Amitai Etzione (courtesy sase.org)

Now that the New York Times has come out of the confiscation closet, the rest of the assault media is following suit. Over at The Huffington Post, Professor Amitai Etzioni of international relations at George Washington University [above] has penned a piece titled Needed: Domestic Disarmament, Not ‘Gun Control’. Professor Etzione starts his anti-pistol polemic by pointing out the pointlessness of “half-measure” gun control initiatives, and then lets loose the proverbial dogs of war. Like this . . .

Most people have no guns in these fully democratic nations [e.g., UK and Canada] and have no way of getting them, legally or otherwise. It is hence at best naïve, sometimes disingenuous, to imply that if several gun control measure would be enacted — and somehow enforced — the U.S. would gain what these other nations take for granted. (By the way, Black Lives Matters may wish to take note: In these blessed nations most cops, most of the time, have no guns either.)

Given that even micro gun control measures will be effectively blocked by the NRA and its allies, and that promoting mini measures as potentially effective is misleading, progressives may as well go for the big enchilada: Call for domestic disarmament.

Yup. Take away Americans’ guns. And what of that pesky little thing called the Second Amendment? Bah!

One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns, recently reinterpreted it to mean that there is an individualized right to own guns. This suggests that we may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.

Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written. [ED: what part of “shall not be infringed” does Hillary Clinton not understand – aside from all of it?]

Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.

Oh, I do love that last bit; that pat on the shoulder for those “enlightened enough” to turn America into a police state. The gloves are off, folks. All that remains to be seen is what happens during the reign of a President Clinton and/or the next terrorist attack or two . . .  [h/t MG]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

93 COMMENTS

  1. Points for honesty.

    Beats obscurantist double-speak like, “common sense” all day.

    “The measure of politics is this, who are your friends? Who are your enemies? And do they KNOW it?”

    -Christopher Hitchens

    (Emphasis mine.)

    • Exactly…. All those Moms and Pols really want guns only in the hands of the gov. They want the UK. They want a world where you get a permit for a .22 rifle and have to show good cause for that. And if you get to “own” anything, you keep it in some gov approved lock up where you can check it out.

      I would love to fight this fight. Let them be honest. Let them be “enlightened”. I mean the only reason most of the talk about “common sense” crap is because they KNOW that saying “confiscation” or “no new guns purchased…” or “ban” are all losers.

    • I only give points for honesty when the honesty was intended.

      In this guy’s case, he’s more frustrated with the gungrabbers’ inability to reach their goal with halfhearted, half measures. So he’s blurting out his intentions and desires more out of exasperation than honesty.

      It’s what the lawyers sometimes call an “excited utterance”; more formally, a statement made “res gestae”, or “in the immediacy of things.” The idea in law, anyway, is that such emotion-laden statements made in the heat of the moment are made while the speaker lacks the presence of mind to formulate falsehoods intentionally. Temporary inability to lie isn’t quite the same or honorable thing as being honest.

      • I love when Democrats make excited utterances because you get a peep through the keyhole and see what they actually believe.

        My personal favorite recently was when Jonathan Gruber said during an academic lecture (when he thought he was among friends) that John Kerry and the democrats writing Obamacare knew that a 40% tax on insurance companies was just going to be a 40% tax on the people buying the plans. One and the Same. The costs of taxation on corporations was passed down to their customers.

        As subtle as it was, he was showing that Democrat leadership does, in fact, understand high school level economics, and lies about the effects of taxation on companies as a matter of party policy.

  2. I have more respect for this guy than the people yelling “No one wants to take your guns, we just want reasonable, common sense blah blah.” At leas he’s honest in his intentions.

    • This reminds me of all those folks that said they didn’t want National health Insurance and then did , just before we got national health insurance .
      Better keep your hands warm and alive .

    • What I also like about this guy is that he is realistic in admitting that none of the proposed gun control measures will do much to stop any real violence.

      He does gloss over the whole terrorist watch list thing. I wish there was a way to get his name on that list and then let him see how hard it is to get off the list. Back when Ted Kennedy was still alive, his name got on the list because someone has used Ted Kennedy as an alias. It took the Senator’s office months to get him off the list and he was hassled at every airport in the meantime. If it was that hard for him to get off the list, then imagine what it would be like for us peasants.

      Where he really takes a detour is his assumption that the election of Empress Hillary and some Supreme Court shuffling would achieve his magic world of disarmament. He fails to account for the massive civil disobedience that would take place under any confiscation restrictions that could very easily escalate to violence. This naivete totally undercuts his point.

    • Yep he’s up front and honest about what he wants. But why does that scene from “Commando” come to mind?
      The one where Arnold says, “I like you Sully, that’s why……”
      I dare not type out the entire passage lest I be put on some super secret list.

    • Honesty?!? Like hell. He’s lying like crazy about the UK and Canada. There are legal means to purchase firearms.

      • You are right. He is totally wrong about Canada. He thinks MOST Canadian cops are unarmed. That level of ignorance is absurd. I’ve only been to Canada a few times (including a week or so this past September) but have never seen a Canadian police officer without a gun. Canadian police seem pretty similar to American police (perhaps a bit more friendly and polite – like Canadians in general).

        Also, guns are pretty easy to buy legally in Canada (long guns with limited ammo capacity anyway). Heck, they can even buy brand new Norinco SKS up there. Even handguns with barrels over 10 cm in length aren’t that hard to buy.

      • Honesty in the sense of saying directly and unequivocally what their true goal is.

        The guy has just invalidated ALL of those looney “nobody’s coming to take your guns” comments we see everywhere. I don’t care if he is merely arrogant, he just did us a huge favor by cutting all that crap. Finally.

        And I don’t give a hoot about those others, let them eat the stew they cooked up. This is our fight for our rights.

      • And illegal. There are illegal ways to get anything anywhere. Hell, inmates have drugs and weapons smuggled in prison. You just need to know right people and have enough cash.

    • Honesty? He is, like all of them, deliberately misinterpreting the words and the intent of the 2nd amendment. He is either developmentally disabled in basic English comprehension or intentionally dishonest. Either answer does not cast a good light on his credibility as a professor.

      “Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products.”

      And while we’re at it let’s make drug and alcohol and automobile manufacturers liable, because that is the end result of setting such a legal precedent. They should have to pay pay pay when someone criminally misuses their products too!

    • What Etzioni displays is not honesty, but sheer arrogance.

      Was Hitler “honest” because Mein Kampf reads like a blueprint for totalitarianism?

      Is ISIS honest for stating they want to kill all “infidels”?

      Anyway, Amitai Etzioni, a native born Israeli who should know better about guns and self defense, is an 86 year old tenured professor with no skin in the game. He struts his arrogance in the classroom & the faculty club, without consequence.

      “Let’s you and him fight” is his advice.

    • There is no honesty here… Every one of these shysters makes the assertion that the 2cd amendment was never an individual right until the USSC “made” it one with the Heller decision. Have no doubts there is nothing honest with tyranny.

  4. There have been some doozy articles written on this subject lately, but this one gets extra points for the elitist condescension.

  5. You mean we shouldn’t blame Muslim militants who in the biggest instance of killing used box cutters?

    The silver lining to this is that it makes it easy to refute the “no one wants to come after your guns” argument.

  9. Professor Etzione; bring it.

    Now back up your words with action. Man up and do it. Start with amending the constitution or admit you are a pussified coward calling only on the state to use violence out of the gate. Because we all know which type you are.

    Let me know how it works you.

  10. First time I’ve heard the UK described as “blessed”, but then these people would rather have a King or Queen picked by themselves rather than a President elected by the unwashed masses.

    • You do realize that in the US, the electoral college and not the masses (aka popular vote count) actually elect the President, right?

      Intended as a final possible stopgap against the election of a tyrant by mass outbreaks of idiocy and all that?

      It’s a small thing, but one of the things that distinguishes our democratic republic from true democracies where majority does in fact rule.

      • Intended as a final possible stopgap against the election of a tyrant

        And they’ve failed. Miserably. For nearly 100 years.

  11. It sounds like they are, more and more, reading the second amendment (and the others as well) as an enumeration of government authority rather than an explicit exclusion.

  12. “One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns…”

    Did someone do some time travelling? Or does this “enlightened” fellow just not understand the U.S. Constitution as well as he thinks he does?

    U.S. Constitution: Law of the Land since 1789 ( 2015 – 1789 = 226 years)
    {and technically, the 2A has only been law since 1791}

  13. I don’t get this guy.

    He and his family were forced to move from Germany because they were Jewish. He fought with the Haganah to gain independence for Israel…but he is calling for civilian disarmament?!?

    • Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, the Jews bring all of their problems down on their own heads?

      They had their hands in the cookie pot prior to WW2 in Germany. And today? They have their hands in American Disarmament. The west forced them into the area of the world they reside in now and we have two craters in NYC to show for it. I can’t say I feel very much for the children of Israel anymore. They made their bed, let them lay in it.

  14. I wish all of the antis were this honest, pro gun candidates would never lose another election, except maybe in California.

  15. Ehh, he looks very old, I think he knows he’s only got a few years left so he’s going for the whole enchilada. We can just out wait him. 🙂

  16. Will not be long before every drive by media group is calling for the same thing. Most take their qua from the huffing and puffing ton post anyway.

  17. I find it amusing that people always assume, imply, or overtly state that revoking the 2nd amendment will somehow result in utopia. Their ideal world is one where everyone is safe, polite, and respectful, with minimal interpersonal conflict and strict rule of law, all the time. Ironically, I grew in this utopia: It’s called ‘housing’ on a military base. No, it doesn’t have a functional 2a (personal firearms had to be turned in to the armory and could only be given back with the signed pre-approval of the CO) but then it doesn’t really have a functional 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, or 21st amendment either. The 13th really doesn’t apply, as everyone is a volunteer. The military honors the 15th and 19th via absentee ballots, which the states sometimes choose to ignore. But, hey, it’s perfectly safe, everyone’s very polite and respectful, and the rule of law is absolute. Everybody knows where they fit in and toes the line. Maybe he should join the military?

  19. Assuming it means what he says it means, why, for the love of Pete, would the the Bill of Rights include the right of a military force to be armed? The government is the one that freaking arms the military in the first place. If the 2A was not meant to apply to private individuals, it is the most unnecessary and redundant sentence ever written.

    • The argument is dead, for more reasons than this. However, they will never let that line of BS go. As long as the second amendment is there, they cannot let it go. Unless the leftists just drop the pretense of respecting the constitution and rule of law all together. And I think they just might. Soon.

  20. If only his ilk would just up’n relocate, permanently, to one of those “blessed nations” they are so fond of.

    • That is what I have been saying. I left my former slave state because the latter did not align with my ideals. They should be doing the same for theirs.

  22. This is good news. The more the antis admit how crazy they are, the more the awakening sheeple will reject their stupidity and the saner the world becomes. I foresee a day when the antis will be in the dustbin of history. They will someday be a curious oddity that no one will be able to figure out, like natives who thought feeding virgins to a volcano would prevent eruptions, or ‘doctors’ who thought letting out the “bad blood” would somehow help the sick.
    You know, morons.
    🙂

  23. This is a typo yes?

    “[ED: what part of “shall not be infringed” doesn’t Hillary Clinton not understand – aside from all of it?]”

    If you remove the double negative you get: what part of “shall not be infringed” does Hillary Clinton understand – aside from all of it?

    Should be a single negative methinks. Not trying to be pedantic, just thought I’d point it out for Ed. ;p

  24. More of these type articles are coming. You can bet on it. In fact, you should put your money down. Gun sales are going to climb through the roof. Here are the three principal publicly traded gun manufacturers:

    1. Olin (NYSE: OLN) is a chemical company that also owns Winchester Ammunition.
    2. Smith & Wesson (NASDAQ: SWHC ) has been making firearms in Springfield, Mass., since 1856.
    3. Sturm, Ruger (NYSE: RGR ) manufacturers firearms under the Ruger name from its facilities in Prescott, Ariz., and Newport, N.H.

    • Anyone interested in Olin as a play, please do your research. It’s not a pretty sight, and hasn’t been for decades. The ammo business is a fraction of sales, the company with all the other businesses only does about $2.5B, and has pretty much been a shrinking concern for the last 40 years.

      Last I heard Dow was going to merge, or takeover or something. They are closing Alton ammo operations as those greedy workers thought they should keep their vacations, and wanted not to lose some company matching retirement benefits. Instead, MS put up a huge taxpayer-funded bribe to expand ops down there, so more high-quality $10 per hour jobs with lousy benes. Ahh progress!

    • If they want to end gun violence then they need to start punishing people who commit gun violence. What is happening nowadays is that judges are letting crims back out on the streets as fast as the cops grab them up. This is what needs to happen (or something like it);

      Steal a gun/posses stolen gun=10 years, no parole, minimum sentence
      Use a gun in a crime (like rob someone etc.)=20 years, no parole, minimum sentence
      Shoot someone while committing crime=40 years, no parole, minimum sentence
      Kill someone other than self defense=death penalty

      This is what needs to happen if they really wanted to reduce gun crime, but of course we know that this is not the goal of the statist in any way. What they really want is power, and taking our guns away gives them that power.

      It is clear, to reduce crime they need to lock up the criminals, and for that matter, they could hand out AR-15s to law abiding citizens along with ammo and training, national concealed carry, these things would reduce crime that affects everyday people.

      They will not do these things.

  26. Regarding Canada:

    “However, these very low levels of gun violence have not been achieved by gun control but — by domestic disarmament”

    Nonsense. We have seen a steady rise in legal gun ownership every single year since licensing was implemented. Last year, over 100,000 new licenses were issued. We have seen a steady rise in the number of guns legally owned, including restricted firearms. Even so, the rate of murder by legal guns is very low and still decreasing- in fact, the least violent, least criminally-minded segment of the Canadian population are legal gun owners. All of that, funnily enough, is the same as in the USA. Legal American gun owners aren’t that much different from us.

    ” In these blessed nations most cops, most of the time, have no guns either”

    More nonsense. Pretty much every Canadian cop has a pistol, and many have patrol rifles in their cars. In the wilderness they have heavier stuff in case of wild animals.

    The vast majority of “gun violence” in Canada consists of violent criminals using smuggled (or stolen many years previous, but mainly smuggled) handguns to shoot each other. Again, funnily enough, that’s the same as in America.

    While I normally advocate education over ignorance, the good professor is quite welcome to stay out of my country.

    • Yeah, Canada is one of the most armed countries in the world (30 guns per 100 pop or so?) and it’s extremely easy for most Canadian citizens to get a wide range of firearms including very short shotguns and foreign guns unavailable in the US due to stupid import rules.

  27. Since this is a fully democratic nation like the supposed gun free utopias he references (which is a lie in both the fully democratic and gun free aspects), let’s vote on it. That’s how we change laws in a fully democratic nation.

    Of course, there are a lot of third world shit holes where the people have no way legal or otherwise to access firearms. Being that we have a tin pot dictator wannabee as commander in chief, how long do you think that fully democratic status is going to last?

  28. I invite him to be on the front lines of those coming to take our weapons. Mr. Etzioni needs to be the first to enter each house and demand the homeowners turn over their weapons.

    Mr. Etzioni, will you accept the challenge?

  29. Nothing is going to happen.

    People like Amitai Etzioni are talkers not doers. They talk and expect others to do the hard work for them but seem to forget that those working hard also tend to be gun owners. If Amitai Etzioni likes the UK or Canada – then he can go there! He already has a place he likes – but instead of going there he wants to force us to be like them. No thanks – FO.

  30. The article is funny as hell because it’s predicated on a point of fact which Mr. Etzioni gets completely and utterly wrong.

    The UK and Canada are not the happy shining gun free zones that people in the US think they are. Canadians have a strong tradition of gun ownership with many Canadians owning and enjoying personally owned guns. In many ways Canada is actually TONS more permissive than say, New Jersey or Massachusetts or New York or in many ways California.

    In Canada guns are tightly regulated but they’re not capricious about how that regulation is carried out. In much the same vein as the UK they did made certain classes of guns much less easy to own (pistols) but they did it with a lot less zeal and totality than England or Australia.

    In England and the greater UK pistols are indeed effectively banned completely but long guns are owned by large numbers (not nearly as large as either Canada or the US in numbers or proportion) of the population and the process to get them while bureaucratically idiotic and long is not subject to the likely arbitrary denial that it is on the east coast of the USA.

    They didn’t “ban guns”, neither did Australia for that matter. Not by a damned sight. They made arbitrary categories of arms machina non grata but by no means did they actually outright ban “guns”. You want to talk about a country where private gun ownership is basically impossible (except for the rich and connected for whom obedience of the laws has never been much of a requirement) is India.

    India has an almost identical rate of firearm involved death as the UK but while the UK has seemingly no problem with people owning “sporting” arms, India does have a problem with it. What that shows is a stunning case of confirmation bias infecting the argument.

    Enough letting people try to build straw men from false assertions drawn from opinions formed by not guarding against confirmation bias.

    The other false contention that SCOTUS “reinterpreted” the second amendment is also utterly false. The Supreme Court has not made any real rulings on the matter of personal right versus state rights other than to allow states to apply some regulation to the 2nd amendment and over the constitutionality of NFA.

    What SCOTUS did in Heller was not to turn back any prior decision (because they’d never ever made one) on whether private individuals could own guns according to 2A. The Heller decision merely affirmed that, it did not repudiate any prior standing of the court. Interestingly, the only cases where 2A was really involved at SCOTUS were more to do with state versus federal applicability of 2A.

    Shockingly, at the time (in the late 1800’s) the court repeatedly held that the BoR was only effective at restricting the federal government and did not restrain state governments in flat repudiation of the apparent spirit of the 9th and 10th amendments. The point being, courts make mistakes and they do things right. Just luck of the draw which one at which time.

    • That’s the fundamental idiocy that infects these people.

      their blindness to the fact that the Bill of Rights does not tell US what we are ALLOWED to do, it tells the GOVERNMENT what it can NOT do.

      In that context, the meaning of the 2A is crystal clear.

  32. The back door idea does set a marvelous precedent, imagine suing Jack Daniels and Budweiser if ever hit by a drunk driver. Or suing McDonald’s if you’re over weight. This is great.. I’ll be filthy rich in no time!

  34. SHUTTER HUFFPOO

    They have completely abdicated their 1st Amendment role in protecting the American bona fide citizenry from a secret and tyrannical government.

    They have instead, used their 1st Amendment protections as a megaphone for their own personal speech, and to shout down others’ free speech.

    Further, they have used their 1st Amendment protections to hide behind, in their attempts to overthrow the Constitution.

  35. This moronic professor has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to Canada. We can purchase most types of long guns (fully automatic are prohibited) and handguns legally – even order them online. Also, our police officers are armed with Glocks, shotguns and in some cases AR-15 semi-autos (stored in the trunks of patrol cars).

  36. It is a numbers game. Ny and CT both passed laws violating Civil Rights & the citizens are not complying.
    By numbers I mean 800k in local, state, and federal LE. The Military is questionable as to where they will stand. National Guard did confiscate weapons during Katrina, most will follow oath. The there are the 350 million firearms owned by 80-100 million Americans……all on condition Yellow waiting to see the next move.

  37. I thought TTAG would bring this up article up earlier. I hit up HP earlier this week and read this so-called professors drivel and expect RF to blast it within 24 hours. But hey, I guess he’s being honest about what the cry baby hurt feelings liberals want. It’s hard to imagine people willingly ready to through away their liberty in pursuit of safefy. Just disgusting…

  38. Ah yes, the enlightened among us. So enlightened they are oblivious to what went on in the World during the 20th Century, particularly the first half. It was a very good time for brutal dictators, tyrants and genocidal maniacs.

    And the 21st Century isn’t starting out too bad for them and their ilk either.

  41. There is an HUGE, and rather naive, assumption in the first quoted sentence – the “or otherwise” part.

    “Most people have no guns in these fully democratic nations [e.g., UK and Canada] and have no way of getting them, legally or otherwise.”

    Does this guy really believe that a complete confiscation of guns would dry up the illegal market for guns? Can he really be that naive? First, only legal guns that are known about would have any chance of getting confiscated, and even then it will be only a fraction of those. The black market for firearms will not be impacted at all – especially not in a country this large with such porous borders. It will in fact simply become even more lucrative, as is the case under any kind of prohibition.

  42. These guys stand in line for their chance at the megaphone. The right minded see through them, and many of their ilk know better. Wait til the lights go out and they will all see things our way.
    But for the short term, be prepared for ammunition shortages. The MILITARY is already complaining.

  43. These people are delusional, literally. They have screened out the reality they don’t like and all they hear is each other, so when one (the NYT) comes out of the closet for gun confiscation, the others think the entire world they know is coming to its senses and it is now safe to also come out of the closet.

    Reality is that far more states are liberalising their gun laws than tightening them.

    The Hoplophobe Society is in for a huge shock, sooner rather than later.

  45. “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,,….when The People are disarmed the State is no longer free. Simple. The Preamble to the Constitution begins,” We, the People of the United States,….”> specifies who is establishing the Constitution. Clearly identified. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.. Expressly forbids the Government from compromising the ” security of a free State,“.
    All seems pretty clear. This guy should resign his “professorship” for cause of gross ignorance and utter incompetence.

  46. This is analogous to old men send young men out to die in war while they stay home and pretend to care.

    I just love the way the Miss Nancys of the left volunteer police and other government agents to get shot enforcing an unjust and unconstitutional law. It’s just so sweet of them.

  47. Dear American Antis, please stop talking like you know anything about Canada’s gun laws. We can get plenty that would scare the pants off of you for being so “assault-y”.

    Love,

    Canada

  48. We have already suffered a terrorist attack(s) here in the homeland with others undoubtedly to come. And the liberal response is to disarm the public. This level of stupidity can not be described.

  49. After 250 years of the 2nd Amendment of Constitution being interperated as only allowing a well regulated militia to have firearms?

    Excuse me please cite the specific case where SCOTUS ruled indivual ownership unconstitutional?
    Secondly 250 years? The SCOTUS did not exist 250 years ago that predates the Declaration of Independence let alone the ratification of the Constitution. His fantasyland he lives in is void of both basic historical fact and simple math.

  50. All I have to say to this guy is this: Who are you going to get to confiscate our guns, and where are you going to imprison the 1/3 of the population who will not comply?

  51. His game plan matches what I’ve seen lefties post elsewhere:

    Dem president > new SCOTUS judges > re-do Heller.

    Dem house and Senate > get rid of PLCAA.

    They’re in this for the long game, and it’s a good plan. Vote accordingly.

  52. Most people have no guns in these fully democratic nations [e.g., UK and Canada] and have no way of getting them, legally or otherwise.

    When the first sentence is an easily disproved lie, why bother with the rest?

    But, I do thank you, sir, fir being open and honest about your side’s agenda – an agenda to which I respond: come and take.

  53. He does make one very excellent and valid point, without complete disarmament, gun laws are futile. So, stop passing futile gun laws and just get over it, because the 2A says you can’t take our guns! Thank you for playing we have some nice parting gifts from the NRA store…..

  54. I intend to die on my feet protecting myself and others, not lie on the floor whimpering like a total pussy like this joker. Time to grow a pair dude !

  55. “All that remains to be seen is what happens during the reign of a President Clinton and/or the next terrorist attack or two . . .”

    If this ape gets his wishes, the best one can hope for is that in the next terrorist attack, the terrorists win once and for all. America without guns < Isistan with them.

  57. Professor Etzioni is a founder of Communitarianism, which is sort of a cross between Progressivism v 2.0, (we the Elites Know Whats Best for You), and HRC’s politics of meaning and “it takes a village”, (so get to work and do as we say, out there in the village plantation fields, you little people).

    It doesnt work even on college campuses, as the Cry-Bulies made clear before their cries of raaaccissst were washed away by San Bernardino, and it doesnt work in the real world.

    So, I am not clicking on any nonsense from the NYT or anywhere else, that desperately spins the “gun control” meme, in any way, since thats just more desperate diversion from the facts- that American value hating muslim radicals have, and did, and will continue to kill defenseless Americans here and abroad, simply because we represent what proves they are lunatics, and by the way, proves Progressives, Socialists, and Communitarians are lunatics- you cant extinguish the basic human urge for freedom, no matter how hard you try to brain wash the masses.

  58. I am Canadian and a gun owner, and this is making my blood boil. To say that we as Canadians are not able to own firearms is inaccurate, and to then say that our law enforcement do not carry is utterly uninformed. Yes we have to go through a lot of hoops but it is not difficult. Do not give an inch America, you won’t get it back.

Comments are closed.