ChrisWeigant.com

Advice For The Florida Teen Activists

[ Posted Wednesday, February 21st, 2018 – 18:56 PST ]

In the aftermath of the horrific slaughter at a Florida high school, the survivors of the massacre have moved onto center stage in the American political debate in a big way. This has happened with astonishing swiftness and with astonishing breadth. Television news producers are falling all over themselves to book the spokespeople for the teens, they've already tried their hand at lobbying (on the state legislator level), they've staged protests, they've come up with a plan for nationwide events to take place next month, and their nascent movement has already attracted millions of dollars of pledges from liberal celebrities. That is an immensely impressive list, especially considering it all took place in the time span of a single week. These kids have achieved more in one week's time than many advocacy groups have ever achieved from years of effort.

It should come as no surprise to regular readers that I heartily applaud their progress. Not only because I happen to agree with their cause, but because I regularly applaud (and offer unsolicited but friendly advice to) all protest movements with such spectacular early success -- from the Occupy Wall Street crowd to the Tea Party movement, in fact. I've long been a student of protest movements and political theater, and their relative effectiveness in changing the national political debate.

In the same spirit, I offer up the following pointers for the survivors of the Florida school shooting and all others wishing to either support or join their growing movement.

 

Prepare for disillusionment

I hate to start with a negative, but it really must be addressed before all else. So far, these high school students have had an unbelievable amount of success at communicating their rage and demands for action -- far more than most political advocacy groups could ever dream of, in fact. But starting at the top of the pinnacle inevitably means that over time, there will be a downslope.

So I caution the survivors to prepare for disillusionment. They've already gotten a rather large dose of this, when the Florida legislature voted roughly 2-to-1 not even to discuss an assault rifle ban. Success in the media doesn't automatically translate to legislative success. Especially on an issue as entrenched as gun control and the Second Amendment.

I can't even imagine the whirlwind these brave kids are living through. First, they survive a mass school shooting where 17 of their friends die. Then, their rage goes viral, first on social media and then in the national news. They organized a bus trip to the state capital to lobby their legislators, and the media quite literally went along for the ride. President Trump has even issued invitations to some of them to meet with him, and they are the hottest interview for a political reporter to now get. That's all in one week's time. Such an experience is beyond my imagining, personally.

But they should realize that while they are making the biggest splash in the gun control arena seen since the Newtown, Connecticut massacre of six-year-olds, what usually happens is that the issue fades over time -- not quite as quickly as it exploded onto the stage, but quickly enough for some major disillusionment to set in.

The first political disillusionment in your lifetime is akin to the loss of a first love -- it cuts the deepest. And there will be defeats along the way, so the survivors should now be prepared to face them.

 

Prepare for a very long haul

Gun violence is an issue that isn't going to be solved any time soon. The steps towards the goal will be incremental -- so small, at times, that they seem barely worth making. Righteous anger may fade somewhat, over time. Dedicating yourselves to fighting for saner gun safety laws could, in the end, mean a lifetime commitment. The most obvious example is the life of Sarah Brady. Her husband was shot in the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan, and she spent the rest of her life fighting for handgun control.

This is an overwhelming commitment to make, even for an adult. For a high school student, it is almost inconceivable. These teens, previous to the horror they faced last week, had their own hopes and dreams for their future adult lives and professional careers. That is a pretty big thing to decide to radically change at such a young age. Some combination of following those previous dreams and dedicating yourselves to a movement may be possible, but even that is a pretty big ask to make of a high school junior or senior.

The more successful the movement they have now started becomes, the more all-encompassing the duties of leading such a movement are going to be. The amount of dedication required to sustain such a movement is likely going to be too much for most, so prepare for some among you currently to fade away as time goes by. Do not blame them for this, because truly "dedicating your life to the cause" is such an incredibly high bar that most of us couldn't bear to make such a commitment.

 

Get adult help in setting up a non-profit

This may sound demeaning, but it isn't. I fully support legal minors standing up for their political beliefs, and applaud the extraordinary success the teens have so far had. But the law is the law, and with celebrities already pledging half-million-dollar donations, they're going to need some accountants and other professional adult supervision. This shouldn't be hard to do, and it shouldn't be hard to find people to run such an organization who are equally as dedicated to its goals (as opposed to just being out to make a buck off it).

If the teens are as good as their word, then they know that this is going to be bigger than just one nationwide rally. They know they've got momentum and that this could be a very long haul. So plan for this future advocacy by creating the proper legal framework for it to happen, with properly qualified people auditing how the money is spent.

 

Associate, but remain separate from, other like-minded organizations

Own your own issue, in other words. But don't alienate those walking an almost-identical path. Reach out to organizations like the Brady Center and the one Michael Bloomberg recently set up, and any other groups that advocate for saner gun laws. Learn from their experience. But keep your own organization yours, so you retain full control over your own agenda, no matter how similar other groups' goals may be. Include them in your planned events, and ask to be included in theirs, so that everyone fighting on the same side in the same arena can work together and help leverage each others' success.

 

Plan for a nationwide movement

This may sound sort of self-evident, since this is already happening rather spontaneously. The core of the movement right now are students who survived the Florida school shooting. This is already expanding. There will likely end up being concentric circles of the groups it expands to. From the inner group outward, this will likely include: survivors of other school shootings across the country, relatives of slain schoolchildren from previous massacres, survivors and relatives of other (non-school) mass shootings, and then the larger groups of schoolchildren everywhere and the general public who agrees with their goals.

All of these have to have a place if this movement does become large and self-sustaining. This is going to feel overwhelming -- going from a group of teens where everyone knows each others' names to meeting people in similar situations across the country to welcoming in all who share your goals. This expansion should be welcomed, but it'll be easier if you plan for it in advance.

 

Pick good spokespeople

This is probably the most superfluous suggestion in the list, because the teens have already done an outstanding job of doing it. While the leadership of the movement is important, what is almost more important is who speaks for it in public. This is a lesson that the Occupy movement never really learned, which contributed to its eventual downfall.

A movement with an articulate and media-friendly spokesperson (or -persons) will be exponentially better at getting its message out than one that shuns or disdains the media. Social media is just as important, and indeed in this case social media actually created the spokespeople before the movement even really existed. The videos of outraged students holding a rally sparked the larger movement, so this process has been somewhat self-selecting from the get-go. And, so far, it has been incredibly successful. Every survivor I've seen interviewed to date has been incredibly well-spoken, direct, and clear as crystal on what they are fighting for. They do not accept "B.S.", and they're not shy about telling you that in no uncertain terms. They have handled idiotic questions from blow-dried media personalities with aplomb and have refused to get diverted from their main message. So any further advice in this regard is somewhat unnecessary.

 

Create good slogans

Again, I mention this only in passing, because they're already doing a great job. Sloganeering is the heart of protest politics. Short, sweet, and to the point messaging works much better than wonky explanations. "No more B.S.!" is an excellent job of creating a visceral and easily-understood rallying cry.

 

Keep a good relationship with the media

These teens now have phone numbers to reach all the network and cable media, who will actually take their calls. That is an incredible accomplishment. Build on the contacts you are now making, and cultivate the best relationship with the media as you can. It will matter later more than it does now, in fact. Which brings us to the next word of caution...

 

Prepare for less coverage in the future

The media is a fickle mistress. What's hot this week is seen as stale in a very short period of time. These teens need to be ready for the media to start treating their cause with a shrug, because it is inevitable that this day will arrive. This is why the previous bit of advice will come in handy. Also inevitably, there will be a next school shooting tragedy, and a next one, and a next one after that. Being the go-to interview in these situations is going to seem crass, but that's how the media world works. They may only book you in the future when another tragedy happens, so be prepared for this ugly reality.

 

Identify your goals and keep your focus

This is perhaps the most important item on the list. But it avoids all kinds of infighting later on, which can be the curse of any political movement. Draw up a list of concrete goals. Include a few intangibles for the far future, but keep your focus on what is actually tangibly achievable as well. And almost as important as deciding what to include on this list is the decision not to include something. Keep the focus as tight as you can now, in other words, otherwise your movement may become too diffuse to focus in the future.

 

Celebrate small victories

It is easy to draw up a list of demands, but in this particular arena they are all going to be incredibly hard to achieve. There is not just an entrenched force working against these goals, but they are well-funded and one of the most effective lobbying organizations around. You are David, and you are facing Goliath. This will inevitably mean that even some of the victories you may accomplish will become somewhat watered-down at the very last minute. But don't despair, and don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is going to be a marathon, not a sprint. So take your victories where you find them, celebrate them loudly, and redouble your efforts to improve things even more. Also, when a small victory happens, pick up the phone and try to get some media coverage for it, because news producers love such a "hook" for a story.

 

Prepare for slander and worse

Sadly, the final item on the list is also already happening. The tinfoil-hat brigade is already out in full force, trying to spin conspiracy theories and, in the process, slandering the teen advocates. This is going to happen, and may even lead to threats and worse. Be prepared. This is an issue that the other side has used to whip up an enormous amount of fear over for longer than you've been alive. They are already pushing back, as you've noticed. It's only going to get worse. Sorry to end this list on such a depressing note, but it is the reality you will continually face in backlash to your new movement.

 

In conclusion, I wish the survivors of the Florida school shooting well. I won't offer my thoughts and prayers, because they've obviously had enough of that sort of thing already. I personally think they've got one of the best opportunities to effect real change in our gun laws than any group since the Newtown parents, and I certainly support that goal. So far, these teens have been more impressive than many other political movements I have supported over the course of my own life. Again -- in just one week's time. I sincerely hope they will expand their fledgling movement successfully, and in doing so avoid some of the traps which have ensnared other political movements in the past. More power to them, and I wish their movement well in the future.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

83 Comments on “Advice For The Florida Teen Activists”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's lots of great advice, Chris.

    Re. Goals and Focus:

    Should there be an effort to repeal the 2nd amendment?

    I ask this fundamental question because I think addressing the prevalence of guns in America and the ease with which guns are acquired is critical for the success of the overarching movement to end gun violence and I wonder if that is possible so long as the 2nd amendment is the law of the land.

    An important question was raised at the CNN town hall tonight but it got short shrift in terms of a response - how do you define a "well-regulated militia". The NRA rep defined it as every man and woman in America who is of age and of sound mind. Is that the kind of thinking that this student revolution needs to counter and change?

    Does the gun culture in the US need to be overcome before there can be any meaningful response to gun violence?

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, is anyone out there watching a hockey game?

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    Yes... and why oh, why do I get the feeling that US is about to lose in overtime... again?

    Kick our asses, EM. We deserve it for all kinds of reasons. ;)

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have a very bad feeling about this ...

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sloppy Canadians!

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick our asses, EM. We deserve it for all kinds of reasons. ;)

    I concur.

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    Ha! :)

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The US has come to life in overtime...

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    Uh, oh. This looks darned familiar.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    OMGG!

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    Shoot.... OUT!

  13. [13] 
    Kick wrote:

    US wins! The coin flip. Heh.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Congrats to Team USA!!!

    I'm going to bed.

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, puck. ;0

    Winner, winner... chicken dinner! :)

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Back to the topic at hand..

    So I caution the survivors to prepare for disillusionment. They've already gotten a rather large dose of this, when the Florida legislature voted roughly 2-to-1 not even to discuss an assault rifle ban.

    You DO realize that there is no such thing as an "assault rifle", right CW?? That it's a POLITICAL construct based on nothing but fear mongering, right??

    I personally think they've got one of the best opportunities to effect real change in our gun laws than any group since the Newtown parents, and I certainly support that goal.

    If the Newtown group couldn't affect change, NO GROUP can...

    So far, these teens have been more impressive than many other political movements I have supported over the course of my own life. Again -- in just one week's time.

    They are impressive BECAUSE it's been only a week.. Let's see where they are in a month and then we can judge how impressive they are..

    They are already falling apart. Many students are pushing back against the hysterical anti-gun agenda...

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/22/shooting_survivor_colton_haab_cnn_gave_me_scripted_question_after_denying_question_about_armed_guards.html

    The message is clear..

    The Democrats are politicizing ANOTHER tragedy to push their unpopular agenda, an agenda that has been defeated time and time again...

    Give me a gun law that will actually help prevent CBMSs AND is allowable under the 2nd Amendment..

    You can't.. So why are we even having this discussion???

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Should there be an effort to repeal the 2nd amendment?

    It depends on your reasons for asking the question..

    If you want a gun ban in the US, then yes.. You *HAVE* to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

    But to actually ENACT the ban, you would also have to eviscerate the 4th Amendment...

    I read an article somewhere (wish I could find it) that said that you would have to totally decimate the Bill Of Rights to actually enact a gun ban...

    The 2nd would have to go.. The 1st and the 4th and the 10th?? would have to be heavily modified...

    All to have a gun ban that simply WON'T WORK..

    In Australia, the had a gun ban in response to a Crowd Based Mass Shooting.. In the 20 years prior to that ban, there were 75 deaths due to mass murder incidents..

    In the 20 years AFTER the gun ban, there were 79 deaths due to mass murder incidents...

    Getting rid of the TOOLS of mass murder incidents did NOTHING to stop the deaths.. Psychotic scumbags simply chose other tools...

    Addressing the tool is like treating a symptom... It's NOT fully effective.. People will STILL DIE...

    Now, if you go after the root cause, THEN you can get a LOT closer to a 100% success rate..

    But the problem is politics...

    In this particular case, the root cause is something that the Democrat Party doesn't WANT to address....

    So, they throw up the smoke screen about guns, about the tool...

    BANNING GUNS WILL MAKE EVERYTHING BETTER...

    Let's ask the people in Chicago how good their lives are.... Let's ask the people in Baltimore if the feel safe... Let's ask the people in Mexico how they enjoy the "peace" of very restrictive gun laws...

    Addressing the tool will not work..

    The FACTS that prove this are simply to plentiful and overwhelming to deny...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Now, you may ask yourself, "Why won't gun owners compromise??"...

    There is a very good reason why gun owners won't compromise...

    Because they are all compromised out...

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a9a66713d774c4239a713682f589eaa9475678a16081088fbdbe6e874ee5423.png?w=800&h=2871

    There is no possibility of any more compromise because the COMPROMISE POND has been fished out.. It's empty...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, let's look at some stats...

    Do you know, out of the total yearly deaths by guns, less than 1% is the result of rifles??

    Yes, you read that right..

    LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of gun deaths are by rifle...

    Put another way... One has a BIGGER chance of being killed by a club or blunt weapon than being killed by a rifle.. And "assault" rifle is even LESS likely to be the tool used..

    One is EIGHT TIMES more likely to be stabbed rather than shot by a rifle..

    One is TWICE as likely to be killed by hands/feet than to be shot by rifle...

    Of course, the number one tool used in violent death are handguns..

    So, if the goal is to reduce violent gun murders, clearly ya'all should be going after handguns, eh??

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yesterday the hashtag #KillTheNRA started trending on Twitter, inspired by a vandalized billboard in Kentucky bearing the same message.

    To recap: the NRA is a group of "child murderers" who hand out "blood money" to desperate politicians to buy their support for the Second Amendment and, therefore, it should be "killed." Have I got that right?

    I'm double-checking because, as a regular, gun-owning-but-it's-no big-deal, supports-the-Second-Amendment-but-isn't-an-NRA-member guy--that sounds nuts.

    Let's start with a basic fact about the NRA that seems to have been lost: The "A" is for "Association." As in "freedom of association?" Or "assembly" as it's called in the First Amendment. Some 5 million Americans choose to pay dues and "associate" with other like-minded people who share their views on gun ownership.

    The NRA didn't create America's support for the right to gun ownership and self-defense. It reflects it. Arguing that the NRA "is running our government" is essentially arguing that the voters are running the country. Americans consistently say they oppose a ban on gun ownership, and by a wide (70-28 percent) margin. Even in the wake of the Parkland High shooting, only about half of Americans support a return of the so-called "assault weapons" ban.

    This is hardly shocking given that about 40 percent of Americans—not American gunmakers or NRA stooges, but American citizens—live in gun-owning households.

    What the NRA's opponents hate isn't the organization. It's the millions of American voters who support it.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-why-do-we-hate-the-nra/

    This bears repeating..

    The NRA didn't create America's support for the right to gun ownership and self-defense. It reflects it. Arguing that the NRA "is running our government" is essentially arguing that the voters are running the country.

    What it all boils down to is simple...

    Ya'all can have your gun ban...

    All you have to do is repeal the 2nd Amendment and eviscerate the Bill Of Rights...

    Ya'all do that and then your path is clear...

    UNTIL ya'all can do that, all you have is a lot of hysterical and useless whining and the politicization of tragedies...

    But, of course, politicizing tragedies is what the Democrats are all about..

    "We MUST politicize these tragedies.."
    -Barack Odumbo

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who said "We *MUST* politicize these tragedies"

    He belongs to the same Party who said, "Never let a crisis go to waste"

    'nuff said.....

  22. [22] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Well, today is a big day for you Michale..

    It's phaser appreciation day!

    What, no phasers yet? Don't worry there will be.

    Someday.

    And in that glorious future, there will be one organization out there advocating for the rights of phaser owners - The National Rifle Association!

    Because the 2nd Amendment guarantees every American's right to own a phaser!

    waitaminute, phasers don't exist yet, right?

    And it is every American's right to have a phaser in their home and on their person.

    in theory a phaser could slice through an armored tank - are we sure we want this?

    Phasers don't slice through tanks, people slice through tanks with phasers. There's a difference.

    this is a nightmare. No, we have to stop this...

    You'll have to come through us and our lawyers - it is, after all a constitutional right!

    But phasers don't exist yet. Can't we just ban them now?

    Too late. We've already seen them on TV. Can't ban something you've already seen on TV without violating the Constitution.

    but that's just nonsense and fiction! You can't have a constitutional right to possess something that doesn't exist!

    Then how come the founders wrote it into the 2nd Amendment?

    how could they do that? They couldn't conceive of a phaser when they wrote the 2nd amendment!

    It's right here: "A well regulated.. um, ignore that part.. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    See? Says right there, we get to own phasers.

    Does not. It says "arms", which in that day and age meant "muskets". Says nothing about phasers.

    You're just hysterically anti-phaser, you and your kind.

    Oh, hell.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, and you claim you are not hysterically anti-gun.. :^/

    Do you have any logic or facts to refute MY logic and facts??

    No??

    Then why not remain silent and be thought a fool rather than put your hysteria into words and remove all doubt???

    the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

    Exactly... Out of that entire hysterical screed, you got one thing right...

    Congrats.. Build on that....

  24. [24] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michael

    When you hit me with that shitstorm of incontrovertible fact and logic, you make make it awful tough to come up with a meaningful rebuttal, but I've gotta disagree about the "assault" weapons part, meaning the claim that long guns, like "men", are "all are created equal".

    I believe it's totally realistic to maintain that there are different 'classes' of long guns. I don't actually give a proverbial damn about the terminology - if "assault" bothers you, I'd be totally content with "military-style", or most anything else that recognizes the fact that all long guns are NOT all created equal, and that meaningful distinctions can be legitimately made.

    In my younger years, I owned more guns than you and everybody you know combined, I even custom-loaded all my own ammo, but I never felt the need for a military style long gun (rifle), defined as short, compact, high capacity, small caliber, semi-automatic, and comparatively at least, short range, and while admittedly subjective, ugly.

    Such are not useful for hunting or personal defense, have an inordinate attraction for the crazies, and we could ban them with no effect on the 2nd Amend.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe it's totally realistic to maintain that there are different 'classes' of long guns. I don't actually give a proverbial damn about the terminology - if "assault" bothers you, I'd be totally content with "military-style", or most anything else that recognizes the fact that all long guns are NOT all created equal, and that meaningful distinctions can be legitimately made.

    But the term chosen is misleading...

    But, if you will indulge me for a bit, I can show you my point....

    You game???

    Assuming you are...

    In your mind, what's the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle...

    between this:

    upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine.JPG/1200px-AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine.JPG

    and this:

    pewpewtactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Axis-II-XP.jpg

    You'll have to cut and paste the links...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    It would be like calling Marijuana "smoking death" or some other fear mongering moniker..

    It may be, at times factually accurate, but that doesn't mean it's a correct definition...

    If I have an old flintlock and hit you over the head, technically, I have an "assault rifle"...

    Why not just say "rifle" and leave it at that??

    Why add the politically oriented modifier??

  27. [27] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    I don't know how to "cut and paste", and I don't care enough to get any deeper into it than my [24]

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Fair enough..

    My point is that there are handguns out there that are more deadly than rifles..

    As the stats show, you are 100 times more likely to be killed with a hand gun than with a rifle..

    The "assault" ban is nothing more than a placebo. Solely designed to placate the ignorant and will have absolutely NO EFFECT on Crowd Based Mass Shootings..

    Now... Tying mental health databases and making them available to LE when a person applies for a purchase/carry???

    THAT will go a **LONG** way towards preventing or helping to prevent CBMSs...

    So why not start there??

    Because guns are a POLITICAL AGENDA for the Democrat Party..

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Exactly... Out of that entire hysterical screed, you got one thing right...

    That nutjobs with agendas will try to fit anything remotely resembling a personal weapon, even a phaser, under the umbrella of the 2nd amendment, regardless of how crazy that may be?

    That weapons that do not now exist will one day be called 'arms' with constitutional protection, regardless of their configurations?

    And if what you say is true, why can't we all own a howitzer..an actual howitzer? It's an 'arm', too, right? It seems there are significant exceptions to this absolute right of which you speak.

  30. [30] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    The handguns that admittedly are "more deadly than rifles" are ONLY more deadly than rifles at extremely close range.

    That would mean that the head count at the typical crazy's rampage would under almost any conceivable circumstance, be in single digits.

  31. [31] 
    dsws wrote:

    The only way to really get rid of gerrymandering would be to get rid of geographic districts. Multi-member districts could be a step in the right direction, but if you get just as many votes as there are seats, it's not appreciably different from single-seat winner-take-all.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    The handguns that admittedly are "more deadly than rifles" are ONLY more deadly than rifles at extremely close range.

    My point is that one of the aspects of an "assault rifle" quoted by the ignorant is the large capacity.. Many handguns have more capacity than many rifles..

    That would mean that the head count at the typical crazy's rampage would under almost any conceivable circumstance, be in single digits.

    I am also constrained to point out that taking the rifle option away from, say the Vegas scumbag, may have resulted in said scumbag using a DIFFERENT tool, say a McVeigh Special.. Which would have resulted in even a GREATER loss of life..

    The point being that, if saving lives is ACTUALLY the goal, then the *ONLY* logical response is to go after the PERSON and not the tool they choose to deploy...

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    And if what you say is true, why can't we all own a howitzer..an actual howitzer? It's an 'arm', too, right? It seems there are significant exceptions to this absolute right of which you speak.

    And those exceptions have been addressed.. But now you want MORE exceptions... And more and more until you have what you really want.

    A de-facto ban on guns..

    The 2nd Amendment won't let you... Too bad, so sad...

  34. [34] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    Don't know what a McVeigh Special is, but I understand about 'scaling up', like of course he could use a bomb, but there's no solution to that problem.

    Realistically appraised, and regardless of the truthfullness of what you say, there is not and never will be, any way to "go after the (crazy) person".

    Being crazy is not only not against the law, it is at least a de facto 'human right'. Anyway, you eliminate the crazies, and whom would you and I contend with in our political discussions in the land of Weigantia???

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't know what a McVeigh Special is, but I understand about 'scaling up', like of course he could use a bomb, but there's no solution to that problem.

    Yea, it's the bomb that Timothy McVeigh used in the Oklohama City bombing..

    But there IS a solution to the problem..

    MENTAL HEALTH screening..

    Realistically appraised, and regardless of the truthfullness of what you say, there is not and never will be, any way to "go after the (crazy) person".

    Sure there is... Practically ALL of the CBMS perps exhibited signs of mental instability..

    If we could get past Political Correctness and realize NO ONE'S privacy is worth 17 dead kids, we CAN stop these scumbags...

    Being crazy is not only not against the law, it is at least a de facto 'human right'.

    Like being racist..

    The illegality comes in when your being crazy affects other people..

    "The right to swing your arms ends where someone else's nose begins"

    Anyway, you eliminate the crazies, and whom would you and I contend with in our political discussions in the land of Weigantia???

    heh touche..

    These crazies here are (fairly sure) harmless..

    Although I do see the possibility of some going on a hunting trip to some baseball field...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another good way to help prevent school shootings is to replace this sign:

    THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE

    with THIS sign:

    TEACHERS AND STAFF AT THIS SCHOOL ARE ARMED AND TRAINED AND WILL EMPLOY DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT OUR STUDENTS

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dems want gun control, but worry it could cost them midterms

    Democrats mulling how to approach gun control on the campaign trail this year are weighing their tough history on the subject against the burning politics of the moment.

    The killings of 17 people at a Florida high school has led to an outpouring of student protests and new energy for the gun control movement. Polls show almost unanimous support for an expansion of background checks.

    But the issue is a delicate one for party leaders hoping to flip both chambers in this year’s midterm elections by defeating Republicans in conservative-leaning districts where tougher gun laws can be radioactive.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/374961-dems-want-gun-control-but-worry-it-could-cost-them-midterms

    You see.. It's not about saving lives with Democrats..

    It's ALL about politics and pushing an unpopular partisan agenda...

  38. [38] 
    Kick wrote:

    I said it before, and I'll say it again: It's not an either/or situation. It's both.

    If it's only about "mental health" and "right to bear arms," then I'm definitely getting me an M1 tank. I can safely operate it, and the gun is magnificent... pitiful gas mileage, though... but I have a right to own a gun, and I'm going with my 120 M256A1 smoothbore. :)

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    I said it before, and I'll say it again: It's not an either/or situation. It's both.

    And yet, the Democrats REFUSE to address one aspect and insist on addressing the ONLY aspect that is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT...

    but I have a right to own a gun, and I'm going with my 120 M256A1 smoothbore. :)

    A tank is not a gun...

    No gun ownership for you.. You are on the Looney Tunes Mental Health database :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:


    Back to Videos
    NRA's Loesch: I Wouldn't Have Been Able To Exit CNN Town Hall If I Didn't Have A Security Detail
    Posted By Ian Schwartz
    On Date February 22, 2018

    NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch said Thursday morning at CPAC that she wouldn't have been able to exit last night's town hall on the Parkland, Fla. school shooting if she didn't have a security detail. Loesch faced off with students who survived the shooting at a CNN-hosted forum.

    "I want to make this super obvious point," Loesch said. "The government has proven that they cannot keep you safe. And yet, some people want all of us to disarm. You heard that town hall last night. They cheered the confiscation of firearms. And it was over 5,000 people."

    "I had to have a security detail to get out," she said of the Sunland, Fla. event. "I wouldn't be able to exit that if I didn't have a private security detail. There were people rushing the stage and screaming burn her. And I came there to talk solutions and I still am going to continue that conversation on solutions as the NRA has been doing since before I was alive."

    Ahhh yes..

    The "peace" and "tolerance" of the hysterical Dumbocrat anti-gun nuts....

  41. [41] 
    Paula wrote:

    [24] Stucki: Yep!

    I'll go further: well said!

  42. [42] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Paula

    Have somebody feel your forehead, you've GOTTA be running a fever to be in agreement with me, right?

    Probably Flu!

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have somebody feel your forehead, you've GOTTA be running a fever to be in agreement with me, right?

    Probably Flu!

    Heh :P

  44. [44] 
    Paula wrote:

    [42] Stucki: Surprised me too!

    But the bottom line is one of the arm-everybody crowd's tactics is to bog people down in semantic arguments about names-of-weapons as though that's the issue. It isn't. Repeating-weapons and devices that enable fast repeat-fire should be banned. They aren't for hunting and are over-kill for "personal protection" needs.

  45. [45] 
    Paula wrote:

    as though that's the issue.

    indefinite pronoun oopsie.

    As though the names of the weapons are the issue. They aren't. What the weapons/devices are able to do is the issue.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    . Repeating-weapons and devices that enable fast repeat-fire should be banned.

    Congrats..

    You have just advocated a complete across the board gun ban...

    Repeal the 2nd Amendment first...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    To make a weapon illegal, you have to properly identify it...

    You want to use the "I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT IT IS, BUT I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT" type of identification..

    Guess what??

    NOT gonna happen..

  48. [48] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You have just advocated a complete across the board gun ban...

    No she didn't. She advocated a ban on repeaters - single shot weapons would still be allowed, which would bring things back to the way they were when the 2nd Amendment was written. There were no repeating guns when the 2nd Amendment was written. That's the point I was making in [22].

    Otherwise, as I said this morning, someday we'll be discussing whether or not laser weapons fit the definition. Or Kick's 120 M256A1 smoothbore. Why not? Neither existed when the 2nd was written, and neither did AR-15s. If you keep moving the goalpost to incorporate new technologies, eventually you get to hand-held weapons that can take out city blocks, do you not? Do you want one of those rockets in your pocket? All the other kid's moms let them have a laser weapon...

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    No she didn't. She advocated a ban on repeaters - single shot weapons would still be allowed, which would bring things back to the way they were when the 2nd Amendment was written.

    A de-facto across the board gun ban...

    You can be cutesy all you want, but the facts are the facts...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    which would bring things back to the way they were when the 2nd Amendment was written. There were no repeating guns when the 2nd Amendment was written. That's the point I was making in [22].

    Fine, then NO FREE SPEECH on ANY medium except for what was available back then..

    No free speech on TV, no free speech on the Internet, no free speech in glossy color magazines...

    NO right to vote except if you are a landowner..

    Women vote???

    NOPE...

    Blacks vote???

    NOPE...

    EVERY Constitutional right reverts back to when the Constitution was written..

    Are you SURE you want to play that moronic game???

    :eyeroll:

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what you people simply CAN'T come to grips with..

    Owning a gun is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT..

    Just like Free Speech, just like voting...

    Gun ownership, fee speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly...

    ALL are part and parcel to the US Bill Of Rights..

    Restricting ONE of them gives license to restrict *ANY* or *ALL* of them..

    Seriously, people. THINK before you strike!!

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Fine, then NO FREE SPEECH on ANY medium except for what was available back then..

    Now we're getting somewhere. Though there was a constitutional debate about it, radio was put under the control of the entity that eventually became the FCC. Television followed. Now the FCC has asserted the right to regulate the internet.

    Voting rights were extended through the mechanism of constitutional amendment, as were the rights of women and blacks. No one bothered to wonder why that was necessary.

    So do you think the right to own and carry assault rifles would pass muster in a Constitutional Amendment process? Right now more than half the country thinks they should be banned outright.

  53. [53] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    freedom of religion

    Not absolute. Ask the Mormons.

    freedom of Assembly

    Not absolute. Ask the Klan, or the SDS.

    Even the right to be secure from search and seizure has been whittled down to wishful thinking.

    Only gun owners currently insist that the law be applied as it was written, and even they would ignore the entire first clause of it because it's inconvenient.

  54. [54] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Wayne LaPierre today blamed anti-gun 'hysteria' on..are you ready for this...Communists!

    Boy, that's a blast from the past...

  55. [55] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Restricting ONE of them gives license to restrict *ANY* or *ALL* of them..

    So we agree. Case closed.

  56. [56] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [1] -

    First off, sorry 'bout that hockey shootout. Heh.

    As for the Second Amendment, there was a call to repeal it in the NYTimes a few days ago. I can dig out the link if you'd like...

    The problem with repealing 2A is that it would take another amendment. See: Prohibition. And amendment created it, so an amendment was necessary to repeal it.

    The problem with a 2A repeal amendment is the incredibly high bar for amendments. 3/4ths of the state legislatures would have to ratify it. That's a lot, and would need a lot of very red states, which is not likely (to put it mildly).

    Michale [various] -

    Your attempts to make this a partisan issue are just downright laughable. There is one party that is open to just about any idea to solving the problem. There is another party which is against pretty much every single idea on how to solve the problem. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

    As for mental health, let's see... Dems want more money for mental health treatment. GOP wants far less -- take a look at Trump's own budget, or pretty much any budget Paul Ryan has ever got his mitts on.

    Last year, GOP passed (and Trump signed) a law rolling back an Obama regulation, which would have banned people who a court had identified as being mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs from buying guns. So one party is already on the record as being pro-mentally-unfit-gun-rights, and one part is on the record against such idiocy. Again, guess which is which?

    So which party is for mental health screening for gun purchases and which is against it? Again, one party has over and over again been shown willing to consider just about any proposal, and one party has fought every single proposal tooth and nail.

    Which is why your partisan framing is so laughable.

    -CW

  57. [57] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Whoops! Sorry 'bout that curling match, too, eh?

    Heh.

    -CW

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    Speaking of gunfire, have y'all see Mueller's newly filed charges against Manafort and Gates?

    Wow... just wow!

    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4385686/Manafort-2.pdf

  59. [59] 
    Paula wrote:

    [58] Kick: Yep! 32 more indictments!

  60. [60] 
    John M wrote:

    [51] Michale

    "That's what you people simply CAN'T come to grips with..

    Owning a gun is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT..

    Just like Free Speech, just like voting...

    Gun ownership, fee speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly...

    ALL are part and parcel to the US Bill Of Rights..

    Restricting ONE of them gives license to restrict *ANY* or *ALL* of them.."

    ALL those constitutional rights are NOT absolute. They are ALL restricted or regulated in some way ALREADY.

    You have a right to free speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater for no good reason. Just like free speech doesn't give you a license to produce child pornography either.

    You might have freedom of religion, but that doesn't allow Mormons to legally and freely practice their religious beliefs regarding plural marriage.

    You have freedom of assembly, but most places I know of require you to get a permit in order to hold a demonstration legally.

    No one is going to stop you from legally buying a gun Michale. ALL the gun regulations we are talking about from background checks to age limits to restrictions on semi-automatic weapons sales would at most inconvenience you at best.

    Just like all those voter I.D. laws you are so fond of to curb the not a real world made up problem of voter fraud. And last time I looked, voting WAS a constitutional right as well.

    Bottom line Michale is, that both you and the Republican Party and the NRA are putting your inconvenience ahead of our children's lives.

  61. [61] 
    Paula wrote:

    I mean a 32-count indictment!

  62. [62] 
    John M wrote:

    You say you are a law and order type guy Michale.

    Well, either put up or shut up.

    Acting like an adult versus acting like children.

    With constitutional rights also comes reasonable civic responsibility along with them.

    If you cannot act with good judgement regarding the latter, how can you possibly claim in good conscious to be entitled to the former?

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    39

    And yet, the Democrats REFUSE to address one aspect and insist on addressing the ONLY aspect that is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT...

    As is often the case of the right-wing bubble/echo chamber, somebody has woefully misinformed you regarding your so-called "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT." Here is the truth of which you seem infinitely confused.

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense, and the Court struck down District of Columbia's handgun possession ban and safe storage law. The Supreme Court also ruled that the "right to keep and bear arms" is subject to regulation, such as:

    * limits on the rights of the mentally ill and felons
    * concealed weapons prohibitions
    * laws imposing conditions on commercial sales
    * laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations
    * prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    The Supreme Court in Heller also stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

    Got that? So as I have said before but seems to fall on deaf ears, that is the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and anyone that tries to convince anyone else otherwise is either ignorant or obfuscating. :)

    A tank is not a gun...

    A 120 M256A1 smoothbore is my gun of choice, and according to your rhetoric heretofore, I have a "right to bear arms." So I've made my choice of arms, and anything within an approximately 2.48-mile radius is hereby on notice. Y'all do realize it is completely legal to buy a fully operational tank online, right?

    https://tinyurl.com/o8dwt8v

    No gun ownership for you.. You are on the Looney Tunes Mental Health database :D

    Wrong again. I have a gun collection that makes grown men weep and exclaim "holy spit." :)

  64. [64] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    are you kidding me? they couldn't even make it illegal to sell to someone on the terrorist watch list.

    JL

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    61

    I mean a 32-count indictment!

    Aren't they precious? ;)

  66. [66] 
    Paula wrote:

    [65] Kick: Yep!

  67. [67] 
    Paula wrote:

    [63] Kick: Well said!

  68. [68] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Mueller's obviously still trying to flip Manafort, and Manafort's motivation to play ball increases with every new indictment. Of course, that would kill his career as 'dictator whisperer', so the screws have to be extra tight, but eventually, and maybe now, it's gonna be in his best interest to cooperate and whittle down those charges.

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    55

    So we agree. Case closed.

    I know, right!? The Supreme Court in Heller ruled long ago that the Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" was subject to regulation and provided examples and further stated that it was not an exhaustive list of the presumptively permissible regulatory measures. Case definitely closed. :)

  70. [70] 
    Paula wrote:

    A guy commented somewhere else about how he once sat across from a gun-nut somewhere, and surprised the guy when he said: "Yes, I would like the government to come to your house and take all your guns."

    I think we're kind of there now.

    The Gun-community could have stepped up at any point and argued for reasonable standards. They could have kept their hobby "in the family" and away from the rest of us. I don't care what people do with their guns as long as they don't impinge on the lives of others.

    But no, they chose to back guns-for-everyone-no-restrictions positions, no matter how dangerous and irresponsible. They swallowed and spat out all kinds of Obama-wants-your-guns nonsense and began telling us we should allow our children to be killed in order to protect their goddamned hobby. Oh they yap about needing protection, but they do so in the face of statistics that refute their claims. Morons running around with rifles at grocery stores. Thugs going online and threatening people who disagree with them.

    Idiot Republicans offering useless and eventually offensively useless "thoughts and prayers" while they set rules prohibiting guns around them while telling the rest of us we have to put up with them.

    Well to hell with it all now. Majorities of Americans have had it. We're done. Will we prevail immediately? No. But maybe sooner than we think. Gundamentalists had their chance and they proved they can't be trusted to do the responsible thing so let them pound sand.

    Tipping point.

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, dear me. It seems the Governor of Missouri has been indicted and taken into custody for felony invasion of privacy related to his admitted extramarital affair with a woman in 2015.

    Definitely a candidate for the "Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week"... if he wasn't now a member of the GOP.

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    70

    The Gun-community could have stepped up at any point and argued for reasonable standards. They could have kept their hobby "in the family" and away from the rest of us. I don't care what people do with their guns as long as they don't impinge on the lives of others.

    Exactly. One American's right to own a gun is no more important than another American's right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and to live long and prosper. The Second Amendment does not guarantee an 18-year-old the right carry an AR-15. Period. I believe that weapons of war belong in the hands of soldiers, citizen soldiers a.k.a. National Guard, etc., and no others. Weapons of war absolutely do not belong on our streets in the hands of our citizens or parading down Pennsylvania Avenue. My opinion. :)

    There's a happy medium in there somewhere where people can own guns to protect themselves and their property, but weapons of war have no business being part of that equation.

    TRANSLATION: The Supreme Court's Ruling on the Second Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

  73. [73] 
    Paula wrote:

    [72]Kick: Agreed.

  74. [74] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Assault-style Weapons

    These weapons are responsible for a minority of guns deaths in the US, but have become the weapon of choice for the assailant whose intent is chaos and casualties.

    In a November 2017 review of mass shootings in the U.S., 95 mass shootings have occurred since 1982, from which approximately 76 semi-automatic handguns and 85 assault weapons and weapons with high magazine capacity were recovered.

    In 2017 alone, 11 mass shootings in the US caused 117 fatalities and 587 injuries occuring in concert, religious, workplace, airport, and shopping venues and in community.

    At Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. in 2012, Adam Lanza reportedly fired more than 150 shots in less than five minutes from his assault-style rifle with a high capacity magazine.

    On June 12, 2016 at Pulse Nightclub, a single shooter killed 49 people and injured 53. It was the worst mass shooting in US History until the mass shooting in Las Vegas in October 2017 took 58 lives and leaving 546 injurred.

    States that restrict assault weapons also have the lowest per capita homicide rates. However, because guns are easily trafficked in interstate and international commerce, federal rules are needed.

    Researchers from Harvard School of Public Health demonstrated that from 1982 to 2011, mass shootings occurred every 200 days on average. Since late 2011, they found, mass shootings have occurred at triple that rate—every 64 days on average.

  75. [75] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Just read a particularly good Op-Ed by Paul Krugman, in which he discusses the Right's reaction to the gun debate, and brings up the fact that Republican politicians from (mostly midwestern and southern) Trump states, in addition to lax gun laws, have also resisted common sense laws that have reduced car deaths in other states (and countries), and of course, resisted providing Obamacare. He writes:

    What I’d argue is that our lethal inaction on guns, but also on cars, reflects the same spirit that’s causing us to neglect infrastructure and privatize prisons, the spirit that wants to dismantle public education and turn Medicare into a voucher system rather than a guarantee of essential care. For whatever reason, there’s a faction in our country that sees public action for the public good, no matter how justified, as part of a conspiracy to destroy our freedom.

    This paranoia strikes both deep and wide. Does anyone remember George Will declaring that liberals like trains, not because they make sense for urban transport, but because they serve the “goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism”? And it goes along with basically infantile fantasies about individual action — the “good guy with a gun” — taking the place of such fundamentally public functions as policing.

    Anyway, this political faction is doing all it can to push us toward becoming a society in which individuals can’t count on the community to provide them with even the most basic guarantees of security — security from crazed gunmen, security from drunken drivers, security from exorbitant medical bills (which every other advanced country treats as a right, and does in fact manage to provide).

    In short, you might want to think of our madness over guns as just one aspect of the drive to turn us into what Thomas Hobbes described long ago: a society “wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them.” And Hobbes famously told us what life in such a society is like: “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

    This is, I think, gourmet food for thought.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    As for the Second Amendment, there was a call to repeal it in the NYTimes a few days ago. I can dig out the link if you'd like...

    I would like that link..

    There are people out there who STILL think that Democrats don't want to ban guns...

    Gabberflasting, iddn't it..

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    Now we're getting somewhere. Though there was a constitutional debate about it, radio was put under the control of the entity that eventually became the FCC. Television followed. Now the FCC has asserted the right to regulate the internet.

    So??

    What does that have to do with limiting free speech to ONLY what was available at the time that the Constitution was created??

    Are you willing to do that???

    It's simple yes or no question..

    My guess is, you won't even answer.. You'll just run away because I TOTALLY decimated your argument..

    Restricting ONE of them gives license to restrict *ANY* or *ALL* of them..

    So we agree. Case closed.

    So, you don't mind having your freedom of speech restricted by a hysterical group who is pushing an agenda???

    OK..

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your attempts to make this a partisan issue are just downright laughable.

    It's you Lefties who made it a partisan issue..

    Your entire commentary is about making it a partisan issue..

    Odumbo himself said that we "MUST" make this issue a partisan issue...

    Your attempt to put the blame on me is what is laughable.. :D <=== see... Laughing..

    As for mental health, let's see... Dems want more money for mental health treatment.

    Dems ALWAYS want more money.. But will they USE that money to create a convergence between mental health databases and gun own/carry applications??

    NO, they won't..

    Funny how ya'all NEVER address this fact...

    Last year, GOP passed (and Trump signed) a law rolling back an Obama regulation,

    So, yer bad at math and, all of the sudden, you can have your constitutional rights taken away???

    How would you feel if, because you couldn't balance your checkbook, you lose your right to vote??

    It was a STUPID order.. Even the ACLU sided with President Trump in rescinding it..

    Again, you won't address these points....

    So which party is for mental health screening for gun purchases and which is against it?

    The Democrats are against it. I already provided the FACTS that prove that. Those facts were ignored. Per the norm..

    Which is why your partisan framing is so laughable.

    And that fact that you Democrats are PARTISAN FRAMING it at all is what is sad...

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    You have a right to free speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater for no good reason. Just like free speech doesn't give you a license to produce child pornography either.

    So, what you are saying is that there are reasonable restrictions on free speech and freedom of religion etc etc right??

    Well, guess what??

    There are also reasonable restrictions on gun ownership..

    But you hysterical Dumbocrats WANT MORE..

    Ya'all want to BAN guns...

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bottom line Michale is, that both you and the Republican Party and the NRA are putting your inconvenience ahead of our children's lives.

    And you and the Dumbocrat Party are putting social justice ahead of children's lives...

  81. [81] 
    Paula wrote:

    [74] Listen: Yep. No one is claiming banning combat-weapons is going to end all crime but it can end mass-shootings. That's what happened in Australia.

    [75] Balthasar: Yes.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen: Yep. No one is claiming banning combat-weapons is going to end all crime but it can end mass-shootings. That's what happened in Australia.

    And yet, MORE people were killed in Australia in mass murder events AFTER the ban was instituted..

    FACT...

    Regardless, you STILL don't get it..

    You can't have a gun ban here in the US until you repeal the 2nd Amendment..

    And THAT will never happen..

    So, get over it already...

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    LAST MAN STANDING!!! :D

Comments for this article are closed.