Tag Archives: guns

authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, guns

They’re Finally Being Honest

10 Comments

The Washington Post editorial page editor is finally being honest about the liberals’ gun control agenda. This authoritarian swine named Fred Hiatt has penned… or I should say spewed his uninformed opinion entitled, “A Gun-Free Society.” Given the fact that this beta male has seen it fit to at least be honest about the gun grabbers’ ultimate goal, I figured he deserved a fisk, so here we go.

Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

This is how you know a leftard is about to soil his unmentionables – when he “courageously” challenges the big, bad NRA from the safety and comfort of his computer – while advocating what eventually would lead to civil war in this country.

Prohibition.

Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe?

No. It sounds stupid, irrational, cowardly, and tyrannical.

Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

You mean the countries that experienced increases in violent crime subsequent to banning firearms? No.

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

Glad you can ascertain the emotions of millions of American gun owners. You must be psychic! Hell, personally, I’m just happy you’ve stopped being disingenuous invertebrates and have finally stated your final goal. It’s much easier to fight the enemy you know.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Considering that gun ownership is on the rise and more Americans than ever support the right to keep and bear arms, how are you planning to implement this cultural shift, Freddie?

But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”

It’s not succeeding, because we can see right through you. We can see through your lies, and we’ve discredited your duplicitous statistics. The fact that you don’t want to admit how badly you suck at this promoting gun control thing doesn’t negate the sad reality that you do.

In response, a few states have tightened restrictions, a few states have loosened them. But as a nation — in Congress — we are stuck.

That’s because there’s this little document called the Constitution, and Congressleeches are a bit afraid to tread on it with too heavy a boot, lest the Great Unwashed figure out what they’re doing and kick them out of ofice.

Meanwhile the strategy of modest reform has its own vulnerabilities.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn’t have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?

Why, indeed? I’m sure you’ll tell us, Fredster.

To be clear, I believe the NRA is wrong on this, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is right.

What, REALLY? You don’t say! I couldn’t have guessed that from your assertion that a gun-free utopia sounds oh-so logical.

Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime. The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. Every gun in a home with children should have a trigger lock.

I note the deceptive wording here. “The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.” CAN? But hasn’t. Even the majority of law enforcement officials believe that law is useless, and there has been zero evidence that these handgun purchase limits reduce crime. Nice try at obfuscation, Freddie. And how long will you continue beating the “gun show loophole” strawman before you acknowledge that it does not exist and that your real aim is to eliminate private sales writ large?

Come on, Fred. You were doing so well at being honest! Why stop now?

Tell us why you think that criminals will just walk away dejectedly after failing a background check at a gun show and not get a cheap pistol from a drug dealer down the street? “Darn, I thought I could get a gun at a gun show. I guess I won’t go rob that liquor store at gun point. Darn that gun show loophole!” Go ahead! Try!

But how many members of Congress will risk their jobs for modest, incremental reform that may or may not show up as a blip on the following year’s murder statistics? We’ve learned the answer to that question.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And repeating it again and again won’t make it any more true.

Fine, you say, but then why would those same members commit political suicide by embracing something bigger?

They won’t, of course. Congress will not lead this change. There has to be a cultural shift. Only then will Congress and the Supreme Court follow.

Oh, this ought to be good.

As we’ve seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible. Wyatt Earp, the frontier mentality, prying my cold dead fingers — I get all that. But Australia was a pioneer nation, too, and gave up its guns. Societies change, populations evolve.

I guess Fred hasn’t noticed that the cultural shift that’s been going on has headed in the direction of both gay rights and gun rights? And that Americans are beginning to realize in bigger numbers that giving up their rights to tyrannical, self-absorbed narcissists in Washington may not be the way to go?  And maybe giving up your rights for no appreciable decrease in crime is not the way to go? And maybe, just maybe, Australians didn’t give up as many guns as Fred thinks they did.

And people are not immune, over time, to reason. Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue.

Wait! A progtard actually admits that black communities are decimated by violence? Oh, I shouldn’t get too excited. After all, it wold be politically incorrect to blame the actual people in those black communities for shooting one another! They’re not responsible! It’s those evil guns that are violating the civil rights of those black people who apparently aren’t shooting one another. /sarcasm

Given how many small children shoot themselves or their siblings accidentally, it is a family issue.

Small children… According to the CDC, 147 children ages 0-9 died by firearm in 2013.  Know now many drowned? 568.  Know how many died in a fire? 266. These are small children, and yet, I don’t see you soiling your unmentionables at these tragic, preventable deaths.

Given the suicides that could be prevented, it is a mental health issue.

Is that why gun-free Japan has a higher suicide rate than we do?

The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again. If it did not, the Constitution would have to be amended.

Apparently a reporter, who cannot comprehend the plain language of the Second Amendment, feels himself qualified to accuse people whose job it is to interpret the Constitution of misinterpreting said plain language. Well… alrighty, then. How pedantically quaint.

I suppose Freddie considers himself an even bigger language expert than the late Roy Copperud, and would arrogantly announce that Mr. Copperud, who was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC, who wrote a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, who was on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and was the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award, was also wrong on the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.

He was wrong because Fred FEELZ he was wrong! And GUNS ARE BAD! Because TEH FEELZ!

It sounds hard, I know. But it’s possible that if we started talking more honestly about the most logical, long-term goal, public opinion would begin to shift and the short-term gains would become more, not less likely, as the NRA had to play defense. We might end up with a safer country.

We’re certainly glad you’ve exhibited this bout of honesty, Freddie, and I hate to tell you this (not really), but we already knew what your long-term goal was. And guess what! The trend is still in favor of gun rights.

There are strong arguments against setting a gun-free society as the goal, but there are 100,000 arguments in favor — that’s how many of us get shot every year. Every year 11,000 Americans are murdered. Every year some 20,000 kill themselves with guns.

Hmmm, I assess with high confidence that 2.5 million annual armed self defense instances beat the 100,000 who Fred claims get shot each year. But Fred must have taken common core math in school.

Plus, see above about Japan’s suicide rates, genius.

Without guns — with only kitchen knives at hand — some of those people would die. Most would still be living.

Really? See again about that high suicide rate in gun-free Japan. And if you’re trying to claim that violent criminals will cease being violent because guns are illegal, I have this beachfront property… in Nevada.

Maybe it’s time to start talking about the most logical way to save their lives.

Perhaps we should, but you might want to sit out the conversation while adults are talking. Logic ain’t your strong suit.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, guns

San Francisco’s Only Gun Shop to Close

4 Comments

Remember when I wrote a few months ago about the “no brainer” legislation proposed by San Francisco’s own “no-brainer” Mark Farrell to make purchasing a gun in the city even more difficult than it already was?

The law would impact exactly one store – the only one left in the city – and that store is about to close its doors.

Under siege from an increasing amount of regulation from City Hall, “High Bridge Arms” is closing, reports CBS News correspondent John Blackstone.

Steven Alcairo, general manager of the modest storefront in San Francisco’s Mission District, says his business is being pushed out by a proposed city law that would require the store to videotape every gun sale, then turn in the footage to the police department.

Gun buyers already have to fill out a detailed form, go through a background check and a waiting period. But sending a videotape of the purchase to local police strikes Alcairo as one regulation too many.

Apparently, once the proposal was announced, the store’s sales dipped, and it decided it wasn’t worth sticking around in a place where they were nothing but vilified and targeted by authoritarian maggots intent on driving them out and ruining their business all for the purpose of looking like they’re doing something.

It’s not difficult to assess that this is part of the gun grabbers’ greater strategy. They’ve failed in the courts to ruin legitimate businesses. They’ve been unsuccessful in electing their minions based on this anti-freedom agenda. And Americans continue to reject more gun control as the answer to violence.

So what’s an enterprising gun grabber to do?

Well, apparently some are targeting legitimate businesses and bogging them down with so many regulations, that they are finding it impossible to operate within city limits. That’s right. They are targeting innocent business owners, threatening their livelihoods, and attacking their right to conduct legitimate business transactions.

This isn’t the first time a horde of economically illiterate, tyrannical swine have caused a company to shutter or relocate. Remember Remington Arms decision not to build a new factory in New York because of its hysterical, ridiculous unSAFE Act? How about Beretta’s decision to move production out of Maryland?

This appears to be the strategy folks. If you can’t beat them in the courts and in the legislature, choke off the supply by bogging them down with so many rules and regulations, they can’t operate. Who cares if jobs and livelihoods are impacted!

This is a sick, twisted strategy to attack property rights and Second Amendment rights all in one fell swoop, and while America focuses on the latest “outrage” that has escaped Trump’s maw, or whether or not crazy woman in Kentucky should have been held in contempt of court, some localities have been slowly destroying legitimate commerce in an effort to find a backdoor entrance to restrict your rights.

Keep watching reality TV and reading tabloid news, America. When you finally wake up and realize that your rights are gone, it will be too late.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, guns

More Anti-Gun Loonery from the Soccer Mom Cabal

2 Comments

I initially posted this fisk at the Liberty Zone, but I thought that even though a renewed push for gun control is going on in my own state, it’s actually a nationwide problem, so I decided to post it here as well.

My husband got so angry with our local officials, he took his anger out in writing on the top Virginia political conservative blog. Angry Rob is angry. And he has every right to be. These gun-grabbing embarrassments are doing a blood dance on the corpses of innocent victims of violence!

But on top of all that, which would amount to a disgusting display by itself, they are flat out LYING. No, Del. Hope, buying a gun at a gun show is NOT “as easy as buying a pack of bubble gum at the 7-Eleven.” Purchases at a gun show of firearms happen the same way they do outside of gun shows, and Patrick Hope knows this. Dealers are required to perform background checks, private sellers are not. He also knows that the Smith Mountain Lake murderer, a disgruntled former co-worker of the two victims, passed a background check to purchase the gun he used. The fact that he and his cohorts got 30,000 signatures for their petition doesn’t matter, other than to demonstrate how easy it is to prey upon low-information folks to advance a cause.

Rob and I once had a very respectful, decent conversation with Del. Patrick Hope during Virginia Lobby Day. He spewed anti-Second Amendment platitudes, cited faulty information, and listened respectfully when I called him on it and corrected him. He also seemed genuinely interested in the facts I gave him about gun safety, background checks, etc.

Apparently, that was just lip service…

And his “guns are oh-so easy to get” mantra is being echoed by Shannon Watts wannabes in the Old Dominion. It is one of these ignorami that I fisk below.

 

Why is it that no matter how much you correct, inform, reason, and debate with gun grabbers, they continue to contend long-discredited, disingenuous crap in order to promote their odious agenda? It seems there’s a cabal of soccer mommies out there whose sole mission is to become the next Shannon Watts. Frankly, they’re unoriginal and uninformed, and yet some newspapers pick up their spew and run with it as if they’ve discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. Such is the case with the latest anti-gun mommy in my own backyard, who recently penned a column for The Roanoke Times entitled, “Why should it be easier to own and operate a gun than a car?”

Let’s put aside the obvious stupid of this question, and do a little fisking.

Melynda Dovel Wilcox lives in Alexandria, VA, and she’s the mommy of two high school students. Alexandria is in my backyard, so I take a keen interest in any kind of disinformation being spread “for the children.” She writes:

In no other country is driving and owning a car as quintessential to the culture and lifestyle as it is in the U.S. So it’s no surprise that, for Virginia teenagers, turning 16-plus-three-months is noteworthy because they can get their driver’s license. With two 17-year-olds in my household, I’m well-versed in the steps required for the commonwealth to grant this privilege. It’s an arduous process — rightly so — and as a citizen I’m grateful to the government for implementing these measures to better protect all drivers and pedestrians.

Here Wilcox makes an interesting statement. Driving on public roads is, in fact, a privilege. Many will confuse the right to travel with the right to drive, and that’s just not right. U.S. jurisprudence confirms this fact in Miller v. Reed. There is no right to drive a vehicle on public roads enumerated in the Constitution, and since driving a motor vehicle on public roads is, in fact, a privilege, the government is well within its right to regulate it.

Wilcox then goes through a litany of allegedly “arduous” steps one must take to become a legal driver in Virginia.

Personally, having had two kids go through the process, I don’t think it’s all that onerous, but then again I’m not a spoiled Alexandria mommy, who thinks attending a 90 minute session with her kid (twice)  to cover parental responsibilities of having a teenage driver in my house, is a terrible imposition.

First, all 10th-graders receive 36 hours of classroom driver education in their required health and physical education classes.

Students can apply for their learner’s permit at age 15 ½ and must produce original documents proving their identification and residency. They must also pass a knowledge exam and a vision screening.

Next, provisional drivers must log 45 hours of driving time with an adult passenger and take a behind-the-wheel course consisting of fourteen 50-minute in-car sessions from a commercial driving school. One program in Northern Virginia, I Drive Smart, costs $499 and is taught by current and retired police officers. During the final session, the instructor administers the driving test and issues a temporary license. Not counting time spent on homework for the classroom portion and studying for the Department of Motor Vehicles exam, that’s more than 82 hours of instruction and training.

It’s amazing how first world problems can impact one’s worldview! Eighty-two hours of instruction is a little more than 10 days. Ten days’ training to operate a complex machine made of steel, glass, and plastic, capable of traveling at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour – a machine that was involved in 32,719 deaths in 2013, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Hey, Melynda! Know what it takes to gain the privilege to drive in Germany?

First, you have to pass an onerous theory test, which a full third of test-takers fail. You need a vision and a road test, as well as first aid training. That’s right – first aid – an eight-hour class. An actual license is handed out when the driver turns 18, by the way. None of this 16 and three months garbage. Oh, and by the way – you bitch about a $500 cost to train your precious snowflake to drive? It costs about €1400 in Germany. Still think that’s onerous?  You’ll need a minimum of twelve 90 minute on the road training sessions, four of which have to be on the Autobahn and at speed, and about three of those have to be at night. That’s a minimum By the way, if you take your training in an automatic transmission, you’ll only be licensed to drive that. Driving a manual transmission automobile when you’ve only qualified on an automatic is considered driving without a licence.

These extended driving sessions are followed by the so-called advanced, test-preparation phase, containing further exercises and preparation for the test itself. In all cases, the instructor may only terminate instruction when he is convinced that the learner driver involved has actually acquired the knowledge and skills required to pass the test.

The goal of driving instruction is no longer just to impart knowledge and techniques, but also to put across the social and ethical values, in other words to inculcate behavioral patterns and attitudes which are no less significant in reducing accident risks than the actual driving skills themselves.

[…]

The driving test consists of a theoretical and a practical part. An officially recognized expert or examiner for motor vehicle traffic is responsible for the entire test. If a candidate fails, the test can be repeated. Candidates are only admitted to the practical test when they have passed the theoretical part.

The theoretical test uses multiple-choice questions to establish whether the candidate has the necessary knowledge. A candidate passes the test if he does not exceed the permissible number of errors laid down in the test statutes. The theoretical tests should, in principle, be carried out in German, but the basic material may also be examined in various foreign languages.

The practical test consists of a test drive which includes certain basic driving tasks. The tasks, which are laid down in the test statues for each class of licence, are intended to demonstrate that the candidate is capable of properly operating and controlling the vehicle. The test drive is, above all, intended to demonstrate that even in difficult traffic situations the candidate is capable of safely driving the vehicle and adapting his driving to the situation.

The driving test is also carried out on country roads and motorways. A candidate passes the practical test if the basic driving tasks are accomplished without error and during the test drive he does not commit any grave errors or accumulate an excess of minor errors.

Still want to complain how hard it is, Melynda? Didn’t think so. Moving on.

To own a car in Virginia, you must register the vehicle in both the state and local jurisdictions, and registration must be renewed annually or bi-annually. The owner must carry liability insurance or pay a $500 uninsured motorist fee, and have annual safety inspections performed on the car, and in some areas, periodic emissions inspections.

Wrong. To DRIVE a car in Virginia, you must register it. You don’t need insurance to merely own it, and you don’t need to register it if it’s merely sitting on your property. There’s a difference.

The comparison between car ownership and gun ownership is remarkably apt.

No. It’s not. One is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and the other is a car.

There were about 254 million cars registered in the U.S. in 2012, and varying estimates of 270 million to 310 million guns. In 2012, there were roughly 33,500 traffic fatalities and almost 32,000 people died from gun violence.

How many of these were suicides? Oh, two-thirds? You know what a suicide is? Intentional. Can we say “disingenuous comparison,” boys and girls? I knew you could!

But there are some startling differences: Traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled have been on a downward trend since 1963 due to safer cars, safer roads and better-trained drivers. In some states there are fewer highway deaths now than there were in the 1940s. By contrast, between 2000 and 2013, the number of mass shootings and resulting casualties rose dramatically, according to an FBI study released last fall. (There have been 135 school shootings since Newtown.)

I knew we would eventually get to the lies, obfuscations, and lies. Oh, did I say “lies” twice? Using Everytown’s misleading statistics doesn’t bolster your credibility, Melynda. Neither does quoting an FBI study which the media clubbed to death like a baby seal without actually understanding the misleading verbiage in the study.

And then there’s the vast difference in requirements to own and operate a gun. No permit is required to purchase or possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun in Virginia. No registration is required either, except for machine guns.

Guess what, Melynda! No permit is required to purchase a car either. You need a permit and a license to DRIVE a motor vehicle on a public road, but if I want to keep a vehicle in my garage, or drive it on my private property, I can! You obviously don’t know the difference between “drive” and “own.” Perhaps an English lesson is in order?

Gun sales at licensed gun dealers require a criminal background check, but private sales or sales at gun shows by private individuals do not, despite repeated efforts in the state legislature to change that law.

The law at gun shows is the same as the law anywhere else in Virginia, Melynda. Differentiating private sales at gun shows from anywhere else shows how ineptly you manipulate words.

In short, the Commonwealth of Virginia has no information about whether gun owners know how to safely store a gun and ammo, for example, how many guns they own, or whether they have committed a violent misdemeanor or have a history of domestic violence.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has no business knowing how many guns one owns – or how many knives – or how many cars, for that matter. As we said previously, no one needs to register a car if they don’t plan to drive it on public roads. The state also doesn’t know how many motor vehicle accidents any given driver has had, UNLESS they were reported to police and the DMV. Care to guess how many Virginians commit hit and runs, or merely settle the cost of repairs among themselves?

One wonders how many mass shootings and other gun deaths could be prevented if prospective gun buyers were required to have just eight hours of training from police officers—one-tenth of that required for drivers;

Police officers such as this?

https://youtu.be/9ABCiPJRCyA

Hate to tell you this, Cupcake, but you quite obviously don’t know most gun owners. Most gun owners train much more than just 8 hours with professionals much more skilled than the “professional enough” DEA agent giving a presentation on gun safety in that video. We shoot consistently. We practice, because shooting and handling firearms is a skill – a perishable one. Additionally, if you think a lack of training is responsible for mass shootings, you may want to check your facts.

Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Isla Vista… you know what they had in common? Mental health issues. If you think registering firearms will somehow prevent violent acts by crazies, I have this bridge…

if they were required to register their guns each year (with a new background check performed each time); and if they were required to carry liability insurance, with insurance proceeds used to compensate victims of gun violence and their families.

You know how many are killed by accidental shootings? About 600 per year, according to the CDC. That’s what liability insurance covers. Since about 21,000 of the firearm fatalities are suicides, I doubt most insurance companies will cover that.

None of this would pose a significant burden on hunters or other recreational gun owners.

No? An average pistol costs several hundred dollars. Add to it registration fees, training fees, and insurance premiums, and you’ve just made a tool of self defense cost prohibitive for the people who need it most. People in not so nice neighborhoods that you and your shielded cohorts in Alexandria only tremble at the thought of entering. Those poor people, who want to protect their families, may not be able to afford to do so, because Melynda thinks that the right to keep and bear arms only pertains to hunters and recreational shooters.

As much as the DMV is loathed and derided, certainly almost no one decides against buying a car because the registration process is too onerous. It’s likewise absurd to allow people to own and operate a gun without any safeguards in place to protect ordinary citizens and innocent children.

You don’t allow me to exercise my rights, you pernicious, misinformed fascist! I protect my innocent children with that tool of self defense you think you and your petty tyrannical pals think you have the authority to allow me to keep.

Every year, legions of teenagers happily give up 82 hours of free time in exchange for the privilege of driving. It’s the price that our society has deemed appropriate and acceptable to advance the common good. Isn’t it time that we make the same trade-offs for guns as we do for cars?

I’ll make you a deal, Melinda. Let’s regulate cars the way we regulate guns, OK?

Your precious teenagers won’t be able to purchase a car until they are 18. Sorry, Punkins! You’ll have to wait. They will have to pass a criminal background check, and if they committed a crime, got caught with some dope, or aren’t able to prove their residency, they will not be able to make said purchase. They want to buy an extra fast sports car? They don’t need that, but they will have to get a special license to own one, and they will have to be 21 years of age to purchase one. Every time they purchase a vehicle, they will have to undergo a background check, fingerprints in some states, and fill out a form that will be kept on file with the auto dealership for the duration of that business’ existence. And if the State Police come back with an inconclusive check, or they have a record, or mental health issues, no-go on that car boys and girls! Oh, and in some jurisdictions, you’ll have to wait three days before purchasing said car.

Subject of an active misdemeanor or felony arrest warrant from any state? Sorry. Can’t buy that car.

Are you 28 years old or younger, have ever been adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of offense of a delinquent act, which would be a felony if committed by an adult? Sorry. Can’t buy that car.

Were you adjudicated as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense of murder in violation of § 18.2-31 or 18.2-32, kidnapping in violation of § 18.2-47, robbery by the threat or presentation of firearms in violation of § 18.2-58, or rape in violation of § 18.2-61? (If adjudicated as a delinquent for these offenses, you must answer yes. You are ineligible regardless of your current age and prohibited for life unless allowed by restoration of rights by the Governor of Virginia and order of the circuit court in the jurisdiction in which you reside.) Sorry, you can’t buy that car.

Have you been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime punishable by more than 2 years even if the maximum punishment was not received? Sorry, can’t buy that car.

Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves your spouse, a former spouse, an individual with whom you share a child in common, or someone you cohabited with as an intimate partner? Sorry, you aren’t purchasing that car.

Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves stalking, sexual battery, alleged abuse or acts of violence against a family or household member? No car for you!

So will you call for closing that car loophole that permits private individuals to sell motor vehicles to others without a background check?

I didn’t think so.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, guns

“Shocking” Study: Criminals Don’t Buy Guns Legally

3 Comments

Cross posted at the Liberty Zone.

I know you’ll be shocked to know this, but apparently criminals don’t undergo background checks at shops or gun shows in order to purchase guns they use in crimes. I don’t know how this happened, but I, for one, am surprised beyond all belief! After all, don’t criminals get guns from evil gun dealers/gun shows/pawn shops/flea markets?

Apparently not. Believe me, I was just as shocked as you were to find out that criminals get guns from… well… mostly other criminals!

I don’t know about you all, but my worldview has now been shattered.

And if you think all that was easy to write with a straight face, trust me, it wasn’t. As a matter of fact, I kind of look like this now.

stressed

In all seriousness, researchers Philip J. Cook, Susan T. Parker, and Harold A. Parker found some interesting results about where criminals get guns – results gun rights advocates knew about: Our respondents (adult offenders living in Chicago or nearby) obtain most of their guns from their social network of personal connections. Rarely is the proximate source either direct purchase from a gun store, or theft.

[S]urvey evidence provides strong evidence that the gun market is sharply differentiated by the characteristics of the individual who is seeking a gun. Adults who are entitled to possess a gun are more likely than not to buy from an FFL. On the other hand, those who are disqualified by age or criminal history are most likely to obtain their guns in off-the-books transactions, often from social connections such as family and acquaintances, or from “street” sources such as illicit brokers or drug dealers. While some of these illicit transactions are purchases, they also take a variety of other forms.

Translation: law-abiding citizens purchase guns legally. Criminals purchase their guns through illicit sources or personal connections.

The study discusses a social network – personal connections that allow criminals who would otherwise be ineligible to purchase guns to easily get them. Whether it’s addicts who get their hands on firearms and sell them to get a profit to buy drugs or someone in the “hood” that hasn’t been nabbed for a major crime, has a FOID card, and can legally purchase firearms and resell them to others in the hood who cannot, obtaining firearms illegally despite stringent laws doesn’t appear to be all that difficult based on this study.

Oh, and then I find this little tidbit interesting. The same gun grabbers who whine that only police and military should have access to firearms will find the following finding disturbing: two respondents in the survey mentioned that guns come from corrupt police.

Guns are from the “government” or corrupt police. R52. “Police take guns and put them back on the street.” R69: “Crooked officers put guns back on the streets.” 

A few things I get from this study:

  • Enhanced background checks will do nothing to stop criminals from using their social networks from procuring guns.
  • Government is part of the problem.
  • All it takes is one person who is not prohibited from owning guns to start distributing them to his buddies who are.

So what can be done?

Certainly more laws called for by feckless politicians won’t remedy the issue. Criminals don’t care about laws. That’s why they’re criminals. I was struck by the fact that many of these criminals were apparently purchasing firearms primarily for self defense. “Many gave some version of the phrase ‘I’d rather be judged by 12 than be carried by six.’ ” Pollack said.

These people live in rough neighborhoods. They don’t exactly have access to gated communities and armed guards. They are the ones who are more likely than not to need armed protection. Now, by saying this, I AM IN NO WAY IMPLYING THAT THIS IS A MITIGATING FACTOR. I’m certainly not an apologist. That said, I can also understand why the people in “the hood” would feel the need for armed protection more than your suburban soccer mom screeching for more gun control because of something she saw on the news. (Yes, I’m talking to you Shannon Watts!)

Given the fact that most of these criminals obtained guns from their connections in the hood, will any politician call for denials of gun purchases merely based on where the buyer lives? Cue screeches of RAAAACCCCCIIIIIIIIIISSSSMMMMM!

Given that these connections are social in nature, will politicians call for limiting cell phone usage of people in “the hood”? Maybe preventing them from associating with one another? Or maybe deny certain individuals who legally are eligible to purchase a firearm the right to do so based on who their friends are? Yeah, can’t wait to see how that works out!

But in their zeal to appear as if they’re “doing something” some families of the victims demand,  they forget that doing something that would prove to be ineffective is akin to doing nothing at all. Well, nothing other than interfering with the rights of law abiding citizens to exercise their rights.

I suspect politicians know this, but the urge to get re-elected is much like the urge to mate during Pon Farr. Common sense pretty much flies out the window, and what’s left is this primal urge to remain in power. My own State Delegate Patrick Hope confirms this phenomenon. “People are angry,” Hope said. “People are angry by the inaction.”

So strong is the urge to remain in office, that politicians are even willing to lie. Yeah… I know you’re shocked by this phenomenon.

Currently, there is a loophole in Virginia that doesn’t require background checks for sales at gun shows. Hope said he went to a gun show and asked if he could get a gun without a background check. Instead of raising red flags, the vendors were more than happy to help him.

A) The majority of vendors at gun shows who sell guns are FFLs, which means they are required by law to run a background check! And they are meticulous. Know why? Because any discrepancy in records, any anomaly means they could lose their license and their livelihoods!

2) What Hope and other gun grabbers want isn’t background checks at gun shows, where the “loophole” is nonexistent. What they want is to stamp out private sales – to prevent people from legally selling their own property to others – an inexcusable infringement on property rights.

And here’s the thing. Nothing in these proposals would have stopped the shooting of two television station employees in Roanoke. The shooter had no criminal record, no mental health disqualification, nothing that should have prevented him from making that purchase.  The illegal alien who shot Kate Steinle got the gun from a careless law enforcement officer, who left his firearm in the car. The Islamic fundamentalist loon who shot up recruiting stations in Tennessee was also able to pass a background check. Would politicians now calling for more gun control advocate a denial of Second Amendment rights if one is a Muslim? I’d love to see the screeching from CAIR if that ever became a proposal!

Bottom line is this: the study above shows without a doubt that law abiding citizens are not the problem, and more laws are not the solution. As a sheriff I know once told me, laws are for the law-abiding.

Maybe politicians should focus on root causes of violence, rather than blaming the tool.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun grabbers, guns, Politics, You can't fix stupid

Seattle Taking Stupid Pills

11 Comments

OK, who put the stupid in Seattle’s water?

The city council in that den of dimwittery has unanimously approved a “gun violence” tax.

Under the new law, referred to as the “gun violence tax,” gun and ammo sales in the city are subject to a tax of $25 per firearm at sale and $0.05 for every round of ammunition at sale ($0.02 for every round of .22 caliber ammunition and smaller). Seattle’s City Budget Office estimates that the gun violence tax will raise between $300,000 and $500,000 per year: revenue raised under the tax will be earmarked for violence prevention.

Some gun rights opponents dolts claim that the tax will deter potential criminals from buying a gun which would be used to commit a violent crime.

Because criminals so often buy their guns legally? Because there are no firearms available on the black market or from a local drug dealer? Because they can’t borrow or steal a firearm? A $25 fee will somehow deter someone intent on committing violence from doing so?

A similar tax was adopted in Cook County, IL, and that apparently has not in any way prevented the carnage that’s going on over there! Do the city council members think that somehow their results will be different?

Chances are a special tax on constitutionally protected purchases will do nothing to stop crime.

What it MIGHT do is prevent those who purchase guns legally from doing so in Seattle. And once Seattle gun shops start losing business – and if they lose enough of it – they might want to consider relocating to an environment that’s more friendly to both the Second Amendment and the free market. And once they relocate, how much in tax revenue are you going to lose, morons?

Additionally, what it also will do is make effective tools of self defense more cost prohibitive to the very people who need said tools the most: the poor, who tend to live in not so nice neighborhoods, and for whom the $25 might mean either purchase of a firearm with which to defend their families from thugs who will more likely than not get their guns illegally anyway or food on the table, but not both.

Why do the elitist members of the Seattle City Council hate the poor?

Given the abject FAIL that was Cook County’s “violence reduction tax,” why do the members of the Seattle City Council insist on repeating the insanity?

Apparently the entire city council fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.

I can only hope that every gun shop owner picks up and leaves the city and that businesses outside the city benefit from the sales while Seattle hemorrhages tax revenue. If there’s any common sense or justice in this world, it will happen.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun grabbers, guns

FBI: Oooops! Background check FAIL! Must be a “loophole”

8 Comments

Unlike many Zelman Partisans, my writing tends to be sarcastic, caustic, and somewhat snarky. While my beautiful colleagues write about Israel and Jewishness,  and principles, I tend to speak on subjects that either ruffle my feathers, or are so absurd, one is left shaking one’s head in disbelief at the FAIL.

Such is the FBI’s admission last week that the slaughter at a traditionally black church in South Carolina by a racist, psychotic piece of sub-human detritus (I refuse to use his name and give him publicity). It’s snortworthy for two reasons:

  1. The scumbag shouldn’t have been able to purchase a gun in the first place, but thanks to a lapse in the FBI’s background checks system, he had no problem legally buying one.
  2. The gun grabbers are calling the problem a “loophole.”

Let’s ignore for a moment the fact that no background check would have stopped the cretinous racist from buying a weapon. If he was denied a purchase due to a failed background check, there are numerous black market ways for this schmuck to score a firearm. Even the government admits that the vast majority of guns used in crimes are purchased on the black market/from a street dealer, stolen, or “borrowed” from friends and family. Anyone who claims otherwise needs a quick lesson in economics and history.

Let’s also ignore the fact that forcing an individual to undergo a background check for a constitutionally-protected purchase is a slap in the face to freedom.

Let’s focus on the fact that the liars at Everytown for Gun Safety Confiscation immediately sprang into action by claiming that an  NRA-backed loophole was responsible for the trash being able to get his paws on a firearm – a claim directly contradicted by the FBI and reported in that bastion of objective journalism the Washington Post.

The breakdown was a result of errors not only by the FBI but also apparently by local law enforcement, and Comey said he has ordered a 30-day review to examine the procedures that led to the failure and to see if the process can be tightened. The errors came to light as investigators examined a gun purchase Roof made two months before the shooting.

Ooops! Government error? The hell, you say!

government-incompetence-at-work

Of course, facts never stop gun-grabbing liars from promoting their odious agenda. Facts are merely inconvenient little nits to be slapped down and manipulated…

…for the children, of course!

Because, really… how would it look if the gun grabbers’ response to mistakes made by a bumbling bureaucracy that allowed a violent offender to massacre innocent people was to demand… more bumbling bureaucracy?

So in an effort to protect the narrative, “government error” became “NRA-supported loophole,” in which case I demand that the “loophole” which allowed a loon to climb the White House fence and make it all the way to the door while the Secret Service stood idly by and did nothing be immediately closed! Also the “loophole” that allowed the Chinese access to millions of files containing private information of both military and civilian government employees. Yeah… I’ll need that closed too.

KTHXBAI

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun grabbers

Dear Dr. Rosen…

9 Comments

I recently read your letter to the editor of the Greensboro News and Record.  In it you claim that since “physicians’ advice to patients routinely includes urging safe sex to protect against sexually transmitted diseases; using seat belts and child car seats; urging smokers to quit; and providing vaccines against flu and pneumonia,” you should be able to give your patients advice on firearms safety – advice I’m not sure you’re qualified to give.

So I tell ya what…

Why don’t you provide documentation of your qualifications to dispense firearms advice — and please include any hard copy certificates, proof of knowledge about the mechanics of firearms, your training as a safety expert in the field, etc. — and I’ll think about allowing you to dispense said advice to my family.

If you don’t have said training, I would propose you increase your malpractice insurance coverage to include advice you’re not even remotely qualified to give based on the following batch of stupid, “Inquiring if there are guns in the home, and whether they are locked, kept separate from ammunition and out of reach of children is basic.”

a) It’s none of your business.

b) Teaching gun safety to children appropriately and keeping an eye on them if there are guns in the house is basic.

c) Will you pay for the medical costs of the rape or assault victim after a confrontation with an armed thug, who took advantage of the precious seconds his victim took to fumble with the gun lock, retrieve the ammunition, thanks to your advice?

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Now, I’m not a big fan of legislating silence. I wouldn’t be thrilled with a North Carolina legislative proposal that would restrict doctors’ ability to discuss guns in the home. Except, from what I’m seeing, that’s not what the bill does.

Any written questionnaire or other written form a health care provider asks a patient or the patient’s  parent,  guardian,  or  custodian to  complete that  contains  any  question  regarding  the patient’s lawful  ownership,  possession,  handling,  storage,  maintenance  of, or  other  conduct involving firearms and ammunition shall clearly and conspicuously contain or have attached to it a notice that the patient is not required to answer any question related to those matters. The notice  shall  be  located  or  provided  in  a  manner that  is  clearly  visible  to  the  patient prior  to completion of any questionnaire or other written form containing a question about firearms and ammunition as provided in this section.

It merely makes sure that the patient understands he or she is under no obligation to answer your questions or bow to your paranoia.

I’m pretty sure it will also allow the patient to make an informed decision about whether or not they want to keep you as a physician, since you feel yourself qualified to dispense medical advice without proper training in firearms or their safe handling.

Heck, I’d be finding myself a new doctor right quick.

Maybe that’s what you’re worried about?

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, guns

New assaults, old strategy

6 Comments

You know…

It seems that once again the gun grabbers are using the tried and true strategy of simply modifying, updating, or otherwise altering existing laws in order to relieve us of our rights. Since they couldn’t bully Congress into passing more restrictions on the Second Amendment after the Sandy Hook tragedy, they’ve engaged in outright assaults on our rights in other ways. This is in addition to the slew of new legislative proposals that have no hope of actual passage in Congress… we hope.

Carolyn Maloney (D-imwit, NY) proposed legislation to force gun owners to have liability insurance or pay $10,000 fine, claiming since we mandate car insurance, why not gun liability insurance. Of course, she’s ignoring the fact that there is no federal mandate to insure your vehicle, but hey… why spoil a good narrative with facts?

A New Jersey Democrat last month introduced an effort to stop online ammunition purchases.  Bonnie Watson’s bill would require federally licensed ammunition dealers to confirm the identity of those wanting to purchase ammunition online by verifying photo identification in person and require ammunition vendors to report any sales of more than 1,000 rounds within five consecutive days to the U.S. Attorney General, if the person purchasing ammunition is not a licensed dealer.

Carolyn Maloney, who introduced the insurance liability bill, also introduced this abortion of a bill that would require sellers to conduct background checks for all purchases at gun shows and require all purchases to be reported to the Attorney General. This time Maloney rages that “…more children die from gunshot wounds than cancer.” 

The American Cancer Society says cancer is the second leading cause of death in children (after accidents). About 1,250 children younger than 15 years old are expected to die from cancer in 2015.  Given advances in cancer research, I would think this number is actually on the decline.

In 2013, the last year for which data is available, according to the CDC, 193 children younger than 15 years of age died of firearm homicides, 69 died of accidental shootings, and 138 killed themselves using a firearm. If my calculator is correct, that makes 400, and that makes Maloney a liar. Again.

Plus, it’s not like dealers already don’t conduct background checks at gun shows! This is Maloney’s sneaky way to introduce background checks between private individuals – an effort that already has been rejected by legislators post Sandy Hook.

Last month, the State Department got into the gun-control fray with a proposal posted in the Federal Register that would require anyone who posts technical details about arms and ammunition online to first receive approval from the federal government or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.

This is a threat to the free speech of gun owners and enthusiasts about which we should all be concerned.  State claims it’s merely clarifying some regulations that were passed prior to the advent of the Internet as a mass media tool. But when you threaten to penalize anyone posting technical information about firearms and ammunition online with outrageous fines and jail time, even the most ardent gun grabbers should take pause.

If you want to comment on this proposal, you can do so. The State Department will listen. No… really! Stop laughing!

Public comments are currently being accepted on the proposal. Comments can be made at regulations.gov or via e-mail at DDTCPublicComments@state.gov with the subject line, ”ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.” The deadline for comments is Aug. 3.

Seriously, a public outcry is the only way to stop this, and the more publicity it gets, the better. After all, how many of us read the Federal Register for pleasure? (OK – maybe me, but only sometimes! I swear!)

In all seriousness, this is an old strategy.

We’re not controlling guns! We’re simply requiring you to purchase liability insurance. Eventually the guns will be rendered cost-prohibitive. But hey, they’re not regulating guns, right?

We’re not controlling guns! We’re controlling ammunition! Nothing in the Second Amendment says your right to keep and bear ammo is sacrosanct!

We’re not controlling guns! We’re just limiting your right to discuss them in technical terms without government permission. And we’ll imprison you if you do. After all…

No gun owners… no guns.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, gun grabbers, guns, Schools and campuses

Armed Campus Lies

5 Comments

I woke up to some great news this morning. A Texas bill, restoring the fundamental right of faculty and students over the age of 21 with a concealed handgun permit to carry firearms inside classrooms on public and private college campuses, tentatively passed the Texas House the night before. It passed despite the sniveling objections of school administrators, although thanks to a last-minute amendment, schools are allowed to create “reasonable” regulations pertaining to the presence of firearms on school grounds.

What constitutes “reasonable,” is anyone’s guess.

The bill still has to be approved by the Texas state Senate before it’s signed into law by the governor, and you can be sure that the gun grabbers’ disinformation machine will kick into high gear before this happens.

The clueless, quivering bottom lip horde continue to bring up the specter of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre as justification for disarming law-abiding, innocent adults on America’s campuses, likely hoping you will ignore the fact that Virginia Tech was a “gun free” campus to begin with… well, gun free other than the gunman!

This year, a survivor of that shooting and another from the Virginia Tech massacre testified in a committee hearing that arming students wouldn’t make campuses safer. William H. McRaven, chancellor of the University of Texas System and a four-star admiral who led the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, argued that the policy would endanger students and teachers.

Arming students wouldn’t make campuses safer? Do the words: Appalachian School of Law ring a bell? Yeah, that’s the one where armed students actually stopped a gunman.

Oh, did we hope no one would bring that up?

Frankly, I’m appalled that McRaven – a retired flag officer and special ops expert who oversaw the mission that ended up in the death of Bin Ladin – would forget how critical firearms are to safety and security and outright lie by claiming that concealed carry would somehow make campuses “less safe.”

Worse, the gun grabbers are using his rank to bolster his credibility on this particular issue, and he appears only too happy to allow them to do it. Using your military rank to lend credence to your political views is abhorrent to me as a veteran.

Anti-gun armedcampuses.org claims that “ gun-free policies have helped to make our post-secondary education institutions some of the safest places in the country.”  McRaven must have been huffing their glue. 

While homicides on college campuses are relatively rare, I would submit that has more to do with the fact that college students and professors tend to be a less violent, more law-abiding bunch writ large, so it’s doubtful that “gun free” policies have had anything to do with that, despite the disingenuous claims of the group. Additionally, the states that do allow concealed carry on its college campuses – Idaho, Utah, and Colorado – have not been made less safe by the passage of concealed carry laws.

“Our parents, students, faculty, administrators, and law enforcement all continue to express their concerns that the presence of concealed handguns on campus would contribute to a less-safe environment, not a safer one,” McRaven wrote in a letter to Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and House Speaker Joe Straus.

The paranoid fantasies of cowards do not interest us.  We’ve seen time and time again that disarming the law-abiding does nothing to protect them from violence, and we’ve seen near daily reports of armed citizens stopping criminals.

Perhaps McRaven should spend a bit more time focusing on how better to educate America’s college students and a bit less time inventing excuses to render them defenseless.

After all there is a negative relationship between education and violent crime.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Media

NYT hyperventilates about concealed carry, skews statistics

7 Comments

I know you will be shocked, just SHOCKED, to find out that the New York Times editorial board is soiling itself over what it calls “Concealed Carry’s Body Count.” Apparently the editors at the Times decided to take on people who are legally permitted to carry firearms concealed.

In other words, they are quaking in their collective panties at the thought, and have decided to paint concealed carry permit holders as a group of murderous villains, using data from the Violence Policy Center, which they describe as a “gun safety group,” making me want to choke on my coffee.

There is no central tally of the effects, with states often barring release of concealed-carry data and Congress hewing to the gun lobby’s opposition to research on guns’ effects on public health. But a methodical gleaning of eight years of news accounts by the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group, found that in research involving 722 deaths in 544 concealed-carry shootings in 36 states and the District of Columbia, only 16 cases were eventually ruled lawful self-defense — even though this has been a major gun rights selling point for the new laws.

In my old life, when I worked as a reporter, inflammatory words such as “horrifying,” “slain,” and “alarming” were discouraged. I was taught we were there to report the news, not tell people what to think. I realize the above-linked is an editorial, and therefore does not have to conform to those standards (I would submit that given the Grey Hag’s tendency to skew its reporting, it doesn’t abide by those standards anyway), but the outright absurdity of painting concealed carriers with the broad brush of violence and murder prompts me to take a look at the larger picture.

Enter the Crime Prevention Research Center’s study on concealed carry in America. It seems there are a few facts the NYT editorial staff either did not know, or did not bother to research.

They did not mention until the very bottom of the article (more as an afterthought), for example, that there are at least 11.1 million concealed carry permit holders in the United States. I say “at least,” because according to the CPRC, that number is likely much higher, given the fact that several states, such as New York, don’t report the number of their concealed carry permit holders. And several states have no permit requirements for concealed carry at all.

But let’s go with that 11.1 million people, which represents roughly 4.8 percent of the population.

According to the VPC, there were *GASP* 544 shootings involving concealed carry permit holders, 16 of which were ruled lawful self defense. That would leave 528 shootings between 2007 and 2014 (I’m assuming they are including 2014, as the editorial merely states there were that many shootings since 2007) or 75.4 per year.

In comparison, between 2007 and 2012 (the latest year for which the CDC has data),  average of 548 people were stabbed to death per year, 425.6 were beaten to death, and 138.5 per year were strangled or suffocated.

Now let’s look at those 528 shootings. Let’s assume that these involve 528 separate concealed carry permit holders. Given that there are at the very least 11.1 million concealed carry holders currently residing in the United States, those 528 represent .048 percent of people with valid concealed carry permits. Not even a half a percent.

And this is what the NYT editorial staff chooses to hyperventilate about? These are the statistics they choose to report as some kind of horror involving those evil concealed carry holders?

Really?

So not only does the editorial staff cite a VPC report that apparently not only contains inaccuracies, such as double or triple counting cases that shouldn’t even be counted as crimes or problems with guns to begin with, but the numbers they use are so minuscule in comparison to the concealed carry population at large, that it hardly qualifies as “a problem.”

Additionally, if you look at the data, concealed carry permit holders, are a fairly law-abiding bunch.

Consider the two large states at the front of the current debate, Florida and Texas: Both states provide easy web access to detailed records of permit holders. During over two decades, from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2014, Florida has issued permits to more than 2.64 million people, with the average person holding a permit for more than a decade. Few — 168 (about 0.006%) — have had their permits revoked for any type of firearms related violation, the most common being accidentally carrying a concealed handgun into a gun-free zone such as a school or an airport, not threats or acts of violence. It is an annual rate of 0.0002 percent.

The already low revocation rate has been declining over time. Over the last 77 months from January 2008 through May 2014, just 4 permits have been revoked for firearms-related violations. With an average of about 875,000 active permit holders per year during those years, the annual revocation rate for firearms related violations is 0.00007 percent – 7 one hundred thousandths of one percentage point.

For all revocations, the annual rate in Florida is 0.012 percent.

And the numbers are similarly low in Texas, according to the same report.

So what is it that the Grey Hag’s editorial staff is hyperventilating about?

Well… their attempts to foist the gun grabbers’ agenda onto us for the most part has been a miserable failure, even with them screeching hysterically and dancing in the blood of innocent children after the Newtown massacre.

Americans overwhelmingly kicked gun grabbers in the giblets during the last election. And while we have experienced a few notable losses, overall, the tide is turning.

Major polling data confirms the same thing: Americans oppose new gun control legislation. They treasure their right to keep and bear arms.  Less than half of Americans support additional infringements on our Second Amendment rights, according to Gallup. Rasmussen points to similar results. And Pew agrees, leaving the New York Times editorial staff mourning its cause.

So what do they have left? Their limited options are to drop this ridiculous crusade against our freedoms (good luck getting them to do that!) or find faulty reporting with a bunch of skewed statistics, and use it to attack a rather large group of law-abiding Americans.

Want to take a guess which they chose?

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail