View Full Version : We're Winning! Support for AWB lowest ever! - HR 4269 Proposed Anyway
Doc Safari
12-16-15, 13:02
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/16/abc-newswashington-post-poll-highest-opposition-ever-assault-weapons-ban/
On December 16 an ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that an “assault weapons” ban faces the largest opposition among the American people ever.
Fifty-three percent of the American people oppose such a ban, which is up from 13 percent opposition in 1994.
According to ABC News, in addition to showing increased opposition to an “assault weapons” ban, the poll shows that support for such a ban has fallen by almost 50 percent since 1994.
In 1994 support for the ban was at 80 percent, today it is at 45 percent.
Moreover, the poll shows that Americans are looking to guns for security. ABC News/WAPO found that 47 percent of Americans believe “encouraging more people to carry guns legally” is a better answer than the gun control solution supported by 42 percent of Americans.
This is good, but the war is far from over. I have personally seen the sentiment towards guns change in my area in the past 5 years. More and more gun owners everyday; it's great. There has definitely been a resurgence in the pro 2A culture. God I hope this all backfires on the progressives and RINOS.
Sent from my LG-H900 using Tapatalk
The telling part about whether we're winning or not will be whether people will vote to keep their own security and self determination or trade it for a bunch of fascist rhetoric and promises of free stuff in the next election. Results always outweigh efforts. With the current state of the electorate, we're one more bad election away from losing the farm.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/16/abc-newswashington-post-poll-highest-opposition-ever-assault-weapons-ban/
Just like when every poll for Obamacare/ACA showed a Majority of Americans against it?!?!?!? Yeah- our "leaders" care what we think and represent us...
It's good to see people waking up- but our "representatives" will do whatever they like and ram it down our throats. Liberty and freedom, laws and morals be damned.
The telling part about whether we're winning or not will be whether people will vote to keep their own security and self determination or trade it for a bunch of fascist rhetoric and promises of free stuff in the next election. Results always outweigh efforts. With the current state of the electorate, we're one more bad election away from losing the farm.
This ^ exactly.. Wasn't it Regan who said that at any time, we're no more than a generation away from losing our freedoms. At this point in history, that statement couldn't ring more true... I'd say we're winning when the GCA of '68 is repealed...And you can walk into a gun shop and walk out with the gun of your choice by doing nothing more than plopping your cash down on the counter, the way it used to be..
Averageman
12-16-15, 14:15
Listen to Hillary talk to some suburban soccer Mom's about gun control.
If you think She's not about to do it for your own "good" you've lost it.
I too have noticed the tide turning. More and more people are getting the idea that they are being lied to, and that the media and the government are not on the side of the people.
I hope this trend continues and we continue to gain ground.
The Democrats are placing a big bet that Americans want more gun control, introducing the 2015 AWB bill, which closely mimics CT's AWB, prohibiting the future transfer of all "AWs," which amounts to delayed confiscation: you lose it when you depart.
House Democrats on Wednesday formally renewed their push to renew a 1990s-era assault weapons ban, introducing legislation
A growing coalition of Democrats is looking to renew the assault weapons ban that was originally signed by President Bill Clinton but expired more than a decade ago.
“Now, let’s remember that assault weapons were first designed for the battlefield by Germans during the Second World War,” said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who is leading congressional efforts to ban these types of guns. "The sole purpose of their existence was to kill as many people as quickly as possible during military combat."
The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 introduced Wednesday by Cicilline would target semi-automatic and other military-style guns. It would ensure that no such weapons are manufactured for consumer use, while placing new restrictions on the sale of already existing assault weapons.
Under the legislation, gun owners who already have assault weapons would be allowed to keep them, but they could face challenges reselling them.
http://thehill.com/regulation/263489-assault-weapons-ban-targets-semi-automatic-guns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXBkHZDOatk
If an AWB becomes law, the SCOTUS will likely rule it constitutional, according to constitutional experts (especially if a Dem POTUS has the ability to replace one or two Justices):
Top Constitutional Lawyers Explain What the Second Amendment Really Says About Gun Control
"Heller set out sort of a bare-bones holding that there is a constitutionally protected right to bear arms, but most of the hard questions have not yet been considered by the Supreme Court," Fallon told Mic. "Although the Supreme Court has recognized a Second Amendment right to bear arms, it has not recognized an absolute right of everybody to bear arms, of all kinds, at all places, in all circumstances."
Other constitutional lawyers go even further, saying that although conservatives may not want to admit it, Heller actually paved the way for more gun control restrictions.
"I believe 'assault weapons' are indeed what the court had in mind when it wrote in Heller about 'dangerous and unusual weapons," Harvard Law professor and renowned legal scholar Laurence Tribe told Mic. "I believe military-style assault weapons will never be protected by the court in the name of the Second Amendment."
"The largest misconception is that the Second Amendment justifies — or ever has justified — our nation's abysmal record in protecting innocent people from avoidable gun violence," Tribe told Mic. "The Second Amendment and the Constitution as a whole are abused by those who treat them as a sick suicide pact."
http://mic.com/articles/130473/top-constitutional-lawyers-explain-what-the-second-amendment-really-says-about-gun-control#.JpB96hsIS
It will never make it out of committee. Better start voicing your opinions now, however, just to make sure.
ETA: How do people elect unprincipled idiots like the tool who introduced this bill?
A real Piece of Work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cicilline)
It will never make it out of committee. Better start voicing your opinions now, however, just to make sure.
ETA: How do people elect unprincipled idiots like the tool who introduced this bill?
A real Piece of Work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cicilline)
When the SCOTUS let the Highlands Park AWB remain in effect, it sent a strong signal of its intent.
Never getting to a full vote... They sure can't let a crisis go to waste.
devildogljb
12-16-15, 21:31
not sure what happened here delete
This will certainly stir things up but I doubt it would actually happen. It is really only a cosmetic issue. I will contact my representatives to voice my opinion. I'm thankful that I already have everything I need.
It is really only a cosmetic issue.
This is the one thing that the grabbers will never admit. Everything that they're terrified of with most "Assault Weapons" are cosmetic features that do almost nothing to make the firearm any more lethal or dangerous... Except the "turn them all in" folks. They just see it as a step on the ladder to blanket confiscation.
This is the one thing that the grabbers will never admit. Everything that they're terrified of with most "Assault Weapons" are cosmetic features that do almost nothing to make the firearm any more lethal or dangerous... Except the "turn them all in" folks. They just see it as a step on the ladder to blanket confiscation.
The LA Times agrees with you that banning assault weapons is silly: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-winkler-folly-of-assault-weapon-ban-20151211-story.html
Heck, even the NY Times agreed with you in 2014: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html
The Founding Fathers, with their firm belief in rationalism, would be sick to their stomachs about how "feel good" government is flourishing in this country. Ugh.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/daniel-zimmerman/382125/
Never getting to a full vote... They sure can't let a crisis go to waste.
Of course not.. And the next time we have a terrorist shooting, you can bet the farm they'll drag this out again. You can't beat the stupid out of these people.
PatrioticDisorder
12-17-15, 20:01
Of course not.. And the next time we have a terrorist shooting, you can bet the farm they'll drag this out again. You can't beat the stupid out of these people.
I pray they continue to show their ass, they'll continue to lose public opinion supporting an AWB & cause people who may not vote or might have even voted for the gungrabbers (not on the gun issue) to vote against them. Let them beat the dead horse to death, let them continue to propose outright confiscation.
H.R. 4269 Assault Weapons Ban of 2015
I know folks don't think this has any chance of passing, but after the GOP actions with the recent spending bill I'm not so sure it wouldn't pass. Just sayin' we need to stay vigilant. While the text of the bill that was introduced hasn't been released, here are a few details from the primary sponsors web site:
"U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), along with 123 co-sponsors, today introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 to prohibit the sale, transfer, production, and importation of new military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines that have become the firearm of choice for many mass shooters in the United States. Cicilline’s legislation also includes new safeguards on the sale or transfer of assault weapons already in circulation.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 will prohibit the sale, transfer, production, and importation of:
Semi-automatic rifles and handguns with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine;
Semi-automatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;
Semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature;
Any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds;
And 157 specifically-named and listed firearms.
Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, the background check period is extended to 14 days for the sale or transfer of an existing assault weapon. If it is determined that a gun was sold to a prohibited individual, the FBI will be required to notify federal, state, and local law enforcement so the weapon can be retrieved as quickly as possible and the buyer can be held accountable for violating federal law."
http://cicilline.house.gov/press-release/cicilline-and-121-house-colleagues-introduce-assault-weapons-ban-2015
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-18-15, 08:38
Two things to learn from this. The first is that even in the face of sure failure, they press forward again and again and again. They never give up and they never stop pushing for more gun control. The other is that if we didn't have a Republican Congress this would get passed.
I don't see much of a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, but this is one area where it would be all downhill if the Dems controlled everything. Throw in the state of Scotus, or if the next president puts in a couple more progressive on the court, and this is all gone sideways.
Start playing the PRS games if this stuff eventually passes.
ETA: I'm not having a stroke, I was in a hurry and trusted SIRI.
Dems also introduced a federal "gun buyback" bill
According to The Hill, Payne’s bill would require gun owners to “turn over their firearms to state and local governments as well as certain gun dealers,” who would then turn the weapons over to the Department of Justice for destruction. The DOJ would “pay gun owners a premium of 25 percent more than the market value of their firearms.”
Gun owners who turned over their weapons would receive a debit card that could be used for anything other than “more guns and ammunition.”
Australian-style gun confiscation was based on mandatory buybacks that resulted in the destruction of all weapons collected. On October 16, Hillary Clinton told an audience at Keene State College that such a plan was “worth looking at” for gun policy in the US.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/17/house-democrats-introduce-national-gun-buybacks/
The idea a bill like this is introduced is a great indication of the how delusional the libtards are.
We haev another thread going right now on lowest support for an awb ever. This bill they introduced is pretty much craziness, they could not possibly have introduced it and thought it would gain traction.
Why don't these people introduce bills they think would stick? They waste thier time will bills for 'show' they know will not get anywhere so they can say they 'tried'. Losers.
Doc Safari
12-18-15, 10:50
The idea a bill like this is introduced is a great indication of the how delusional the libtards are.
We haev another thread going right now on lowest support for an awb ever. This bill they introduced is pretty much craziness, they could not possibly have introduced it and thought it would gain traction.
Why don't these people introduce bills they think would stick? They waste thier time will bills for 'show' they know will not get anywhere so they can say they 'tried'. Losers.
Looks like the threads were merged.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-18-15, 11:19
The idea a bill like this is introduced is a great indication of the how delusional the libtards are.
We haev another thread going right now on lowest support for an awb ever. This bill they introduced is pretty much craziness, they could not possibly have introduced it and thought it would gain traction.
Why don't these people introduce bills they think would stick? They waste thier time will bills for 'show' they know will not get anywhere so they can say they 'tried'. Losers.
Gun control is the only religion and Bloomberg is its prophet.
Seriously. They have the mentality of ISIS terrorists.
No matter what anyone says or the facts lead- the only answer is gun control.
They don't care about how many political casualties they suffer- Bloomberg said as much when the state people in Colorado got recalled. Being for gun control is Progressives suicide belt- they are expected to light it off for the maximum effect.
They will not be happy until there is a gun-free Caliphate under NYC style law.
Gun owners are seen as sub-human and should be made to pay taxes to exist.
brickboy240
12-18-15, 11:42
Looking back at the gun laws that popped up in places like CT and CO after Sandy Hook and in other places afterwards....I would not say we are "winning" much at all.
Oh sure, we got open carry passed in Texas...big whoop.
Combining the gun law losses with the SC rulings on gay marriage and Obamacare and the GOP run Congress caving on everything...I'd say we have hardly "won" anything as of lately.
I hate to be Johnny Raincloud but this is how I see things.
“The reason they keep pushing for things like gun control even though gun control would not have stopped the San Bernardino killers, gun control wouldn’t have done anything to stop Sandy Hook, wouldn’t have stopped the Colorado shooter, you can go on and on, even though there’s no evidence whatsoever that the proposals they put forth would stop the very things they’re crying about, they keep putting it forth anyway because it’s not about protecting people, it’s not about the real agenda, it’s about control, controlling people,” Huckabee said, “making people total servants of the state, and it’s a very dangerous political philosophy to adhere to.”
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/huckabee-on-end-times-radio-gun-control-about-making-people#.huzmzR33O
For those who support total gun bans, I wonder what number of deaths they would find acceptable to achieve it?
For those who support total gun bans, I wonder what number of deaths they would find acceptable to achieve it?
It doesn't matter, The fact that they would've disarmed everyone but a select few, IS what's important.. When they have the common populace disarmed to the point that they're using knives, axes, shovels, sharp sticks, ball bats etc to commit crimes/defend themselves, Then, they have effectively eliminated any chance that the populace could ever mount an effective revolt. And, that is what "gun control" is about. period. I doubt they'd care if they had to kill off half the population in the U.S. to do it. No price is to high for these ****s...
For those who support total gun bans, I wonder what number of deaths they would find acceptable to achieve it?
To the elite, no price is too high to ensure control.
WickedWillis
12-18-15, 13:49
For those who support total gun bans, I wonder what number of deaths they would find acceptable to achieve it?
What a great quote.
It doesn't matter, The fact that they would've disarmed everyone but a select few, IS what's important.. When they have the common populace disarmed to the point that they're using knives, axes, shovels, sharp sticks, ball bats etc to commit crimes/defend themselves, Then, they have effectively eliminated any chance that the populace could ever mount an effective revolt. And, that is what "gun control" is about. period. I doubt they'd care if they had to kill off half the population in the U.S. to do it. No price is to high for these ****s...
Which makes me think that they would need to be among the first to go. Not just the politicians but the Michael Moores, Josh Sugarmanns, etc. Those espousing it the loudest. Just sayin'.........
Which makes me think that they would need to be among the first to go. Not just the politicians but the Michael Moores, Josh Sugarmanns, etc. Those espousing it the loudest. Just sayin'.........
Oh, you'll get NO argument from me.. You missed a few though, You'd need to go through every university in this country looking for Socialist Communist Professors...Educating the young is how these bastards get a toehold.. I remember reading that in the UK, one of the Gun Control spoke persons once said that all they need to do, is to get two generations of school kids, and they could get what they wanted...And it appears to have worked..
Here is the text of HR4269:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Assault+Weapons+Ban+2015%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=1
A few of the highlights:
36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
“(i) A pistol grip.
“(ii) A forward grip.
“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
“(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
“(v) A barrel shroud.
“(vi) A threaded barrel.
“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.
“(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
“(i) A threaded barrel.
“(ii) A second pistol grip.
“(iii) A barrel shroud.
“(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
“(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
“(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
“(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any 1 of the following:
“(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
“(ii) A pistol grip.
“(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.
“(iv) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
“(v) A forward grip.
“(vi) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
“(G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by inserting after subsection (u) the following:
“(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.
“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015.
“(w) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015.
For those who support total gun bans, I wonder what number of deaths they would find acceptable to achieve it?
Any number but their own.
BoringGuy45
12-25-15, 18:02
Any number but their own.
And there it is. Their argument boils down to, "You'd better give up your guns or I will kill you and take them! Oh, I'M not going to put my neck out there and do it myself, but I will SEND people who are bigger, stronger, and dumber than me to do it!"
I can't believe I missed this till now.
If this isn't over-reach, I don't know what is.
They couldn't be more predictable. I just laugh inside how bullseye accurate we have been about these gun grabbing progressive statists. They continuously double down on the absolute dumbest, failed governing policies. If they ever get the chance, they will launch us into a second civil war.
They couldn't be more predictable. I just laugh inside how bullseye accurate we have been about these gun grabbing progressive statists. They continuously double down on the absolute dumbest, failed governing policies. If they ever get the chance, they will launch us into a second civil war.
That's because they don't believe in American exceptionalism, they deny the Liberty DNA that we are born with....they think we are willing to be compliant to a centralized govt, they think we are willing to fall into line like many of the nations citizens across the globe have done. The sad part is, they are correct in thinking this, in regards to fairly large percentage of the population. The rest of us, they would not mind if we were done away with.
Averageman
12-26-15, 10:04
And there it is. Their argument boils down to, "You'd better give up your guns or I will kill you and take them! Oh, I'M not going to put my neck out there and do it myself, but I will SEND people who are bigger, stronger, and dumber than me to do it!"
So what do you do if the voting block you've worked so hard to get starts killing each other?
Well COIN might be the answer...?
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2015/12/24/coin-in-chicago/
How could this be in the civilian government of Chicago? In part, because Police Superintendent McCarthy and the City of Chicago sought out and received training by Israeli occupation forces in “counter-terrorism” policing, that is, “pacifying” a population through aggressive intelligence gathering and the application of military force. Counter-insurgency is the term used for when this doctrine is applied by military forces.
This collaboration between Israel and U.S. police agencies, including Chicago, emerged after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. Since then, by one count, at least 300 high-ranking sheriffs and police from cities both large and small have received counter-terrorism training in Israel. For instance, in January 2003, 33 senior U.S. law enforcement officials from Chicago and other major American cities flew to Israel for sessions on “Law Enforcement in the Era of Global Terror.”
https://www.juf.org/news/local.aspx?id=42404
This week the Jewish United Fund, in cooperation with the Consulate General of Israel to the Midwest, is sponsoring an intensive seminar in Israel on intelligence-led policing techniques and responses to critical events for senior leaders of the Chicago Police Department. The effort an example of how the strategic partnership between the United States and Israel benefits both countries. Sharing resources and technology and providing training are just some of the ways the two partners help one another to achieve their shared goals of peace and security.
Chicago's sad state of affairs only highlights what decades of Socialist Progressives can do when given free reign.
Now keep in mind they've got some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the Country and the murder rate just doesn't skip a beat.
http://heyjackass.com/
Year To Date
Shot & Killed: 435
Shot & Wounded: 2519
Total Shot: 2954
Total Homicides: 492
Just short of 500 murders and 450 shot and killed I'm sure we can count on "The Second City" to up the tempo in order to reach those numbers before New Years!
The bigger, stronger thing just doesn't seem to be working well for Rohm and the Chicago PD a recent shake-up left the Chief unemployed and calls for Emmanual's resignation.
So although they may think they have the force to quell potential disaster, short of calling in the National Guard and making some area's a near free fire zone, what can they do to stop the type of violence we saw in Furgeson Mo. if it hits one of the biggest Cities in the United States?
I'm afraid very little to nothing and if you live in the 'burbs your just F'ed.
I'm thinking the hold the left has on the leash of the Monster they have created is very tenuous and scary for them when they consider what will happen when the tit goes dry.
The left has constantly belittled gun owners for not compromising and has said that no one will "take your guns". Now they are thankfully once again showing their true intent - what we have known all along - that they want to take our guns. One can only fake it for so long until their true colors show. Thankfully they are giving us a great deal of ammunition with which to mobilize freedom-loving voters.
Averageman
12-26-15, 16:17
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20151008/NEWS02/151009827/the-problem-with-using-chicago-to-make-the-case-against-gun-control
Chicago's high rates of gun violence have been well-documented. In 2014, there were 2,587 shooting victims in in the city, according to the Chicago Tribune. The New York City Police Department recorded 1,381 victims in the same time period, and New York has around three times as many people as Chicago.
“I think that it's more likely that if Chicago did not have tough gun laws they would have higher rates of gun violence than they do have,” said Philip Cook, a Duke public policy professor and economist who works with the University of Chicago Crime Lab, leading its multi-city underground gun market study.
I guess that totally makes sense. A firm set of Laws and some broad sweeping regulations restricting guns in the hands of lawful owners in neighboring States and these young men and women will turn their lives around,....finally. I mean after all they been right on the cusp of it for years.
If that goes through I'm guessing the home invasion robbery game will hit the suburbs like a tornado.
“I think that it's more likely that if Chicago did not have tough gun laws they would have higher rates of gun violence than they do have,”
Reminded of this gem:
http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/chicago-v-houston.jpg
Just realize this: some of the successes of the progressive statists have come because they relentlessly double and triple down on their agenda, but their agenda is wrought with historically failed and entirely dumb ideas. It is a critical weakness that is being exploited with a gaining momentum. More of that is always better.
Averageman
12-26-15, 19:21
Just realize this: some of the successes of the progressive statists have come because they relentlessly double and triple down on their agenda, but their agenda is wrought with historically failed and entirely dumb ideas. It is a critical weakness that is being exploited with a gaining momentum. More of that is always better.
Like this example?
https://news.vice.com/article/the-us...l-prison-earlyThe release program comes as both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly focused on ending mass incarceration. President Barack Obama recently became the first sitting president to meet with federal prisoners as part of VICE documentary, and he has vowed to make criminal justice reform a key priority during the last leg of his presidency.
And here is our Poster Boy for the Program, Come On Down Bobby Joe Young!
Here's the Alabama drug offender Obama just let out of prison - Yellowhammer News
Robert “Bobby” Joe Young of Joppa, Alabama, was arrested in 2000 for possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, a substance containing methamphetamine and a substance containing cocaine; trafficking in methamphetamine; and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, among other charges.Law enforcement found nearly 2 pounds of meth in a vehicle and barn on his property, as well as dozens of weapons.
It doesn't make sense if there isn't an agenda.
If Obama can have his enemies list, here is a list of tyrants and enemies of freedom: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/cosponsors
If you are "represented" by one of these clowns, time to call their office and tell them that you value your freedoms. The manner in which these guys go after guns is nothing short of a perverse pseudo-religious fervour. Nevermind the actual crime statistics or reality of how many law abiding gun owners are out there, these guys don't care. Tarring and feathering should be the premise for the next reality TV show. Only then will the brain dead drones that vote for these type of people take notice.
"Conservative" Speaker Ryan best not let this get very far...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.