Scene Outside the Capitol last night in solidarity with the Gun Control sit-in

27244192174_bf966a0d1b_z

Thanks to a couple readers for sending photos – the shot above is of “Corrine Brown Florida 5th district (including Orlando) addressing protestors outside congress”

27244140393_330729cfac_z

98 Comment

  • 🙂

  • justinbc

    For those who live and work in DC, have you seen a list of requests for ways to assist those sitting in?

    • I would like to know this as well

      • Let me get this right. Democrats lost a vote, they lost it 4 different times, now they are protesting they didn’t get their way? I wonder why they don’t have the majority in the house and senate?

        • What vote? There was no vote….that’s the point of the sit-in.

        • Yes, this is clearly a Dem problem. Remind me how many ACA repeal votes GOP lawmakers have wasted their (and by extension our) time on?

          • Senate, 4 votes. no no no no

            Also, everything proposed by Dems will not stop ISIS or gun violence. Just more non-sense gesturing and no real action.

          • Ok Jeff, what do you propose then?

          • Jeff, the point is to vote so that the constituents of these weasels can see that they receive money from the NRA and vote the NRA’s interests to the detriment of their communities. Nobody expects these bills to pass. The dems just want the republicans to have to vote against these common-sense gun reforms, so that it is on the record, and so that it is apparent how extreme their positions are.

          • justinbc

            I’m not concerned with “stopping ISIS”, that’s the military’s job. I’m much more concerned with the tens of thousands who die through “regular” gun deaths every year. This is the FIRST step in getting remotely anywhere near doing anything about that. 90% of U.S. citizens are in favor of the measures being proposed, if anyone’s wasting time it’s those who ignore the wishes of the people.

        • A majority of Americans supported fewer restrictions on gun ownership at ONE time in the last 20 years, right after September 11. At every other time, including right now, a majority (including a majority of military officers) favor stricter controls.
          So… how is it that the representatives of the people aren’t actually representing?? They did the math, and decided they had more to lose by pissing off the NRA than by actively disenfranchising their constituents.
          But hey, if you want to talk about elected officials throwing tempter tantrums when they don’t get their way, I’ve got dozens of attempts at repealing the ACA to show you.

          • Stricter control will not stop criminals and ISIS. Just as England, France, Spain, and Belgium.

          • +1 And the GOP shutting down the government.

          • So, you and your toys of death are going to accomplish what the multi-billion dollar coalition is struggling with? Cool!

          • Again, I’ll just note that if we could have the gun death statistics of England, France, Spain, and Belgium (even put together), I’d be thrilled. Please let’s do whatever they are doing.

  • So, if we can limit a persons second amendment rights without due process of the law, whats stopping congress from limiting voting rights, free speech rights and so on? This is a most dangerous slippery slope.

    • OK, Concern Troll. Your free speech rights are already limited by the Supreme Court – dangerous speech? Voting rights are limited too – ID laws?
      Taking your Concern Trolling to it’s logical extension, are you also advocating that citizens should be allowed to possess nuclear and biological weapons? I think those weapons would be far more effective than an AR-15 in protecting yourself from “the tyranny of the state.”

    • Nice strawman. Rights aren’t absolute. My right to free speech is already limited. I can’t threaten or endanger others with my words, for example.

      • Okay, so are my gun rights. Not asking for more, just dont need more limitations. Enforce the laws we have.

        • This is the classic pro-gun rights argument: There are already gun laws and there is still gun violence. Here are some of the problems with that:
          .
          1. Gun laws vary state by state and even city by city. The GOP loves to trot out Chicago as an example of a violent city with very strict gun laws. Guess where all those guns come from? Indiana, Wisconsin, and Mississippi…states with very lax gun laws.
          .
          2. “Criminals don’t buy guns legally/gun control only burdens the good guys” Guess what…every gun that has ever been used in a crime started its life as a legal weapon. Criminals aren’t making these guns themselves; they are coming from straw buyers and shady firearms dealers. If you limit the sale of semi-autos with high capacity magazines, they will slowly cease being readily available to every criminal or wannabe terrorist looking to kill dozens of people. Over time they will break down, be turned in, or become pricey collectors items.
          .
          3. “Enforce the laws we have” This is made more difficult by pro-gun legislators prohibiting a national database, preventing the FBI from digitizing their gun purchase records (meaning background checks and gun traces are done using 1950s technology), preventing CDC and other federal agencies from researching gun violence, etc. You can’t complain that the laws aren’t being enforced, while at the same time supporting legislators tying the hands of the people trying to enforce them.
          .
          (rant concluded)

        • What would your problem be with simply intensifying background checks so that they take, say, 3 days instead of 3 minutes? And for flagging people who are on terrorist lists or have committed other violent so they can be interviewed if they try to buy a gun? I don’t understand how you don’t see this problem our country has and how it is taking lives every single day. If even one life could be saved with extending background checks, would that not be worth a 3 day delay for you?

        • Cool, cool. Let’s fund the ATF then, yes? Did you know they have fewer agents than are on the DC police force? Maybe we could appoint a director? Like a full-time one? Maybe we could get some some electronic records in the mix? A centralized database so ATF could actually tell when a single buyer has purchased multiple guns in a short time-frame? Don’t like the ATF because it’s ineffective? Maybe we could move the ATF’s operations to the FBI. Oh wait. The NRA has actually prevented us from doing any of that, .
          ~~~
          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/who-the-nra-really-speaks-for.html?_r=0

    • justinbc

      One of those things kills people. The others do not. Next argument please.

  • Today’s NY Daily News cover is fan-f#cking-tastic
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClooYyAWgAAe5kH.jpg

    • So, restricting peoples rights based on an arbitrary list is now acceptable among lefties? How “progressive” of you…..

      • Yes to more restrictions! Assault weapons for the military, not for private citizens. Background checks.

      • Join the military if you want to play with powerful, high capacity guns designed for war. I think that’s a pretty sensible solution. A handgun or shotgun is fine for personal and home defense. In fact, I’d argue that those weapons are better suited for home defense than an AR-15.
        As mentioned earlier, what’s stopping you from claiming the 2nd Amendment should allow personal use of grenades, nuclear bombs, or chemical weapons? Do you support restricting those weapons? If so, that’s a huge logical inconsistency on your part.
        Also, why are you OK with those on the terror watch list having access to guns?

      • I don’t remember the right complaining about watch lists and the USAPATRIOT Act in in the early 2000s or at any time prior to the Orlando massacre. Secret lists without due process are OK when it prevents people from flying and subjects them to surveillance and scrutiny (4th Amend), but as soon as a reasonable restriction on firearms is raised, you become the ACLU.

  • You’ll never take away our guns!

  • How are the gun laws working out here in DC? Can someone run a survey in Columbia Heights about that one?

    • Reflective of the country’s politics at large, here we have a very vocal minority (this one troll “Jeff”) spewing talking points based on fear rather than logic.
      .
      To my fellow members of the rational majority, LET’S GET VOCAL.

      • I’d venture to guess that Jeff is a paid NRA online troll. There’s plenty of online tools that allow public policy groups to monitor forum discussions in real time and insert their paid trolls to “influence” the discussion. Political groups of all stripes do this – from campaigns themselves to single issue groups. It’s really Orwellian.

        • You may be right, and I bet Dan could sleuth to figure that out if he wanted to.
          .
          But WE ARE the majority here, and the time has come for us to GET LOUD

        • Paid? Probably an unpaid NRA intern. I mean, it doesn’t take much smarts/ experience to copy/paste the logic-free talking points.

          • Most likely this person is actually paying the NRA to be a member, and simply has all the talking points memorized. NRA members are passionate, but they are still a minority.
            .
            The NRA, paid for by the gun manufacturers who profit from the arms race that the NRA foments, will eventually meet the end of their reign of terror. It’s time for the rational majority to get angry.

    • Do you think those guns that are being used in Columbia Heights are coming from the district or our gun-friendly neighbor to the south? You can’t really think that a gun law in DC is going to prevent people from buying a gun in Virginia and bringing it to DC, or buying a gun from a bulk purchasing straw man who makes thoughts of $ making weekly gun-buying trips to central VA and reselling them to folks in PGC and DC?

    • Yeah, good one. Good thing DC doesn’t have roads to gun-friendly neighbors, or we’d never know whether gun laws actually work!

  • Gun owners, including NRA members, overwhelmingly support proposals to close this “terror gap:”76 percent of gun owners, including 71 percent of NRA members, support prohibiting people on terror watch lists from purchasing guns.

    I’m a Republican and I support the sit-in 100%

  • Can somebody remind me the first four words of the second amendment? Or heck, even just the second and third word?

    • Constitution Jeff, you got this one.

      • Jeff? Are you there?

      • Jeff left because he is being absolutely demolished.

        • That’s the fundamental problem/strength of the NRAs counterarguments. When you tailor your message to what will fit on a bumper sticker or be recalled by “low information voters” you can only get so far. Eventually, you have to (1) shout the same talking points incoherently or (2) run away.

          • Sorry to interrupt all of the self-congratulation and moral preening around here, but I have some facts that won’t fit on the back of a bumper sticker. First off, watching all the DC lefties celebrate an attempt to scrap due process and roll back civil rights (the ACLU opposes this effort — google “The Use of Error-Prone and Unfair Watchlists Is Not the Way to Regulate Guns in America” if you don’t believe me) is equal parts hilarious and disturbing. You’ve made it all very clear that you are far more interested in advancing your goals than hewing to any sort of intellectual consistency.
            .
            So let’s say this ridiculous legislation advances, what then (besides, of course, rolling back due process and depriving mostly Muslim people of their civil rights)? What will this accomplish? You know that in 2014 that more people were murdered with blunt instruments such as hammers or clubs than rifles *of all types* (435 vs. 248)? It’s symbolism over substance. No, “assault” rifles — whatever those are — do not account for very many murders in a country of 320 million but hey, they look scary and who really needs one anyway, amirite? (idea: maybe the onus should be on those seeking restrictions on liberty to justify it rather than the law-abiding justifying why they should have something)
            .
            I know, I know, lots of other countries have severe gun restrictions and far less gun deaths, so if these NRA bought and sold politicians would just get out of the way we could be just like them right? Except it’s not even close to being that simple. After all, in gun-loving Louisiana the murder rate in 2014 was 10.3 per 100,000. Case-closed! But in gun-loving New Hampshire the murder rate for the same year was…0.9 per 100,000 (per Wikipedia that’s lower than every state in gun-restricting Australia in 2011 — the most recent year for data provided — except for Tasmania where it was 0.8 per 100,000).
            .
            It’s almost as if that is a really complicated issue, involving things like cultural norms and demographics, which doesn’t lend itself to facile solutions. But anyway, I’ll step back from being the turd in the punch bowl and let you get back to telling yourselves that NRA money is the real problem and this can all be fixed with just a few more restrictions on liberty . Because, after all, we need to “do something”, and this is something, therefore we should do it.

          • +1 to Colin on a well-stated, rational argument.

          • +1000 Colin.

            While I’m hugely in favor of stronger gun restrictions, and happy the Dems are finally showing some political strength – the fact that they are doing so over a law as problematic as this one is infuriating.

            Putting aside the fact that this law will do nothing to curb gun violence, the law actually validates a troublesome government list that disproportionately affects Muslim-Americans who have very little recourse to remove themselves from it if they are unjustly identified (which happens A LOT).

            Like I said, I’m all for curbing gun violence and making the standards for purchasing a machine designed solely to kill people more than just being a sentient being – but this law is purely bad policy.

          • Colin’s long diatribe summed up: let’s not even take one incremental step because it’s too complicated. In other words, if we can’t be perfect we can’t lift a finger. I don’t buy into that for one second.
            .
            US government agencies aren’t even allowed to study the issue to find ways to efficiently reduce gun deaths. In other words, we can’t even explore the best solutions that still respect the 2nd Amendment. Four bills were proposed in order to tackle the issue from various angles.

          • Great discussion points….
            Watch-list based restrictions and “assault” weapons bans are absolutely imperfect approaches to fixing a complex problem. In the same way that every law passed by every congress since 1789 have been imperfect. The point is, they are actions that could have great impact on reducing gun deaths in America and they are ones that are palatable to the majority of Americans.

          • Are you really comparing gun violence in NH vs. Louisiana in the same post where you argue on behalf of intellectual consistency? Visit New Orleans and then visit Nashua NH…let me know if you notice any other differences in population density, poverty, substance abuse, etc.
            .
            Personally, I support a functional and comprehensive background check system (incl gun shows, online, and P2P sales), a traceable registry so we can identify where weapons that are used by criminals came from, research funding to analyze the admittedly complex problem of gun violence, and a restriction on high capacity magazines. The GOP and the NRA have made it clear that all of those are non-starters from a federal level. So that’s why you have Democratic legislators sitting on the floor asking for a straight up-or-down vote on a crappy, imperfect solution that might not end all gun violence, but will likely prevent some. If you feel differently, that’s your prerogative. But there is a difference between supporting incremental action and moral preening.

          • If you are proposing we expand gun control beyond this constitution-bending watch list, I don’t think you’d find much opposition here. I think anyone here would root for ending the watch list and instead having background checks and a centralized database so the government can know who’s actually buying guns and who’s just talking about it. And hey, if the main upshot of this whole thing is that we start talking about how hypocritical republicans are for supporting that list to allow harassment and restrict movement but not allowing it to be used to restrict gun purchases, that would be progress in my view.
            ~~~
            Nobody thinks that these specific gun laws are going to solve all our problems. In particular, I am sympathetic to the argument that assault rifles are not responsible for all that many deaths. Hand guns are by far the most deadly. Are you arguing that we should regulate hand guns? Are you proposing a database so the government can track who has purchased them? No? OK, we’ll take what we can get. Because these are the guns that recently have killed spectacularly and unnecessarily, and apparently that’s what we can get traction on. It’s better than nothing. Many of us are sick of the shape-shifting and concern trolling of the gun lobby and want some movement in the right direction. Oh, you don’t want THIS regulation, THIS regulation won’t do anything because it doesn’t address this massive OTHER problem we have with guns which we also won’t allow regulation on. Bullsh*t.
            ~~~
            Nothing you’ve said in your cherry-picked example comparing NH with LA (which, by the way, are outliers to statistical analysis showing that the number of guns is correlated with the number of people shot with guns) will dissuade anyone here from the notion that background checks and some way of tracking gun ownership would lower gun deaths. Why? Because guns ALONE don’t kill people, of course, specific people with guns kill people. So let’s try to keep guns out of the hands of specific people. How? Let’s start with closing some loopholes on background checks. Let’s allow research into gun laws. Let’s maybe not assume Americans are for some reason innately more violent than every other nationality on the planet and look at what some other countries are doing.

          • “The point is, they are actions that could have great impact on reducing gun deaths in America and they are ones that are palatable to the majority of Americans.”
            .
            No, they aren’t. Again, deaths from all types of rifles in 2014 were 248. Total “gun deaths” — which of course includes suicides — for 2013 were a bit over 32,000. So even in the (extremely unlikely) case you eliminated every single murder from a rifle (including more classic hunting rifles) the total reduction in gun deaths would be a bit under 0.8%. That’s not a “great impact” by any definition. And let’s keep in mind that the terror list is said to only number in the thousands.
            .
            While this is unknowable I would be genuinely surprised if this legislation would prevent even a single death. Particularly since someone motivated by ideology — your classic terrorist — strikes me as about the last person who would simply give up their effort to kill after being confronted by a gun law, instead opting to acquire the weapon illegally, using numerous handguns, building a bomb, etc.
            .
            Lastly, what is palatable to Americans should have zero to do with it. I’m sure lots of horrible ideas have enjoyed majority support at one time or another in this country.

          • Instead of typing my long response, above. I should have just said “+1 Anon”

          • “Are you really comparing gun violence in NH vs. Louisiana in the same post where you argue on behalf of intellectual consistency? Visit New Orleans and then visit Nashua NH…let me know if you notice any other differences in population density, poverty, substance abuse, etc.”
            .
            In reading my post, did you make it to the part about cultural norms and demographics? FFS…

          • “which, by the way, are outliers to statistical analysis showing that the number of guns is correlated with the number of people shot with guns”

            Here’s the murder rate vs. gun ownership rate plotted on a chart. Let me know what you find:

            http://c5.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_nrd_20151221_verbruggen_chart_01.jpg

          • Colin…I agree those are helpful statistics to keep in mind. But it’s also useful to put them in the context of the real world. If this (admittedly imperfect) law was in place, the San Bernardino shooters and the Orlando shooter would not have been able to walk into a guy shop and buy weapons capable of killing 30 people a minute. Either they would have set off an alarm that allowed the FBI to investigate why the subjects of recent terrorism investigations were buying these weapons or prohibited the sales altogether.
            .
            If, as I think you’d suggest, the terrorists would have just gone and tried to get these weapons illegally or tried to used other means to kill a massive number of people; that would be additional grounds for the FBI to arrest them. If they tried carrying out the same massacres with a handgun, shot gun, or traditional long rifle…they might have been able to kill 3, 4, maybe even 6 people. But there wouldn’t be 50 dead men and women. People who want to carry out mass atrocities choose these guns 100% of the time. They choose them because they are easy to get, easy to use, and they can kill a lot of people quickly.
            .
            So, statistics notwithstanding, i stand by my position that preventing or reducing these type of mass shootings would have a “great impact” on reducing gun deaths.

          • I’m going to go ahead and believe these guys, if you don’t mind:

            https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

          • Colin, I don’t know why your random, poorly labeled, unsourced graph got through the comment filter, and my link to a series of Harvard studies didn’t. But there’s actually some academic research on this, and the overwhelming conclusion is that gun ownership is correlated with gun deaths.

          • “If this (admittedly imperfect) law was in place, the San Bernardino shooters and the Orlando shooter would not have been able to walk into a guy shop and buy weapons capable of killing 30 people a minute.”
            .
            Again, even using the fantastical assumption that this would prevent every single murder by rifle we’re talking a reduction of 0.8%. This is not a great impact.
            .
            “Either they would have set off an alarm that allowed the FBI to investigate why the subjects of recent terrorism investigations were buying these weapons or prohibited the sales altogether. If, as I think you’d suggest, the terrorists would have just gone and tried to get these weapons illegally or tried to used other means to kill a massive number of people; that would be additional grounds for the FBI to arrest them.”
            .
            Let’s say the FBI carries out a super human effort and stops all mass shootings. That’s about 1% of all shooting homicides (per a 7 year analysis performed by USA Today in 2013). Again, not a great impact by any definition.
            .
            “If they tried carrying out the same massacres with a handgun, shot gun, or traditional long rifle…they might have been able to kill 3, 4, maybe even 6 people.”
            .
            How do you figure? What is your logic here? If someone walks into a school, club, etc. with two pistols, extra mags and is a good shot, why couldn’t they kill more than 6?

            “People who want to carry out mass atrocities choose these guns 100% of the time.”
            .
            Not even close. Google “OLR research report weapons used in mass shootings” Don’t worry, it’s from the Connecticut state government.
            .
            “So, statistics notwithstanding, i stand by my position that preventing or reducing these type of mass shootings.”
            .
            You have provided zero facts to support your position. While that should worry you, I can’t say I’m surprised that it doesn’t.

          • “Colin, I don’t know why your random, poorly labeled, unsourced graph got through the comment filter, and my link to a series of Harvard studies didn’t. But there’s actually some academic research on this, and the overwhelming conclusion is that gun ownership is correlated with gun deaths.”

            You can find my chart by googling “Verbruggen Would Cracking Down on Guns in the U.S. Really Reduce Violence?”
            .
            Also, I am not interested in “gun deaths,” which include suicide. Given that the hysteria behind the push for gun laws stems from mass shootings and homicides, the homicide rate seems the far more relevant metric.

          • Colin…A few points
            .
            First, I really enjoyed this back and forth. Unlike the “bumper sticker” logic from Jeff that i criticized above, you have a consistent opinion and some statistical support for your argument. From your quips and barbs, I’m guessing you feel differently.
            .
            Second, on high capacity assault rifles and mass shootings…a shooter with two handguns is going to have to reload after 12-20 rounds (assuming 6-10 shots per magazine). That creates a window for people to flee or attack the shooter. I balance that possibility against whatever inconvenience a limit on assault rifles and 30 round magazines might have on the average gun owner (less than 1% of whom own assault rifles…because if you can’t take down a deer or a home invader in 10 shots, you probably shouldn’t own a gun).
            .
            Finally, I think our biggest disagreement isn’t about gun control. It seems to be about how we define “significant”…I think stopping 1% of shootings and preventing innocent loss of life is significant. You look at it from a statistical standpoint, where 1% is never going to be significant. Difference of opinion. Have a good one.

          • Here. “Gun deaths” is sloppy, though perhaps you are right that we shouldn’t care about accidental shooting and suicides. The results apply to homicide as well.

            https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

            I’ll take peer reviewed academic research over a two-way scatter issued by the National Review. The thing about academic research is that it actually tries to control for the things you have identified as confounders to simple correlations, like poverty, etc.

          • [obstrucs research]

            “There’s no good research to prove your claims!!”

          • Google “guns homicide harvard” to find the studies I tried to link to. The results apply to homicides as well as “gun deaths'”, though perhaps I’m alone in thinking accidental shooting and suicide are something we should care about.
            ~~~
            The thing about peer reviewed academic research is that it tries to control for the confounders you identify, like poverty, which make a simple correlation – like the national review scatterplot you point to – difficult to interpret. They allow us to better think about the relevant question, which is: all else equal, what difference to guns make?

        • justinbc

          He’s probably busy penning a manifesto.

  • This quote made me LOL. From NC (Republican) Rep. Mark Walker: “Calling this a sit-in is a disgrace to Woolworth’s. They sat-in for rights. Dems are ‘sitting-in’ to strip them away.”

    This coming from the man who is a strong supporter of NC HB2, works to defund Planned Parenthood, and opposes abortion, even in the circumstance of rape. So god forbid we strip away rights for people to own guns/pieces of metal, but make sure we strip away rights from transgenders, women and so many others. The hypocrisy is almost laughable.

    • And it takes some nerve for this guy to talk about the sit-ins at Woolworth to the guy, who ya know, led those sit-ins at Woolworth and got beat up for it.

  • pass the popcorn, please.

  • Not the first time for name-calling when someone dares to disagree with the Popville left – it’s a shame, especially for a group of people who seem to consider themselves to be so open-minded.

    That said, I support the Murphy bill to eliminate the gun show/ on-line sales background check loophole in the – can’t see a rationale argument against it. I’m divided on the others that remove rights by placing names on government secret lists without judicial review – seems a bad road to go down.

    • I’ve got to disagree. I didn’t see any name calling or ad hominem attacks. From what I see in the above, people who disagreed with with pro-gun arguments attacked those arguments, not the messenger. That said, maybe I missed some comments that PoP moderated?

    • Seriously, what name calling? This is as civil a discussion on gun control as ever you will find.

    • No one – even political progressives/liberals – needs to be “tolerant” of arguments and odious positions that make little sense to 90% of Americans.

  • I’m frustrated with the comment filter. “Gun deaths” is sloppy, though perhaps you are right that we shouldn’t care about accidental shooting and suicides. The results apply to homicide as well.
    ~~
    Google “homicide guns harvard” and you will find the series of published research I’m trying to point to.
    ~~
    I’ll take peer reviewed academic research over a two-way scatter issued by the National Review. The thing about academic research is that it actually tries to control for the things you have identified as confounders to simple correlations, like poverty, etc.

  • Suicide by firearm is still a firearm death. It’s not “sloppy” to include those numbers in violent death counts. A person in crisis with a gun can turn that on you or himself at any time. Often, there is a suicide following a homicide, as we see in many mass shootings.

    Regarding the 4 votes in the Senate. 2 of those bills were Republican bills. So don’t go framing this as just a “liberals taking away rights” argument. There are conservatives who are smart enough to realize that we need to do something, and that this is a start.

  • I grew up in a family of sportsmen. There were always guns in my house. But those guns were always unloaded and secured, and we knew from a young age that we should respect them as deadly weapons.
    .
    The Friday before the Orlando shooting, my brother, who probably owns 30 guns and has “life goals” that include moose hunting in Alaska and elk hunting in Colorado, picked me up at the airport to visit my family. On the drive to his home (again, TONS of guns there), he decried how easy it is to get guns these days. When we pulled into his driveway, he asked me if I had my pepper spray with me. “No, remember, I flew.” “Oh, okay.” Why did he ask me that? Because my pepper spray would have to go into the gun safe in his house, so his kids didn’t get ahold of it and hurt us (accidentally). *That’s* how seriously we take weapons, even non-lethal!
    .
    He goes to gun shows, buys some guns online if he’s looking for something specific. Still thinks it’s too easy. On Sunday, he was upset. He said “I could leave right now and come back with a whole arsenal in an hour! That’s absurd!”
    .
    He would chip in for donuts for those holding the floor. If he gets it, you should, too!

    • I’ve had guns around me all my life. We never had any stolen, fired erroneously, sold to shady people, or used to threaten kill anyone.

      MOST gun owners are very responsible, 357 million guns vs. 32,000 gun related murders (suicides not included) proves that point.

Comments are closed.