similar social compact.

Open your car trunk when pulled over and directed to do so, or else get taken to the station while they wait for a rubber stamp warrant. (This is called doing it the hard way.)

Decline a breathalyzer and you lose your driver's license, regardless of your actual sobriety. No trial required.

Get convicted of a felony and your DNA fingerprint is taken for the FBI database.

Is a hotspot on your roof picked up by a police thermal imager sufficient to support a search of your house for grow lights? In the Kyllo decision, Scalia says, "not yet." But when thermal imagers come into general public use, your expectation of privacy will be diminished accordingly.

I'm glad you brought up the 4th Amendment.

Progress clearly erodes protection.

Swear words on the radio?

Child porn on the internet?

1st Amendment similarly restricted.

All such restrictions ostensibly for the public good. Continuously evolving away from shielding YOU and toward promoting the general welfare.

[rl6214]

63. Well then it's got to be the same

for the 1st.

[Deadric Damodred]

52. You don't have a choice in the matter.

Whether you like Scalia's review or not, it's law. You don't get the choice of following or disregarding a Supreme Court opinion based on whether or not your side won or lost. If that was the case, then a republican could just ignore Roe v Wade just as easily as you want to ignore Heller. And the SCOTUS is the final court in the land; they do not like reversing themselves because it would make them look wishy-washy. You don't get to reverse every "republican decision" just because you don't like it, anymore than "democrate" decisions can just be flippantly reversed; that's not now the Supreme Court works. Whether you like it or not Heller is law and it is sticking around. And the 7th Circuit Court ruling ruled in exactly the way we wanted; we wanted them to rule against Heller because that means it's going to the Supreme Court where it will be reversed and the 2nd Amendment will be incorporated to the States and your side will have lost the war. It will be the end game.

[rl6214]

62. I'm not inclined to accept YOUR view on anything

What have YOU done?

[gorfle]

35. On 18th century technology.

The RKBA refers to single-shot, front loading, flint lock technology. That's the extent of its Constitutional protection, and that's only if you can get past the requirement that it be exercised in the context of a well regulated militia.

First of all, the Founders specified "arms" rather than specific kinds of arms because they knew that technology would change. The intent was to arm civilians with the same small arms that any military would have, so that the civilian population could serve as, or at least counter, the federal military army.

To say that the Constitution only protects 18th century firearms is to say that the Constitution only protects published speech produced on 18th century printing presses.

Second of all, the militias our founders intended to exist as a counter to federal military power have not existed since 1905, when the Dick Act federalized the state militias creating the National Guard, making them adjuncts to, and not counters to, federal military power.

Third of all, the Dick Act also provided for the Unorganized Militia, which is all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia (National Guard).

Fourth of all, the recent Heller Supreme Court decision held, from both the consenting and dissenting sides, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of membership in any organization such as a militia.

To those who say the 2A protects the right of the People to engage in armed rebellion against the United States, I would answer that this was settled by the American Civil War, and settled against any such right of rebellion.

The American Civil War demonstrated a failed rebellion. It does not demonstrate that there are not times when armed rebellions is necessary and righteous. See: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.

[TheWraith]

37. And the first amendment doesn't cover TV, radio, or the internet.

Don't say absurdly stupid things if you can avoid it.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Wrong.

http://www.beemans.net/Austrian%20airguns.htm
20 shots. Smoothbore. Was used against the French in war. 10 years before the 2nd was ratified.
Also, you seem to be forgetting that cannon were in civilian possession around that time.

Nevermind that the 1st Amendment applies to online publishing, and other forms of 'speech'.

[DrCory]

58. Are You Claiming The Word "Arms"...

Is defined exclusively as firelocks?

[rl6214]

61. No

The RKBA refers to having a weapon equivolent to what the military might have so you can be an effective militia. You could not be an effective militia today with a muzzleloader.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. And many of them will travel out of state to get them.

And they continue to live together and behave, in all other ways, as married people even without leaving the state.

But thanks for the excellent example of the misery caused by the curtailment of a civil right.

[proteus_lives]

8. It will never happen.

Sorry if the Obama adminstration did that, there wouldn't be a Democrat within a 100 miles of D.C.

Besides, it's fucking wrong.

[inkool]

31. You will have to repeal that pesky pesky 2nd amendment first.

Good luck with that.

Also equating firearm ownership to child porn is just low, and does nothing to help the debate.

[Statistical]

44. Did it ever occur to you that your facist views are NOT shared by the general public?

It isn't just "gun nuts".

Even if you consider all gun owners "gun nuts" they only make up 30%-35% of the population.
Even if 100% of gun owners answered no that still means a majority of NON GUN OWNERS do not support banning handguns.

Also notice this question is just handguns support for banning all firearms would be lower.

It isn't just on banning that your views are way out of mainstream:



Also this is an older poll and since it was before Heller the support numbers likely are lower than they would be today but even pre Heller a majority believe in the 2nd.



Even non gun owners believe the 2nd guarantees and individual right



This isn't a republican thing, or a gun nut thing, or a conservative thing, or a southern thing. Support for RKBA is widespread in America even among people who will NEVER own a firearm.

You are just a reactionary and as obsolete as the KKK (early supporter of gun control against Blacks).

[benEzra]

39. "Countless" states require licenses to own guns?

Unless his fingers don't go up to 5, that number is not "countless."

[jody]

60. Probably referring to his brain re "'Countless' states". n/t