Conservative View of Gun Rights

[PoliticalChic]

1. Why is it that the Founders respected the citizenry as responsible and law abiding….yet, today, we hear the call to disarm the population in the name of public safety? Conservatives have that fundamental faith in Americans that is absent from the Leftists who populate half of the nation.

a. The Founders considered the right to bear arms so basic, so important, that it appears in the Bill of Rights second only to the right to free expression.




2. Perhaps redefining ‘right’ is in order.

a. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
b. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
c. Rights belong to each human individually.
d. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
e. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
f. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.
g. Whereas the right to bear arms and free expression require nothing but governmental promise of protection, ‘fake rights’ entail government coercive redirection of private resources.
Richard Lorenc, “Reinventing The Right,” p. 33-34.




3. But, they say, many die due to the prevalence of gun. And, actually, in 2006 there were 642 reported cases of unintentional deaths by firearms.
Definitions for WISQARS Fatal - NCIPC and http://www.life123.com/arts-culture/artists/Number-of-Accidental-Gun-Deaths-Per-Year and

a. Near as I can figure, that’s about 0.0002646 of all deaths that year. NCHS Pressroom - 2008 Press Release - Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2006

b. Compare that to about 40,000 accidental deaths on our highways, or the nearly 225,000 deaths attributed to medical errors. How Common Are Medical Mistakes? - RightDiagnosis.com

4. While the majority of ‘public safety’ schemes revolve around increasing government power, isn’t there an argument that outlawing guns would make us safer?

No. Anti-gun laws would have no effect on criminals, as they don’t obey laws in the first place…that’s what makes them criminals.

a. In London, where gun control is unreasonably strict, and a war on knives is in progress, the chances of being mugged are six times greater than in New York City. “None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control.”
Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason.com

b. “In reality, the English approach has not reduced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.” Ibid.

c. Violent crime rate per 100,000: The UK, 2,034; the U.S., 466 per 100,000 HOPE? UK: 2,034 Violent Crimes Per 100k People Vs U.S. At 466 - TheCount.com News | Gossip | Meme





5. So…what kinds of firearms laws or combinations of such laws decrease violent crime?
“The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.”
First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
None. Not any. More laws is hardly the answer.




6. The only correct procedure is to do as the conservatives who wrote the Bill of Rights ordered in the second amendment, and not the go-easy-on-criminals that Liberal Democrats favor.

a. Does this make us safer?
“CA Gov. Brown Paroles 377 Convicted Killers” CA Gov. Brown Paroles 377 Convicted Killers



Government's function is to protect individual liberty....not curtail it.
Trust the citizen.
Jail the law-breaker.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I agree PC, too many Laws on books make confusing. Just need one Gun Law:

No Civilian Ownership of any weapons.

 

[hunarcy]

I agree PC, too many Laws on books make confusing. Just need one Gun Law:

No Civilian Ownership of any weapons.

Of course because if we didn't have all those civilians owning firearms, we could live just like the happy people of North Korea do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I agree PC, too many Laws on books make confusing. Just need one Gun Law:

No Civilian Ownership of any weapons.

I think I've discovered a wolf in sheep's clothing.

You.....you...provocateur!

You don't really believe that,.....

...I know you didn't miss this in the OP:

Anti-gun laws would have no effect on criminals, as they don’t obey laws in the first place…that’s what makes them criminals.

a. In London, where gun control is unreasonably strict, and a war on knives is in progress, the chances of being mugged are six times greater than in New York City. “None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control.”
Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason.com

b. “In reality, the English approach has not reduced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.” Ibid.

c. Violent crime rate per 100,000: The UK, 2,034; the U.S., 466 per 100,000 HOPE? UK: 2,034 Violent Crimes Per 100k People Vs U.S. At 466 - TheCount.com News | Gossip | Meme



Ya' big fibber!

 

[Mad Scientist]

I agree PC, too many Laws on books make confusing. Just need one Gun Law:

No Civilian Ownership of any weapons.

Of course because if we didn't have all those civilians owning firearms, we could live just like the happy people of North Korea do.

I don't hear them complaining.

Best Korea have lowest crime rate in world!

No Civilian ownership of guns.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I agree PC, too many Laws on books make confusing. Just need one Gun Law:

No Civilian Ownership of any weapons.

Anti-gun laws would have no effect on criminals, as they don’t obey laws in the first place…that’s what makes them criminals.

Gov't control of Gun production limit number of weapons made and give to Military only.

Gov't confiscation of gun from every house.

Checkpoint on all sidewalk and road ensure no gun in civilian hands.

As result the People are completely safe!

 

[hunarcy]

I agree PC, too many Laws on books make confusing. Just need one Gun Law:

No Civilian Ownership of any weapons.

Of course because if we didn't have all those civilians owning firearms, we could live just like the happy people of North Korea do.

I don't hear them complaining.

Best Korea have lowest crime rate in world!

No Civilian ownership of guns.

LMAO! Either you are insane or, more likely, just kidding.

Either way, there's no point in taking you seriously.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I agree PC, too many Laws on books make confusing. Just need one Gun Law:

No Civilian Ownership of any weapons.

Anti-gun laws would have no effect on criminals, as they don’t obey laws in the first place…that’s what makes them criminals.

Gov't control of Gun production limit number of weapons made and give to Military only.

Gov't confiscation of gun from every house.

Checkpoint on all sidewalk and road ensure no gun in civilian hands.

As result the People are completely safe!

OK...I'll play.

"Gov't control of Gun production limit number of weapons made and give to Military only."


Sure did a good job on preventing illegal drugs from entering the country.....

 

[Spoonman]

and when will we see some consitency from the anti gun nuts in their arguments. thye contradict themselves at every turn. when they wanted ot ban the saturday night specials their argument was they were no protected by the second amendment, only guns that could be used by the military were. now they want ot ban AR 15's because they are military style weapons. WTF? which is it?

 

[Spoonman]

I agree PC, too many Laws on books make confusing. Just need one Gun Law:

No Civilian Ownership of any weapons.

Anti-gun laws would have no effect on criminals, as they don’t obey laws in the first place…that’s what makes them criminals.

Gov't control of Gun production limit number of weapons made and give to Military only.

Gov't confiscation of gun from every house.

Checkpoint on all sidewalk and road ensure no gun in civilian hands.

As result the People are completely safe!

yea, but are we talking the USA or communist russia here?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is it that the Founders respected the citizenry as responsible and law abiding….yet, today, we hear the call to disarm the population in the name of public safety?

Nonsense.

There are no ‘calls’ to ‘disarm’ the population. There are currently no laws pending in Congress or any state or jurisdiction seeking to confiscate firearms.

Conservatives have that fundamental faith in Americans that is absent from the Leftists who populate half of the nation.

Yet this ‘fundamental faith’ evaporates when it comes to trusting Americans to make decisions concerning contraception and whether or not to have a child; clearly the right is comfortable authorizing the state to dictate to the people in this regard, and violate their fundamental right to privacy in the process.

The only correct procedure is to do as the conservatives who wrote the Bill of Rights ordered in the second amendment, and not the go-easy-on-criminals that Liberal Democrats favor.

Conservatives obviously did not compose the Bill of Rights; conservative opposition to due process rights for immigrants, equal protection rights for same-sex couples, and privacy rights for all Americans is evidence of that.

Does this make us safer?
“CA Gov. Brown Paroles 377 Convicted Killers” CA Gov. Brown Paroles 377 Convicted Killers

Fallacy of hasty generalization.

***

If conservatives actually had faith in the American people and the political and judicial process, they’d allow that process to naturally unfold, where the people through their elected representatives may seek to enact regulations on firearms, and where the people through the courts challenge those regulations perceived to be un-Constitutional.

 

[tinydancer]

1. Why is it that the Founders respected the citizenry as responsible and law abiding….yet, today, we hear the call to disarm the population in the name of public safety? Conservatives have that fundamental faith in Americans that is absent from the Leftists who populate half of the nation.

a. The Founders considered the right to bear arms so basic, so important, that it appears in the Bill of Rights second only to the right to free expression.







2. Perhaps redefining ‘right’ is in order.

a. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
b. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
c. Rights belong to each human individually.
d. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
e. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
f. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.
g. Whereas the right to bear arms and free expression require nothing but governmental promise of protection, ‘fake rights’ entail government coercive redirection of private resources.
Richard Lorenc, “Reinventing The Right,” p. 33-34.




3. But, they say, many die due to the prevalence of gun. And, actually, in 2006 there were 642 reported cases of unintentional deaths by firearms.
Definitions for WISQARS Fatal - NCIPC and http://www.life123.com/arts-culture/artists/Number-of-Accidental-Gun-Deaths-Per-Year and

a. Near as I can figure, that’s about 0.0002646 of all deaths that year. NCHS Pressroom - 2008 Press Release - Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2006

b. Compare that to about 40,000 accidental deaths on our highways, or the nearly 225,000 deaths attributed to medical errors. How Common Are Medical Mistakes? - RightDiagnosis.com

4. While the majority of ‘public safety’ schemes revolve around increasing government power, isn’t there an argument that outlawing guns would make us safer?

No. Anti-gun laws would have no effect on criminals, as they don’t obey laws in the first place…that’s what makes them criminals.

a. In London, where gun control is unreasonably strict, and a war on knives is in progress, the chances of being mugged are six times greater than in New York City. “None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control.”
Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason.com

b. “In reality, the English approach has not reduced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.” Ibid.

c. Violent crime rate per 100,000: The UK, 2,034; the U.S., 466 per 100,000 HOPE? UK: 2,034 Violent Crimes Per 100k People Vs U.S. At 466 - TheCount.com News | Gossip | Meme





5. So…what kinds of firearms laws or combinations of such laws decrease violent crime?
“The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.”
First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
None. Not any. More laws is hardly the answer.




6. The only correct procedure is to do as the conservatives who wrote the Bill of Rights ordered in the second amendment, and not the go-easy-on-criminals that Liberal Democrats favor.

a. Does this make us safer?
“CA Gov. Brown Paroles 377 Convicted Killers” CA Gov. Brown Paroles 377 Convicted Killers



Government's function is to protect individual liberty....not curtail it.
Trust the citizen.
Jail the law-breaker.

Tried coming back from Tennessee on a corporate move. Wanna see what governments can do to you?

They not only told us that they were going to hold them, but that they were going to destroy our archery equipment and antique swords as well. Thank the good heavens for PPG. They held the line on this.

It was a big deal.

His - Marlin 336C Lever Action 30/30

Hers - Winchester Model 94 Lever Action 30/30

Two Traditions 54 Cal. Hawken Black Powder Rifles - one for each of us Lord almighty I love mine. Just pushes.

Two Single Shot 12 Gauge Shotguns - one for each of us

Winchester Single Shot 22 cal.

Daisy Powermaster .177 Pellet Gun

In Addition, the bows:

His - Bear Deer Hunter 2 Compound Set to 65 lb Draw Weight

Hers - Black Bear Compound Set to 45lb Draw Weight

In Addition the swords:

Replicas

Hers - Ninja

His - US Cavalry

I'm a different kinda chick

Take me to Smoky Mountain Knife Works And holy toledo may I recommend this to any woman wanting to strap down a man. You take him there....you get your wedding dress on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why is it that the Founders respected the citizenry as responsible and law abiding….yet, today, we hear the call to disarm the population in the name of public safety?

Nonsense.

There are no ‘calls’ to ‘disarm’ the population. There are currently no laws pending in Congress or any state or jurisdiction seeking to confiscate firearms.

Conservatives have that fundamental faith in Americans that is absent from the Leftists who populate half of the nation.

Yet this ‘fundamental faith’ evaporates when it comes to trusting Americans to make decisions concerning contraception and whether or not to have a child; clearly the right is comfortable authorizing the state to dictate to the people in this regard, and violate their fundamental right to privacy in the process.

The only correct procedure is to do as the conservatives who wrote the Bill of Rights ordered in the second amendment, and not the go-easy-on-criminals that Liberal Democrats favor.

Conservatives obviously did not compose the Bill of Rights; conservative opposition to due process rights for immigrants, equal protection rights for same-sex couples, and privacy rights for all Americans is evidence of that.

Does this make us safer?
“CA Gov. Brown Paroles 377 Convicted Killers” CA Gov. Brown Paroles 377 Convicted Killers

Fallacy of hasty generalization.

***

If conservatives actually had faith in the American people and the political and judicial process, they’d allow that process to naturally unfold, where the people through their elected representatives may seek to enact regulations on firearms, and where the people through the courts challenge those regulations perceived to be un-Constitutional.

1."There are no ‘calls’ to ‘disarm’ the population. There are currently no laws pending in Congress or any state or jurisdiction seeking to confiscate firearms."


" Iowa lawmaker calls for retroactive gun ban, confiscation of semi-automatic weapons"

Read more: Iowa lawmaker calls for retroactive gun bans, confiscations of semi-automatic weapons | The Daily Caller


Strike one.


2." Yet this ‘fundamental faith’ evaporates when it comes to trusting Americans to make decisions concerning contraception and whether or not to have a child; clearly the right is comfortable authorizing the state to dictate to the people in this regard, and violate their fundamental right to privacy in the process. "

Are you referring to the alleged right to kill a child, as in late term abortion for any reason? Hardly the same as owning an inanimate object, is it.

Strike two.



3. "Conservatives obviously did not compose the Bill of Rights; conservative opposition to due process rights for immigrants, equal protection rights for same-sex couples, and privacy rights for all Americans is evidence of that."

Classical liberal, today known as conservatives, wrote the Bill of Rights.

a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.”
http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

Strike three.

Just in time for baseball season: three strikes and you're out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Why is it that the Founders respected the citizenry as responsible and law abiding….yet, today, we hear the call to disarm the population in the name of public safety? Conservatives have that fundamental faith in Americans that is absent from the Leftists who populate half of the nation.

a. The Founders considered the right to bear arms so basic, so important, that it appears in the Bill of Rights second only to the right to free expression.

This just came in, and I'd be remiss if I didn't post this addendum:


Quote: Originally Posted by legaleagle_45
Quote:
The Founders considered the right to bear arms so basic, so important, that it appears in the Bill of Rights second only to the right to free expression.
You might be careful with that as it came out of Congress as the 4th Article... behind an amendment that established the number of members of the House and another that fixed the salaries for Congress... neither of which were ratified by the states.

Amendments proposed by Congress to the States

Madisons proposal to the 1st Congress had it 9th.

Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison

The order was dictated by Madison's proposal who thought the Constitution should be amended by interliniation rather than by appendix. In other words, redrafting the constitution and inserting the new language where it fits in the Constitution. Thus the individual rights such as speech religion and arms were to be inserted in the same place where other individual rights are protected in the Constitution... habeas corpus, ex post facto etc. Rights to jury trial and such were placed in Article III which deals with the judiciary.

The order employed by Madison was in the order they would be inserted in the Constitution. Then the House committee on style got a hold of them and mashed many of them together but otherwise maintained the order provided by Madison.

legaleagle = constitution nerd


Thanks, legaleagle!

 

[Ernie S.]

I agree PC, too many Laws on books make confusing. Just need one Gun Law:

No Civilian Ownership of any weapons.

Sorry, no. The only gun law necessary is Don't shoot people unless you are protecting your person or property.
If you threaten me with a knife, you are going to be shot. If you attempt to carjack me, you are going to die. Try to assault my wife or child, you guessed it, you're fixin' ta die. Enter my house uninvited? Yup. You're dead.
Respect me, my family and my property? Everything is cool, capiche?

 

[Noelle]

" Iowa lawmaker calls for retroactive gun ban, confiscation of semi-automatic weapons"

Just because one politician is calling for a gun ban, doesn't mean they all are. Obviously, as this post proves, there are different opinions, and politicians don't necessarily all share your views. And just because he "calls" for it, doesn't mean it's going to happen.

2." Yet this ‘fundamental faith’ evaporates when it comes to trusting Americans to make decisions concerning contraception and whether or not to have a child; clearly the right is comfortable authorizing the state to dictate to the people in this regard, and violate their fundamental right to privacy in the process. "

"Are you referring to the alleged right to kill a child, as in late term abortion for any reason? Hardly the same as owning an inanimate object, is it."

I don't believe he was really talking about abortions. But you think the government has the right to tell me that I'm not allowed to take birth control? Personally, I think that's an infringement of rights. But an abortion could be considered someones right. Like I said, difference of opinions.

 

[legaleagle_45]

I agree PC, too many Laws on books make confusing. Just need one Gun Law:

No Civilian Ownership of any weapons.

I just love parody posters.

 

[tinydancer]

" Iowa lawmaker calls for retroactive gun ban, confiscation of semi-automatic weapons"

Just because one politician is calling for a gun ban, doesn't mean they all are. Obviously, as this post proves, there are different opinions, and politicians don't necessarily all share your views. And just because he "calls" for it, doesn't mean it's going to happen.

2." Yet this ‘fundamental faith’ evaporates when it comes to trusting Americans to make decisions concerning contraception and whether or not to have a child; clearly the right is comfortable authorizing the state to dictate to the people in this regard, and violate their fundamental right to privacy in the process. "

"Are you referring to the alleged right to kill a child, as in late term abortion for any reason? Hardly the same as owning an inanimate object, is it."

I don't believe he was really talking about abortions. But you think the government has the right to tell me that I'm not allowed to take birth control? Personally, I think that's an infringement of rights. But an abortion could be considered someones right. Like I said, difference of opinions.

Slippery slope. And you best be ready.

Not kidding on my last post. I'm a thwackmaster. They tied up my bows because the silly moving company put them in the same shipment as my guns.

Oh my gosh, lord help me I'm probably posting to a Kardashian fan.

There is a Gloria Gaynor tune out there for me......,

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Iowa lawmaker calls for retroactive gun ban, confiscation of semi-automatic weapons"

Just because one politician is calling for a gun ban, doesn't mean they all are. Obviously, as this post proves, there are different opinions, and politicians don't necessarily all share your views. And just because he "calls" for it, doesn't mean it's going to happen.

2." Yet this ‘fundamental faith’ evaporates when it comes to trusting Americans to make decisions concerning contraception and whether or not to have a child; clearly the right is comfortable authorizing the state to dictate to the people in this regard, and violate their fundamental right to privacy in the process. "

"Are you referring to the alleged right to kill a child, as in late term abortion for any reason? Hardly the same as owning an inanimate object, is it."

I don't believe he was really talking about abortions. But you think the government has the right to tell me that I'm not allowed to take birth control? Personally, I think that's an infringement of rights. But an abortion could be considered someones right. Like I said, difference of opinions.

Chamber_Pot said this: "There are no ‘calls’ to ‘disarm’ the population. There are currently no laws pending in Congress or any state or jurisdiction seeking to confiscate firearms."


"Democrats around the country are in a race to destroy the Second Amendment and the latest outrage is going down in Missouri.

Democrats Rory Ellinger and Jill Schupp have introduced House Bill 545, a law that with the stroke of a pen will turn thousands of law-abiding Missourians into class C felons. It will ban the possession, sale, transfer or manufacture of semi-automatic rifles and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

The law is in effect de facto confiscation demanding the “surrender” of firearms to the government.

Feinstein, a long time opponent of the Second Amendment, told CBS in 1995 that the ultimate plan is to have “Mr. and Mrs. America” turn in their guns to the government.

In December, New York governor Andrew Cuomo began an aggressive effort to restrict firearms in the state and confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply with retroactive rules on so-called assault weapons.

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” Cuomo said.

Prior to passage, Cuomo declared the Second Amendment “is a scourge on society” as Democrats said the legislation does not endanger the constitutional right to own firearms."
» Missouri Democrats Call for Gun Confiscation Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!



Now what you say, boyyyyeeeeee?

 

[Spoonman]

" Iowa lawmaker calls for retroactive gun ban, confiscation of semi-automatic weapons"

Just because one politician is calling for a gun ban, doesn't mean they all are. Obviously, as this post proves, there are different opinions, and politicians don't necessarily all share your views. And just because he "calls" for it, doesn't mean it's going to happen.

2." Yet this ‘fundamental faith’ evaporates when it comes to trusting Americans to make decisions concerning contraception and whether or not to have a child; clearly the right is comfortable authorizing the state to dictate to the people in this regard, and violate their fundamental right to privacy in the process. "

"Are you referring to the alleged right to kill a child, as in late term abortion for any reason? Hardly the same as owning an inanimate object, is it."

I don't believe he was really talking about abortions. But you think the government has the right to tell me that I'm not allowed to take birth control? Personally, I think that's an infringement of rights. But an abortion could be considered someones right. Like I said, difference of opinions.

Chamber_Pot said this: "There are no ‘calls’ to ‘disarm’ the population. There are currently no laws pending in Congress or any state or jurisdiction seeking to confiscate firearms."


"Democrats around the country are in a race to destroy the Second Amendment and the latest outrage is going down in Missouri.

Democrats Rory Ellinger and Jill Schupp have introduced House Bill 545, a law that with the stroke of a pen will turn thousands of law-abiding Missourians into class C felons. It will ban the possession, sale, transfer or manufacture of semi-automatic rifles and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

The law is in effect de facto confiscation demanding the “surrender” of firearms to the government.

Feinstein, a long time opponent of the Second Amendment, told CBS in 1995 that the ultimate plan is to have “Mr. and Mrs. America” turn in their guns to the government.

In December, New York governor Andrew Cuomo began an aggressive effort to restrict firearms in the state and confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply with retroactive rules on so-called assault weapons.

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” Cuomo said.

Prior to passage, Cuomo declared the Second Amendment “is a scourge on society” as Democrats said the legislation does not endanger the constitutional right to own firearms."
» Missouri Democrats Call for Gun Confiscation Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!



Now what you say, boyyyyeeeeee?

i'm living the NY laws. I say cuomo is a scourge on society. at the very least what will come out of coumo's legislation is excessive taxation on gun ownership and ammunition