Hey Liberals!

[emilynghiem]

ARMS

Guns is to Arms, as Anus is to Asshole, as Asshole is to Jack Ass, as Jack Ass is to Liberal, as Sallow is to Shallow

THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

So you couldn't find guns..huh?

Find telephone, computer or any other item that's protected speech under the First Amendment.

I bet you can't!!

You tool!!

Is this like trying to find "separation of church and state" in the Constitution?

Or what about "consent of the governed"
that appears NOWHERE in the Constitution or Amendments,

Yet it is the basis of all binding laws and contracts.

I believe "consent of the governed" is the SPIRIT of the laws, inherent in all government.

(This is somewhat related to "no taxation without representation" which isn't verbatim in the Constitution, but the concept in Article 5 where tax revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives to signify coming from the People.)

Are you going to nix this on a technicality because it isn't officially in writing?
Apparently so, given how people abuse parties to violate the consent of others.

Do we need a Constitutional Amendment on
consent of the governed
freedom of interpretation
equality of political beliefs
right to mediation and consensus to resolve disputes

What is the best way to affirm that we can interpret and apply laws freely, as long
as we take responsibility and do not impose on others who don't agree, to AVOID imposing "one national religion" bias or belief on all people excluding other ways equally protected?

 

[RDD_1210]

Good. The fact that items are specifically called out doesn't mitigate the constitutional right attributed to them.


I'm glad you agree.

Sure.

According to the second amendment and the united states constitution; you have the right to bear arms as part of a militia under the control of the federal government engaged, actively in defending the state.

Glad we cleared that up.

No you're mistaken

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals[1][2] to keep and bear arms.[3][4][5][6]The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.

Highlighted your quote as well. Thanks for proving the point that regulation is in fact permissible.

 

[BlindBoo]

Sure.

According to the second amendment and the united states constitution; you have the right to bear arms as part of a militia under the control of the federal government engaged, actively in defending the state.

Glad we cleared that up.

That is one interpretation. The others are equally valid.

No his interpretation isn't valid. SCOTUS has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right and not merely to collective militias.

District of Columbia v. Heller

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Scalia cautioned in his opinion. "From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

Attempts to control types of weapons and who can possess weapons appear to be constitutional, Scalia added.

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our [majority] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.


Read more: Scalia leaves room for control of most violent weapons - UPI.com

 

[GreenBean]

So you couldn't find guns..huh?

Find telephone, computer or any other item that's protected speech under the First Amendment.

I bet you can't!!

You tool!!

You've just made my point without even realizing it!

Are you off your meds again, or do your normally exhibit the behavior of sushi sucking degenerate. If you made twice as much sense you'd be a halfwit.

Did you learn to be a logic fearing deviant at your liberal arts college, or did you pick it up while interning for the Taliban?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Sure.

According to the second amendment and the united states constitution; you have the right to bear arms as part of a militia under the control of the federal government engaged, actively in defending the state.

Glad we cleared that up.

No you're mistaken

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals[1][2] to keep and bear arms.[3][4][5][6]The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.

Highlighted your quote as well. Thanks for proving the point that regulation is in fact permissible.

No one said it wasn't.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That is one interpretation. The others are equally valid.

No his interpretation isn't valid. SCOTUS has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right and not merely to collective militias.

District of Columbia v. Heller

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Scalia cautioned in his opinion. "From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

Attempts to control types of weapons and who can possess weapons appear to be constitutional, Scalia added.

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our [majority] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.


Read more: Scalia leaves room for control of most violent weapons - UPI.com

What's your point?

I just showed your idiot leftist friend that the second amendment did not strictly apply to a militia. Now you clowns are trying to bring up an issue that wasn't disputed.

 

[jillian]

You demand gun control laws, (and others), that are Unconstitutional.
Why don't you work within the Constitutional bounds to get your way instead of just demanding it? Our Founding Fathers wrote Article Five just for you whiners, yet you ignore it!

Example:
Juan Williams,
Juan Williams reacts to Fort Hood: Time for U.S. to go 'gun-free' - Washington Times (there, I fixed it)

If you are against the United States Constitution, you are un-American and my enemy!

gun regulation is not unconstitutional.

banning guns is...

perhaps you should actually get someone to read and explain heller to you so you actually know and understand what it says.

or maybe you're so full of ignorance, hate and bile that even someone reading and explaining won't help you.

 

[BlindBoo]

No his interpretation isn't valid. SCOTUS has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right and not merely to collective militias.

District of Columbia v. Heller

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Scalia cautioned in his opinion. "From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

Attempts to control types of weapons and who can possess weapons appear to be constitutional, Scalia added.

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our [majority] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.


Read more: Scalia leaves room for control of most violent weapons - UPI.com

What's your point?

I just showed your idiot leftist friend that the second amendment did not strictly apply to a militia. Now you clowns are trying to bring up an issue that wasn't disputed.

Separating the militia from the Second and declaring that the Second includes that citizen have limited rights to own firearms for personal protection was just recently decided by the SC in a 5-4 decision. That right has nothing to do with protecting the country from it's duly elected government because a minority claim it is somehow tyrannical.

 

[emilynghiem]

You demand gun control laws, (and others), that are Unconstitutional.
Why don't you work within the Constitutional bounds to get your way instead of just demanding it? Our Founding Fathers wrote Article Five just for you whiners, yet you ignore it!

Example:
Juan Williams,
Juan Williams reacts to Fort Hood: Time for U.S. to go 'gun-free' - Washington Times (there, I fixed it)

If you are against the United States Constitution, you are un-American and my enemy!

gun regulation is not unconstitutional.

banning guns is...

perhaps you should actually get someone to read and explain heller to you so you actually know and understand what it says.

or maybe you're so full of ignorance, hate and bile that even someone reading and explaining won't help you.

also federal government regulating someone's Constitutional beliefs is unconstitutional.

that's why we need consensus on law where religious or political beliefs are in conflict,
so NOBODY'S free exercise of religion, due process, or equal protections are violated.

 

[RDD_1210]

No you're mistaken

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals[1][2] to keep and bear arms.[3][4][5][6]The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.

Highlighted your quote as well. Thanks for proving the point that regulation is in fact permissible.

No one said it wasn't.

LOL. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Redfish]

You demand gun control laws, (and others), that are Unconstitutional.
Why don't you work within the Constitutional bounds to get your way instead of just demanding it? Our Founding Fathers wrote Article Five just for you whiners, yet you ignore it!

Example:
Juan Williams,
Juan Williams reacts to Fort Hood: Time for U.S. to go 'gun-free' - Washington Times (there, I fixed it)

If you are against the United States Constitution, you are un-American and my enemy!

gun regulation is not unconstitutional.

banning guns is...

perhaps you should actually get someone to read and explain heller to you so you actually know and understand what it says.

or maybe you're so full of ignorance, hate and bile that even someone reading and explaining won't help you.

registering firearms is step one to confiscating them, except for those in the hands of criminals or the government. Would you feel safe in a country where only criminals and the government had guns? if your answer is yes, then you are hopelessly naive and unaware of history.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You demand gun control laws, (and others), that are Unconstitutional.
Why don't you work within the Constitutional bounds to get your way instead of just demanding it? Our Founding Fathers wrote Article Five just for you whiners, yet you ignore it!

Example:
Juan Williams,
IRS Director Admits Taxes Are Voluntary 2013 - YouTube

If you are against the United States Constitution, you are un-American and my enemy!

And then someone points out gay marriage. Why don't the right work within the US Constitution?

Maybe it's that both sides are just doing what they want to do and ignoring the larger picture of rights and freedoms.

Marriage is not in the Constitution, therefore it's up to the States. Don't like it, use Article five to Amend the Constitution to include it.

Gay Marriage is not the topic of this post, but that's my opinion anyway.

Hey Moron! Take your gun and shove it. It's moron's like you who make it necessary to have some form of gun control.

 

[jillian]

You demand gun control laws, (and others), that are Unconstitutional.
Why don't you work within the Constitutional bounds to get your way instead of just demanding it? Our Founding Fathers wrote Article Five just for you whiners, yet you ignore it!

Example:
Juan Williams,
Juan Williams reacts to Fort Hood: Time for U.S. to go 'gun-free' - Washington Times (there, I fixed it)

If you are against the United States Constitution, you are un-American and my enemy!

gun regulation is not unconstitutional.

banning guns is...

perhaps you should actually get someone to read and explain heller to you so you actually know and understand what it says.

or maybe you're so full of ignorance, hate and bile that even someone reading and explaining won't help you.

registering firearms is step one to confiscating them, except for those in the hands of criminals or the government. Would you feel safe in a country where only criminals and the government had guns? isfyour answer is yes, then you are hopeless naive and unaware of history.

you are free to your opinion on that issue. it's extreme and normal people don't believe that for a second.

of course, like most extremists, you fail to respond to the point, which is regulation is not unconstitutional. your radical *OPINION* on the subject notwithstanding.

and someone with a fish as an avatar really has no business commenting on anyone else's.

as for the rest.... I do know what Heller says. i'd say i'm far less naïve and fearful than you....

but if that, and a gun, make you feel like you have genitalia, have at it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Scalia cautioned in his opinion. "From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

Attempts to control types of weapons and who can possess weapons appear to be constitutional, Scalia added.

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our [majority] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.


Read more: Scalia leaves room for control of most violent weapons - UPI.com

What's your point?

I just showed your idiot leftist friend that the second amendment did not strictly apply to a militia. Now you clowns are trying to bring up an issue that wasn't disputed.

Separating the militia from the Second and declaring that the Second includes that citizen have limited rights to own firearms for personal protection was just recently decided by the SC in a 5-4 decision. That right has nothing to do with protecting the country from it's duly elected government because a minority claim it is somehow tyrannical.

No one separated the militia from the second amendment. SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right separate from a militia. Both are included in the second amendments text.

Yes the second amendment does have something to do with protection from a tyrannical government.


Here’s a brief history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

 

[Redfish]

gun regulation is not unconstitutional.

banning guns is...

perhaps you should actually get someone to read and explain heller to you so you actually know and understand what it says.

or maybe you're so full of ignorance, hate and bile that even someone reading and explaining won't help you.

registering firearms is step one to confiscating them, except for those in the hands of criminals or the government. Would you feel safe in a country where only criminals and the government had guns? isfyour answer is yes, then you are hopeless naive and unaware of history.

you are free to your opinion on that issue. it's extreme and normal people don't believe that for a second.

of course, like most extremists, you fail to respond to the point, which is regulation is not unconstitutional. your radical *OPINION* on the subject notwithstanding.

and someone with a fish as an avatar really has no business commenting on anyone else's.

as for the rest.... I do know what Heller says. i'd say i'm far less naïve and fearful than you....

but if that, and a gun, make you feel like you have genitalia, have at it.

My genitalia are just fine, thanks. If you would like to bend over I wll be glad to demonstrate------I assume you are female, if not, disregard the offer.

Redfish are great sportfish and good eating. The are pletiful in the gulf and migrate into brackish waters in bayous and rivers. I only take the legal limits and if my freezer is full I wll catch and release.

the history of gun confiscation was summarized in another post. History does not lie. The founders knew that and thats why the 2nd amendment exists.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What's your point?

I just showed your idiot leftist friend that the second amendment did not strictly apply to a militia. Now you clowns are trying to bring up an issue that wasn't disputed.

Separating the militia from the Second and declaring that the Second includes that citizen have limited rights to own firearms for personal protection was just recently decided by the SC in a 5-4 decision. That right has nothing to do with protecting the country from it's duly elected government because a minority claim it is somehow tyrannical.

No one separated the militia from the second amendment. SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right separate from a militia. Both are included in the second amendments text.

Yes the second amendment does have something to do with protection from a tyrannical government.


Here’s a brief history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Do you really think anyone but an extremist seeks to disarm all citizens? Do you really believe your cache of firearms will stand up to a 21st Century Military intent to take you out?

Your example is ridiculous. The greater threat to public peace lies in the unequal treatment of our citizens and in the unwillingness of extreme gun advocates to agree to safe and sane regulations. Why not require a license requirement for anyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm? And don't play the slippery slope fallacy, its warn out. No one with a DUI, a conviction for a violent crime, gang association (including illegal militias) ought to own, possess, etc. It's simply common sense.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Separating the militia from the Second and declaring that the Second includes that citizen have limited rights to own firearms for personal protection was just recently decided by the SC in a 5-4 decision. That right has nothing to do with protecting the country from it's duly elected government because a minority claim it is somehow tyrannical.

No one separated the militia from the second amendment. SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right separate from a militia. Both are included in the second amendments text.

Yes the second amendment does have something to do with protection from a tyrannical government.


Here’s a brief history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Do you really think anyone but an extremist seeks to disarm all citizens? Do you really believe your cache of firearms will stand up to a 21st Century Military intent to take you out?

Your example is ridiculous. The greater threat to public peace lies in the unequal treatment of our citizens and in the unwillingness of extreme gun advocates to agree to safe and sane regulations. Why not require a license requirement for anyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm? And don't play the slippery slope fallacy, its warn out. No one with a DUI, a conviction for a violent crime, gang association (including illegal militias) ought to own, possess, etc. It's simply common sense.

Yes I do think it would take an extremist to attempt such a thing and yes I do believe my cache of arms will suffice. You being the dumbass you are thinks that a military such as ours would ever betray their oath to defend the Constitution.

We are all equal and treated as such.

Do you honesty think that criminals will abide by regulations? They will suddenly decide to get licenses?

It is already illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm and now you want to include misdemeanor convictions as well?

 

[BlindBoo]

What's your point?

I just showed your idiot leftist friend that the second amendment did not strictly apply to a militia. Now you clowns are trying to bring up an issue that wasn't disputed.

Separating the militia from the Second and declaring that the Second includes that citizen have limited rights to own firearms for personal protection was just recently decided by the SC in a 5-4 decision. That right has nothing to do with protecting the country from it's duly elected government because a minority claim it is somehow tyrannical.

No one separated the militia from the second amendment. SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right separate from a militia. Both are included in the second amendments text.

Yes the second amendment does have something to do with protection from a tyrannical government.


Here’s a brief history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

No it doesn't, and it never did. This is not Turkey, Russia, China, Germany, Cambodia, Guatemala or Uganda.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Separating the militia from the Second and declaring that the Second includes that citizen have limited rights to own firearms for personal protection was just recently decided by the SC in a 5-4 decision. That right has nothing to do with protecting the country from it's duly elected government because a minority claim it is somehow tyrannical.

No one separated the militia from the second amendment. SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right separate from a militia. Both are included in the second amendments text.

Yes the second amendment does have something to do with protection from a tyrannical government.


Here’s a brief history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

No it doesn't, and it never did. This is not Turkey, Russia, China, Germany, Cambodia, Guatemala or Uganda.

It could be one day.

 

[BlindBoo]

No one separated the militia from the second amendment. SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right separate from a militia. Both are included in the second amendments text.

Yes the second amendment does have something to do with protection from a tyrannical government.


Here’s a brief history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

No it doesn't, and it never did. This is not Turkey, Russia, China, Germany, Cambodia, Guatemala or Uganda.

It could be one day.

Nah, none of them had the NRA fighting for Gun manufa......um, opps, Gun owners rights!!!!!