Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Lord Umbarger

Obamas New Attack On 2nd Ammendment

445 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Leonardo
Yeah, there was one spree killing in Australia and we banned guns immediately and our country just slipped into an Orwellian nightmare. :rolleyes:

:lol:

There is a certain psychology about gun ownership it seems, and I'm not speaking of the most commonly expressed "substitute" hypothesis!

It's a 'blankie' phenomenon, imo - as in the comfort factor provided by a baby's favourite blanket. We are all afraid of the dark/unknown/our own imaginations in some form and the Americans seem to express that in their desire to own a gun. Fear should never rule reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
Gun crime has increased 10 fold in the UK since they banned legally owned handguns, criminals never had licences anyway?

a more intelligent approach would have been a minimum 10 year jail sentence for illegal gun ownership, there was no reason to punish law abiding citizens, the problem is we don't have any intelligent MP in the UK, and people on the left who want to ban everything that doesn't effect them personally.

Law abiding citizens weren't punished. The issue is not one of everybody being some 'vigilante lawman/woman', but of the authorities having the requisite capability to control crime. Crime will never be eradicated, but the capacity to control crime by the lawful authorities is lacking. Blame the Government for that, if you will, but do not blame them for a responsible and mature policy vis-a-vis firearms ownership.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

Heavy regulation needs to exist. Licenses, training, registries, regulations, background checks, etc.

My little brother went to a gun show at fair ground and purchased a M-16 and two clips of ammunition with cash. I was amazed, no background check, no nothing except the flash of his ID to verify his age. I have to hang out at the DMV for hours getting car licenses, registrations, E checks, and take a skill and knowledge test and my car wasn't specifically designed to kill people...he spends 2minutes on a fair ground and trades a bundle cash for weapon and that is it.

And an M-16? Really? Not to mention all kinds of crazy crap they had at this place...I didn't even know sniper rifles were really legal.

If you really need a gun for self defense(I'm assuming you all live in Detroit or something) then you do not need a big huge machine gun. If your a hunter and need a M-16 then your just a bad hunter. For any other reasons you do not need a gun.

This "my rights!" thing is somewhat hypocritical...because if people are allowed to have death dealing weapons then you mine as well allow drugs. What about prostitutes right to exchange deeds for cash? Why can't that be a right. If we allow Machine guns...why not grenades, six robbers may trench themselves in my backyard I might need a nade, possibily an rpg so I can take out their vehicle so they don't run over my house...maybe a nuke in case Iran invades my backyard.

Or maybe just maybe the logical thing to do is to heavily regulate things that kill people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're Here
Yeah, there was one spree killing in Australia and we banned guns immediately and our country just slipped into an Orwellian nightmare. :rolleyes:

People are allowed to have guns in Australia. What kind of comment was that? :rolleyes: And anyways, I said in 2 months or 200 years. Tyranny is a very real threat and can happen. Give it time. Our last resort is a well-armed citizenry. It might not be much but I would like our children's children to have the option just like it was left to us by our forefathers. They knew it was an important check and balance and it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
Law abiding citizens weren't punished. The issue is not one of everybody being some 'vigilante lawman/woman', but of the authorities having the requisite capability to control crime. Crime will never be eradicated, but the capacity to control crime by the lawful authorities is lacking. Blame the Government for that, if you will, but do not blame them for a responsible and mature policy vis-a-vis firearms ownership.

I think you'll find they were, law abiding gun licence holding citizens had their guns taken off them, competitive marksmen have to leave the country to practise or use air pistols, London 2012 our olympians won't be allowed to compete in the hand gun classes,

the ban has had no affect on gun crime whatsoever as i've already said it's increased 10 fold, who else do you blame for a law that only affects the innocent but our pathetic governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
I think you'll find they were, law abiding gun licence holding citizens had their guns taken off them, competitive marksmen have to leave the country to practise or use air pistols, London 2012 our olympians won't be allowed to compete in the hand gun classes,

the ban has had no affect on gun crime whatsoever as i've already said it's increased 10 fold, who else do you blame for a law that only affects the innocent but our pathetic governments.

Not so. If those who owned firearms before the new laws were introduced were not then entitled to retain those firearms after, then by retaining those firearms they became non-law abiding citizens. The law abiding citizens were not punished. If you wish to have stagnation and have no social or ethical evolution in our societies, then laws do not need to change from time to time. However, they do and we have to change to abide by them.

As for your "gun crime has increased 10 fold" statement...

Facts & figures

The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 2% in 2007-08 compared to the previous year

Firearms were involved in 455 serious or fatal injuries, compared to 468 the previous year - a drop of 3%

Offences involving handguns effectively held steady, those involving shotguns were down 3%

The number of reported crimes involving imitation guns effectively held steady

(Source: Crime in England and Wales 2007-08)

source

...and, as the link also states, gun-related crime in the UK is less than 0.5% of the overall reported crime. So, for it to have increased '10 fold' there would have had to have been 0.05% gun-related crime incidents before the laws were introduced. Even if, as some newspapers have claimed, gun crime is 60% higher than officially reported, that still makes gun crime only 0.8% of all reported crimes, with an incidence of 0.08% prior to the new laws - according to you.

Btw, I have heard the arguments about gun crime 'quadrupling since 1997', and I know the figures seem to bear this out. What this statistic does not tell you is that a similar trend happened during the 1980's, reached a peak in 1993, then decreased. Gun crime seems to be cyclical and the increase in gun crime since 1997 would likely have happened anyway. It is a red-herring argument to suggest the tougher new laws have in any way contributed to this increase.

I would ask you to provide the statistics for either pre-new law figures and prove your claim, please. I would also appreciate if you back up your claims about shooting enthusiasts not being able to practice their marksmanship at licenced gun clubs around the UK and the Olympic shooters being disallowed from competing. No media reports please, but the actual laws/regulations that prohibit these activities.

If you cannot supply this evidence to back up your claims, I am going to assume the claims are simply hyperbole and have no basis in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak
People are allowed to have guns in Australia. What kind of comment was that? :rolleyes: And anyways, I said in 2 months or 200 years. Tyranny is a very real threat and can happen. Give it time. Our last resort is a well-armed citizenry. It might not be much but I would like our children's children to have the option just like it was left to us by our forefathers. They knew it was an important check and balance and it is.

By that reasoning we should also be aloud to own grenades, tanks, fighter jets, and battleships to fight that potential threat of Tyranny. Because what are these citizens going to do when they uprise and have to deal with the armies of America, England, Canada, Australia, or whatever nation the fight is in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're Here
By that reasoning we should also be aloud to own grenades, tanks, fighter jets, and battleships to fight that potential threat of Tyranny. Because what are these citizens going to do when they uprise and have to deal with the armies of America, England, Canada, Australia, or whatever nation the fight is in?

Perhaps we should, but alas that fight is already over. We have to play the game with the cards we hold now. Quite frankly, the citizenry will probably lose but hopefully they won't go down without a fight. It would help if a number of people in the military sided with the people. Hopefully in the future citizens will be more educated, more united, and more prepared. All we can do now is equip them the best we can and hope it never comes down to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak
Perhaps we should, but alas that fight is already over. We have to play the game with the cards we hold now. Quite frankly, the citizenry will probably lose but hopefully they won't go down without a fight. It would help if a number of people in the military sided with the people. Hopefully in the future citizens will be more educated, more united, and more prepared. All we can do now is equip them the best we can and hope it never comes down to that.

If we become more educated, more united, and more prepared...then there wouldn't be any need for us to have guns. The fact that we need them is an embarasment to our species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're Here
If we become more educated, more united, and more prepared...then there wouldn't be any need for us to have guns. The fact that we need them is an embarasment to our species.

There will always be people who seek power in high places and abuse it. All it takes is a few bad apples. Yes, it is an embarrassment. What can we do about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InHuman

Its too easy to get a gun in some places.

I saw a 20/20 thing where people were just selling assualt rifles and machine guns out of their trunks.

Who are you really scared of. The Arab guy who works at your office.

Or the man in the suit who has enough guns to arm a large militia at his cottage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRS-One
Who are you really scared of. The Arab guy who works at your office.

Or the man in the suit who has enough guns to arm a large militia at his cottage.

Neither.

I will remain scared of the lonely and paranoid gun owner most vocal about his right to carry a six shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude
Neither.

I will remain scared of the lonely and paranoid gun owner most vocal about his right to carry a six shooter.

a lot of them on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
Its too easy to get a gun in some places.

I saw a 20/20 thing where people were just selling assualt rifles and machine guns out of their trunks.

Who are you really scared of. The Arab guy who works at your office.

Or the man in the suit who has enough guns to arm a large militia at his cottage.

LOL wow. It didnt take them long to convince you. To you gun control freaks, dont hide behind us when the **** goes down, you WANTED this to happen. How sad our country has become when CNN can convince you to p*** on the constitution. From my cold dead hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Gun control = civilized

Screw all the red necks who think that the man's gonna get em.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, Hitler Stalin and Mao all agree with you.

Now realistically, no amount of shotguns and .44's are gonna protect Americans from their government. They have become too powerful. But this issue comes down to LOGIC ! Let me ask you this : when someone shoots another person are they doing it legally? Are they obeying the laws in place now? Why do you think they would obey new laws banning guns? All gun control laws do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Again LOGIC, lets recap : criminals break laws , criminals are the ones using guns to commit crimes, therefore new laws will not prevent criminals from committing crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
name='Leonardo' date='May 17 2009, 12:11 AM' post='2891202']

Not so. If those who owned firearms before the new laws were introduced were not then entitled to retain those firearms after, then by retaining those firearms they became non-law abiding citizens. The law abiding citizens were not punished. If you wish to have stagnation and have no social or ethical evolution in our societies, then laws do not need to change from time to time. However, they do and we have to change to abide by them.

This is just plain nonsense, ask enthusiasts who had to hand there guns over to the police if they felt like they were being punished,

you fall into the category of people "if it doesn't affect me it should be banned" and as for "ethical evolution" should bow & arrows be banned, it's a bad law that hasn't achieved anything other than penalising law abiding citizens.

As for your "gun crime has increased 10 fold" statement...

This came of the top of my head, but has no relevance to my argument, it's hard to find official figures before 1997 and after, 2005-2006 liverpool had over 500 incidences of gun crime.

source

...and, as the link also states, gun-related crime in the UK is less than 0.5% of the overall reported crime. So, for it to have increased '10 fold' there would have had to have been 0.05% gun-related crime incidents before the laws were introduced. Even if, as some newspapers have claimed, gun crime is 60% higher than officially reported, that still makes gun crime only 0.8% of all reported crimes, with an incidence of 0.08% prior to the new laws - according to you.

Btw, I have heard the arguments about gun crime 'quadrupling since 1997', and I know the figures seem to bear this out. What this statistic does not tell you is that a similar trend happened during the 1980's, reached a peak in 1993, then decreased. Gun crime seems to be cyclical and the increase in gun crime since 1997 would likely have happened anyway. It is a red-herring argument to suggest the tougher new laws have in any way contributed to this increase.

I have no doubt gun crime would have risen anyway, my argument is banning law abiding citizen ownership as made no difference to gun crime.

I would ask you to provide the statistics for either pre-new law figures and prove your claim, please. I would also appreciate if you back up your claims about shooting enthusiasts not being able to practice their marksmanship at licenced gun clubs around the UK and the Olympic shooters being disallowed from competing. No media reports please, but the actual laws/regulations that prohibit these activities.

Will this do?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_spor...012/4162498.stm

If you cannot supply this evidence to back up your claims, I am going to assume the claims are simply hyperbole and have no basis in fact.

I can't show you the legislation for "hand guns" because none exists, it would be like trying to show you the legislation for owning a tank, here's the amendment.

The government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1997/ukpga_19970064_en_1

No hyperbole, i hope you'll now stop arguing on a subject you obviously have no knowledge of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eternal Light
It so happens I am older than 5 years old. The spectre of the boogeyman no longer frightens me.

As for freedom, tell me what is free about the circle of violence unregulated gun-ownership spawns? I hear a lot of puerile arguments like "But the criminals have guns, why shouldn't we?" But we should be beyond such school-yardish sulks.

It is not freedom to have to have a gun to protect yourself, it is freedom to be able to walk through any city without having to carry a gun, to not have to have a gun in your house in case a violent intruder should break-in.

The American pro-gun lobby are fighting the wrong war. The war you should be fighting is on those who own guns for criminal purpose, not a war for the right for everyone to own a gun.

As I said, it is not easy living a life with principles of peace and freedom. The American pro-gun lobby simply want to take the 'easy out' rather than actually try to improve their society.

So, who would legitimately hold the guns then, around the world, if this universal change is to come about? Kinda scary, ain't it?

Just a thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
This is just plain nonsense, ask enthusiasts who had to hand there guns over to the police if they felt like they were being punished,

you fall into the category of people "if it doesn't affect me it should be banned" and as for "ethical evolution" should bow & arrows be banned, it's a bad law that hasn't achieved anything other than penalising law abiding citizens.

Funnily enough, criminals often feel they are punished unjustly when caught committing crimes. As for your opinion about the sort of person I am, well I am a person who abides by law and, if I consider a law unjust do not take matters into my own hands but will speak out for what I consider just. While I do that I make sure I don't break the law as it applies however.

If you consider the laws on gun ownership in the UK to strict, you have the right to protest and even petition the Government. You can effect a change in the law if you can justify your case. You don't have the right to break the law just because you think it is unjust and therefore shouldn't apply to you.

This came of the top of my head, but has no relevance to my argument, it's hard to find official figures before 1997 and after, 2005-2006 liverpool had over 500 incidences of gun crime.

source

I have no doubt gun crime would have risen anyway, my argument is banning law abiding citizen ownership as made no difference to gun crime.

You haven't yet shown your argument to have any merit. That gun crime has increased is neither relevant to the case for or against the effect of these new laws unless you can show the rate at which these crimes are committed has changed over time without that change being a result of other factors - such as loss of border control, etc. Typically, for those who like to shout about 'injustices' such as law, you speak of an effect without considering what cause it might have.

Will this do?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_spor...012/4162498.stm

I can't show you the legislation for "hand guns" because none exists, it would be like trying to show you the legislation for owning a tank, here's the amendment.

The government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1997/ukpga_19970064_en_1

No hyperbole, i hope you'll now stop arguing on a subject you obviously have no knowledge of

The fact that you couldn't even be bothered to reference a site which had some explanation of the laws and what sort of weapons they are targeted at speaks volumes for the thought you put into why you protest.

Here is a site for gun enthusiasts which actually details some of what is allowed under the new laws. The relevance this has to your 'Olympic' argument is that the Olympics aren't about what type of pistol is being used, the competition is about the accuracy of the shooter. That the types of pistol previously used are no longer legal in the UK is irrelevant to that, as the competitions affected could be changed to use pistols which are still legal. So long as ALL competitors are operating under these same restrictions the competition is fair.

That the International Olympic Committee might not want to change what types of pistols are used is not down to our Government to pander to. The IOC does not set Law for our society and has to abide by the laws of the country in which the competitions are held.

Now, "no legislation regarding hand guns exists"? Who is the one who appears to know little?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly

name='Leonardo' date='May 17 2009, 02:08 PM' post='2891778']

Funnily enough, criminals often feel they are punished unjustly when caught committing crimes.

You think the people who previously held gun licences never handed their guns in after the ban, and are now the criminals using them to commit crime? what are you on?

As for your opinion about the sort of person I am, well I am a person who abides by law and, if I consider a law unjust do not take matters into my own hands but will speak out for what I consider just. While I do that I make sure I don't break the law as it applies however.

Who said anyone's going to take anything into thier own hands?

If you consider the laws on gun ownership in the UK to strict, you have the right to protest and even petition the Government. You can effect a change in the law if you can justify your case. You don't have the right to break the law just because you think it is unjust and therefore shouldn't apply to you.

What are you talking about? this is just getting stupid

You haven't yet shown your argument to have any merit. That gun crime has increased is neither relevant to the case for or against the effect of these new laws unless you can show the rate at which these crimes are committed has changed over time without that change being a result of other factors - such as loss of border control, etc. Typically, for those who like to shout about 'injustices' such as law, you speak of an effect without considering what cause it might have.

Haven't you been reading my posts? the government banned legally owned guns, criminals never had licence so it has had no effect on gun crime.

The fact that you couldn't even be bothered to reference a site which had some explanation of the laws and what sort of weapons they are targeted at speaks volumes for the thought you put into why you protest.

I gave you the link you asked for, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1997/ukpga_19970064_en_1

Here is a site for gun enthusiasts which actually details some of what is allowed under the new laws. The relevance this has to your 'Olympic' argument is that the Olympics aren't about what type of pistol is being used, the competition is about the accuracy of the shooter. That the types of pistol previously used are no longer legal in the UK is irrelevant to that, as the competitions affected could be changed to use pistols which are still legal. So long as ALL competitors are operating under these same restrictions the competition is fair.

That the International Olympic Committee might not want to change what types of pistols are used is not down to our Government to pander to. The IOC does not set Law for our society and has to abide by the laws of the country in which the competitions are held.

You give me a link to a company selling airguns & replicas? because you have no knowledge on the subject it makes this very tedious.

Now, "no legislation regarding hand guns exists"? Who is the one who appears to know little?

There isn't any legislation for the ownership of competitive small bore pistols, it's a case of justification, competition isn't a reason for justification, a few people in the UK can legally own pistols (me being one) see if you can find out why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
name='Leonardo' date='May 17 2009, 02:08 PM' post='2891778']

You think the people who previously held gun licences never handed their guns in after the ban, and are now the criminals using them to commit crime? what are you on?

Who said anyone's going to take anything into thier own hands?

What are you talking about? this is just getting stupid

Haven't you been reading my posts? the government banned legally owned guns, criminals never had licence so it has had no effect on gun crime.

I gave you the link you asked for, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1997/ukpga_19970064_en_1

You give me a link to a company selling airguns & replicas? because you have no knowledge on the subject it makes this very tedious.

There isn't any legislation for the ownership of competitive small bore pistols, it's a case of justification, competition isn't a reason for justification, a few people in the UK can legally own pistols (me being one) see if you can find out why.

hetrodoxly,

A couple of things you really need to look up and learn before you continue this debate.

1) What does illegal mean?

2) If a law changes or is introduced, does disregarding that new law constitute criminal behaviour?

3) The link you provided has some of the same information I provided. Hand guns are no longer classified by calibre or bore, but by muzzle length or muzzle velocity (for air guns). Understand that what you are arguing is completely irrelevant to the law.

4) The legislation in the link you provided, copied in the link I provided IS the legislation for hand guns. You provide the link to the legislation then state there is no legislation for hand guns!!! :blink:

5) Not all gun-related incidents involve those unlicensed guns owned by criminals. The legislation brought in is intended to enforce the law more strictly on criminals, yes, but the primary activity of this legislation is to take guns out of the population because people kill other people with guns - not all of those people were criminals before they killed someone.

For your further information, WHO reports (table A.10, page 323) the rate of firearms-related deaths in the UK to be 0.3 per 100,000 individuals compared to 11.3/100,000 for the USA (figures from 1998/1999). I would ask you which Government's firearms policy appears to be more effective in mitigating death by firearms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

The State government here in Oregon was going to pass a law to post online a list of registered concealed weapon permit holders, and it looked to pass with the usual liberal majority here, but when it was suggested that criminals would use the names, addresses and other information as a online shopping list, the law was scrubbed. It is only through public interactiion on Gun Laws that some of these bad laws can be prevented. As far as Obama is concerned, I do not remember any national reforendum on weither the Citizens of the US thought this is a good idea or not. Perhaps just posting this here will spur people to write to their congressmen and demand attention to this plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InHuman
LOL wow. It didnt take them long to convince you. To you gun control freaks, dont hide behind us when the **** goes down, you WANTED this to happen. How sad our country has become when CNN can convince you to p*** on the constitution. From my cold dead hands.

Gun control dosn't =/= taking away guns

Thats why its called CONTROL.

Also its not on CNN, and its not like I base my entire ideology or belifies on whatevers on the tube.

Goddam Lunatic.

Also I could care less about YOUR constitution. I'm canadian/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Unseen
Why do I feel like I just missed something entertaining?

Ya didnt,What was said was my stupidity.I left my computer on and my Dumd butt of a friend said something rasist and it got me in trouble with LILLY.I just have to learn that when I leave to go get my child not to leave my computer on in a sudden dash to do something,But its ok I made him pay me a hundred dollars for his typing stupid things on this comp. I'm not sure what was written except it called for someones death I'm not sure if he said something about assaulting someone from this site or if it was the PRESIDENT,I know I have said many crazy things on this site but saying something rasist is not me,this is the second time this has happened and for now on my comp will be off limits to the rest of this household. If there is anyone on this site that was insulted and feels like they need an apology let me know and you will surly recieve one,I think I should slap him in the mouth but he doesnt have any teeth to begain with because someone allready done knocked them out"HE has TWO Left. Once again I have to say I'm sorry for someone elses mouth run amuck.but I do so whole heartedly.I told him if he wanted to he needs to join the U.M. site on his computer so he wouldnt use my name anymore,I think I'll go spray "LOSER" on his lawn with grass killer and let the neighborhood know who he is.His real name is Cris Holton from Dallas.I'd give his address but I think it would be wrong and Lilly might not like that too much and I'm allready on thin ice but if you leave a message for me I might be able to deliver the message to him.Maybe tonight he might have to put out a bag that will be ablaze that will be on his front porch with a little surprise in it"If you know what I mean" Once again I apologize to the members of this site and I'll try better to know who is using my log on name .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D1CKY D1AMOND
No, screw you. You know how many red blooded Americans have died to protect these rights? Your way of life was given to you by thier blood, by thier guns. Any who would give freedom for safty deserve neither.

I would let you screw me but your not my type.

Do you know how many Americans have died as a result of having no real regulations of gun ownership. Also they never fought for my rights I'm from Canada where we do have gun control and a far less oppressive government.

Gun control means exactly that 'control' the US public should be restricted to how many and what types of guns they have, it's a public safety issue. The right to bare arms doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to own assault rifles which serve no purpose other then to kill other people or walk around city streets with hand guns which also serve the same purpose.

I own guns and I support gun control because it's the most sensible way of reducing gun violence.

If your worried about your freedom you should be PMSing over the fact everything you type online is logged and all your phone conversations are listened too... No instead your concerned about having the ability to have guns in which you could freely kill and maim if you wished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Is it just me or is it just the United States of America...... Of all the western nations only the U.S. allows guns to be sold to mental midgets... Not really a good plan since most morons who whine about the second amendment don't even know what that means. It's not a right to go and buy automatic weapons or walk around with a 9 mm in the armpit. The funny thing is the closest Americans come to understanding the metric system is because they carry a 9mm. ( that means it's 1 mm from being a centimeter ) LOL.

The right to bare arms is to protect yourself from your own government nothing more nothing less. The argument that guns reduce crime is a fallacy created by ignorant morons such as Charlton Heston. America grow up !!!!! the man in the closet is a creation of your own desighn..... Quit jumping at your own shadows for f sake....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.