Gun Control Without Borders

1. What has the NRA done for gun control in California? Does it even make sense for a Californian gun owner to donate to the NRA?

   • The NRA has had limited effect in CA because their play book doesn’t really work here. They get the best results through pressure exerted in the legislature, in particular by threatening to mobilize the NRA membership against a particular office-holder.

     Most legislators here know they have little to fear from NRA members and other affiliated voters. There aren’t enough of us to make a difference, especially in the urban/suburban areas. Worse, the balance of power in the legislature is currently so far out of whack that the Democratic supermajority can pretty much override the Republican opposition at will. Good for getting a budget passed, not so much for the NRA having a snowball’s chance of influencing the gun rights debate.

     In CA progress is made in the courts and, to a lesser extent, in the Governor’s office. This is why I primarily support litigation-centric orgs like SAF and CGF.

     • I also support CGF. Thx for the reply.

     • Note the “primarily.” I would have a membership in all of them, because it doesn’t cost a lot of money. But any extra support should go to whoever does the most good in the area you’re concerned with. In CA, that’s definitely the litigation-centric organizations as AG said. Here in Florida, and at the federal level, that’s often the NRA-ILA, although in Florida I try to support Florida Carry as well, because they’re working on things I care about, like campus carry.

     • +1. Takes longer, but bad laws set up a case for reversal, based on step-by-step precedents that lead to Supreme Court cases that if past trends continue, will ultimately make gun rights more secure. Thats the strategy, and the hope, anyway, and its being proven out.

       The problem is some of the bad laws have taken 30 years to be reversed, and its going to be a long wait for this new batch, unless Gov Brown has the brain and balls to resist the fascist left in the CA legislature. He is a smart attorney, and a gun-owner and rancher himself, who some believe doesn’t want this to be his legacy, a lot of bad law that without his principled veto will result in driving more people and business out of CA, and which will ultimately not stand higher court scrutiny. We’ll see.

       • ELITIST gun-owner.

   • Yes, get a lifetime NRA membership and move out of California. The state is a lost battle on many fronts.

     • I’ll stay and fight. The NRA isn’t the only game in town – CalGuns, FPC, NSSF, etc. There are also a lot of ways to promote gun ownership, and to call the Dems / Statists on their BS *facts*. The CA House and Senate are the subject of much amusement throughout the rest of the country.

       • Best of luck to you. And thanks.

2. “A disarmed society is a fascist society.” A typical, and unfortunate, misuse of “fascist.” A more appropriate term would be “totalitarian”. One can hardly accuse Stalinist soviets of being fascist.

   OTOH, anyone who knows liberals, [Bloomberg, e.g.], should agree that they are totalitarian.

   • Point taken. Text amended.

   • I refer you to “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg.

     Stalinist Russia was in fact a fascist state, as well as totalitarian. One does not rule out the other and in fact the one may require the other.

     The U.S. federal government was also a defacto fascist government under Wilson and FDR and has fascist tendencies under BHO.

     Fascism is the belief that government has the right AND authority to use its power to enforce its social and political concepts by whatever psychological and/or physical means are necessary up to and including death of dissidents. (My definition, not Mr. Goldberg’s.)

     • Mussolini defined Fascism as “the union of the state and corporations”, and that is more or less the standard, accepted definition of Fascism to this day.

       So, NO, the Soviet Union was a COMMUNIST state, not a Fascist state.

       • Actually, the line between corporatism and socialism in the fascist governments of the 30s and 40s are rather blurred. I read a lot of material about the conflicts within the Nazi Party about making deals with corporations instead of the government taking over the industries entirely. Many within that party argued that it was the National-SOCIALIST party, and they felt that making deals with private industry was wrong. It is understood in history that Hitler recognized early that his party could not gain additional support and retain the support of the German people without a compromise. If he simply seized these industries outright, it would have probably crushed an already weak economy and may have turned the Germans against the Nazis. But, really, in the end, the Nazis got what the wanted…complete control of the economy. See, the Nazis had the absolute power to override any decision made by these companies. The companies were allowed to manage their companies any way they wanted as long as they did it exactly the way the Nazis ordered them to. In a way, it was socialism by proxy.

         • Very different from Covert Fascism, American-style, where the corporations tell the GOVERNMENT what to do… via the wallet, not the truncheon.

3. Can’t we just put all of the grabbers in a camp of some sort?

   • We could make them wear little armbands so they can wave and show them to each other and be proud of the victims they are. Would make it much safer for all those disadvantaged youths as well. I’m sure violent crime will drop once the criminals know their victim can’t defend themselves. Its our fault criminals are violent after all, people could be carrying anything so they have to defend themselves from law abiding citizens.

   • “Can’t we just put them in a camp…”

     Now THAT would be fascist.

     • Not if they’re imprisoned for sedition.

4. Good writing Robert, and very true. Liberals like to call our “slippery slope” idea a fallacy – however, fact is – liberals with pens in their hands have an insatiable desire for writing gun control legislation. Left unabated, these liberals would leave us with nothing left, so is it a slippery slope? Sure looks like one.

   • And in some states, that slope has already turned into a cliff.

   • No, it’s not a slippery slope. It’s a goddam cliff, and the Democrats are pushing America over it.

   • I’m sure you realize that the specific intention of every measure such as this is to destroy the culture. What can’t be accomplished now, can be easily accomplished within a generation or two. This ties in quite nicely with the whole ‘brain washing’ plan that we hear like a broken record each day. (Wow, I’m dating myself with that statement. What’s a “broken record?”) The laws that have been passed in NY, CT and MD will ultimately remove firearms from the next generation. I see most blue states with limited firearm access in another 50 years. It’s coming folks. Gird your loins.

5. I know this is a serious subject, but every time I hear a convoluted way to define something, it makes me think,

   “Well, if the Deeds you’re referring to is Longfellow Deeds, then yes, that is Deeds’s first name.”

   “Well, I don’t know Deeds’s first name, maybe it’s Greg.”

   “Maybe it’s Longfellow.”

6. I always laugh (not that it’s funny) when the NRA pats itself on the back for helping Illinois to become “the last state” to allow concealed weapons permits. Uhh… hello? New Jersey? We’re “may (never) issue” here.

   • And when do New Jersey voters accept responsibility for their own bad choices? I know — silly me.

     • I would agree with that statement, Ralph, that voters have to take responsibility for their actions. Granted, the readers here probably voted the “correct way,” so that’s a mute point.

       But I’ve also seen it here the song and dance that “So goes CA, so goes the nation.” So…do the CA voters have to take responsibility for their action, or inaction? I get really irritated at the notion that I, a non-resident of CA, have to get spun up in a tizy trying to fight a losing battle in that state.

       Yes, I TOTALLY get the cancer analogy. But isn’t the point of federalism to let the states experiment with what works best for them? So from a federalist perspective…I can’t wait for CA to wither and die. That state is so far out of touch with reality, and not just in regards to gun rights.

       Of course, some might argue that federalism is dead. So maybe I’m just wasting my breath.

       • “mute point”! This has been a great day for malapropisms.

       • Ha. My bad. Good catch. 🙂

     • Haha, you think NJ cares about what voters think? Did you not see the illegal (or at least against legislature regulations) way that they passed some anti-gun bills out of committee here?

       NJ politics is a good ole’ boys club. If you have the money you can buy your seat regardless of what the voters say.

     • The problem in NJ is the same as in California. Too many libs and not enough gun owners to offset them. The legislature is overwhelmingly Dems and they normally get what they want. However, this time even Christie saw that Sweeney’s “model” legislation was so stupid he couldn’t sign it. I’m afraid though that this is just a reprieve. After Christie we’ll get another leftie Dem who’ll make it even tougher to own a firearm here.

     • The state is clearly Democrat in makeup now. Guns are not a culture in New Jersey. New Jersey is turning into a western wing of NYC, complete with the same silly gun laws. New Jersey has packed its poorest residents into its urban centers. We swoon in mock disbelief at the perverse consequences of concentrated poverty abetted by the carnival barkers who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and ensuring they remain in office each and every election.

       • Post of the day, Bo.

7. Its hilarious and sad that these totalitarian rogue states look at the other free states with lower taxes and crime and say “our laws would work if they weren’t so free.” The truth tends not to require a giant spiderweb of carefully phrased arguments, often its just a single sentence:

   New Jersey’s crime problem comes from within New Jersey.

   • Socialism can’t exist in a stable fashion anywhere as long as there is freedom somewhere. The prosperity of free nations is the most eloquent condemnation of socialism. NY and CA can pump as much crap as they want, but the outflow of the middle class (being replaced by welfare recipients) from those states speaks loud and clear.

     • Ben, do you view North Korea as unstable?

       • (paraphrase) “Socialism works extremely well until you run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher.

         North Korea may appear to be stable in that it has been what it appears to be for 60 some years, however, if it were not for the constant military and financial support of China they would undoubtedly implode in short order. Their society is in no way self-sustaining. It’s like a well-armed gang hideout that the authorities are afraid to assault because a powerful neighboring gang has found a way to funnel food and arms to them. Cut off that supply and they will certainly starve.

8. Most of the illegal guns in New Jersey come from Third World sh1th0les like Camden, Newark and Trenton. Compared to Camden, Detroit is relatively crime-free.

   • then why do I have to carry several mags and guns on me when I visit family in Detroit??

9. Battles must be fought where the greatest amount of good can be done with the least amount of expenditure. It is therefore that the NRA chooses to fight battles in Colorado and Illinois right now. To attach California directly would be like the Pacific fleet attacking the Japanese mainland without taking out Guam and Wake Island first. If people see states like Colorado turn around, and Illinois adopt concealed carry with the NRA gaining members then the tide of battle will turn in our direction. Furthermore, if the Repubs and Libertarians can increase their hold on the house and take some Senate seats we can begin our march to Cali.

   • Do you really think there is that much strategy involved?

     Illinois’s impetus to progress is coming from the courts, not really from legislative process and pressure.

     The legislative pressure did take a court win and build a stomachable carry bill out of it, yet it seems to me that most of the heavy lifting was done by the SAF, ISRA and IllinoisCarry.org groups, not the national org.

     • As I read the reports coming in, the NRA lobbyist was directly involved in the negotiations for the carry law crafted for Illinois, and was instrumental in the lawsuits filed to overturn the prohibition.

   • I’ve been donating like crazy to the original Colorado recall group and to Bernie Herpin’s campaign. Thinking on it, I probably could have bought 1k rounds of Lake 5.56 ammo at June prices for what I’ve donated to all these groups over the past 8 months, not even counting my NRA life membership that I was disappointed to learn has nothing to do with the ILA branch. Nearly donated to the Repub running for Senator in Jersey, the other guy is a scumbag, but I just can’t give money to a guy who supports universal background checks.

   • California Democrat legislators don’t give a crap what the NRA does in the rest of the country. They don’t care about “creeping incrementalism.” Hell, they don’t give a crap about SCOTUS and the Heller decision; one of the laws they have sought to pass would require that all firearms be disabled or locked up when not in the owner’s personal possession–even if the owner lives alone. And while it is certainly true that the only remedies are in the courts or the Governor’s mansion, neither is sure or quick. Reagan banned the open carrying of loaded guns, and the Gubernator banned the .50 Barrett and open carry of unloaded handguns 9to be sue, in incorporated areas, not in forests and unincorporated areas where there is little crime to speak of). The trial courts have upheld government restrictions, and the Ninth Circuit, despite an early decision that seemed hopeful (but that was later mooted) has simply not acted at all.

10. Yes, CA is a lost cause. Why? Write to your senator or rep and the reply goes as follows. Thank you for your letter….lets agree to disagree…That is all. Fuck this Article. Fuck NJ. The Goddam fight is here on the left coast. Fuck all you with sand in your cracks…tell me what size fire hose you need to flush it out…I’ll bring it.

    Fuck all the pleas for coin, sending coin is for people who don’t have time to stand against the wall during a mindless meeting. Fuck all you check writers.

    Fuck NRA’s play book. Change the play. If Gene Sharp produces a document outlining how to overthrows dictators, then gun right advocate can do the same. I refuse to let the mindless majority impose their values on my self defense.

    I’m pissed…..that is all.

    • Mon dieu! At last, a breath of fresh air. Someone that gets the point. To hell with nibbling around the edges whilest the majority of the pie rots! Time for some hardball.

    • Thank you for putting into writing what I’m sure a great deal of us are feeling.

    • things are still pretty damn good in the left coast up here in OR/Wa. about the worst I can say is that WA has stupid NFA restrictions, but we got cans a couple years back, and we are hacking away at SB now

      • Bar carry would be nice, too. Plus we have to slap down that stupid initiative as well.

11. This isn’t just gun control. It’s the whole statist package. Every social, economic and legal policy can be construed to be “for the public good.” Marriage policies, education, taxation, minimum wage, religious freedom, search and seizure — the wave of making these things uniform across the nation rolls on and on, always for the “public good.” Why else is the White House concerning itself with “stand your ground?”

    Didn’t we fight a civil war over this?

    • We didn’t “fight a civil war over it”. The Union attacked the Confederacy. As it turns out, the Union was trying to assure the Confederacy didn’t gain advantage in westward expansion. There were other reasons, but westward expansion was the overriding one.

    • “Didn’t we fight a civil war over this?”

      No. We fought a war for independence… and lost.

    • I had kinda heard (long after elem. school indoctrination about “Honest Abe”) that the Civil War wasn’t about ending slavery, but that it was about State’s Rights. In other words, we’d be better off as a Confederacy. And States’ Rights would have been way kewl – it’s a two-edged sword: Never mind the slavery issue – if a slave escaped to a Free State (remember, Freedom ain’t Free), they could have simply told the slavers, “That clause doesn’t apply here, since we have no slaves. And kidnapping and vigilantism will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of OUR law.”

      And if I’m provably wrong, please feel free to rip me a new one – I’m a native Iowanian, who got moved to Minnesnowta when I was very very young, so I really have very little clue about those things.

      • It’s seemed more and more to me, as time goes on and further analysis has been done, that the War Between the States was more about which side would control westward expansion, Rich. I’m standing by that until something comes along to change my mind.

        Mind you, states’ rights was an issue, but it seems it may have been used to hide a different agenda – getting to control westward expansion ahead of the other side.

        • If you mean “Getting to expand slavery into western territories because the cotton gin had improved slavery’s economics, for those into that sort of thing,” then obviously it was a huge issue. Everyone could participate in the westward expansion without slaves.

      • Rich, as a well-indoctrinated Virginian, inculcated with the “states’ rights, not slavery” mantra, I am sympathetic to the concept, but the reality is that slavery in America was a real evil that needed to be eliminated. History has shown that the institutional oppression of a race is not the “free market.” No American should be forced to flee to a “free” state just to live and have the same Constitutional rights as the rest of us.

        The United States had been fighting the battle between federalism and antifederalism for a century by the time the Civil War boiled over (Whiskey Rebellion, anyone?). One result of our Civil War — the end of slavery — was righteous. But with it came the victory of centralism over federalism. The left likes to claim anti-slavery and anti-racism as their cause, and they are also prone to sweeping generalizations. Since slavery only came about by the imposing hand of Washington, the left sees that as their best organ for “progress.”

        Those of us who are smarter and more broad-minded can recognize both the evil of slavery and the danger of federalism. I don’t comport with my fellow Virginians who believe that because Lincoln acted in an antifederalist manner, that slavery must be acceptable. It is not. But I do recognize that for the rank-and-file Confederate, the specter of a strong central government run by New Yorkers and Bostonians impelled them to fight more than the defense of slavery. It doesn’t excuse their willful ignorance, but it also doesn’t diminish their desire to live a free life.

        • “Those of us who are smarter and more broad-minded can recognize both the evil of slavery and the danger of federalism.” I meant the danger of antifederalism. Argh.

          • SERIOUSLY? You’re a Federalist? Do you have a shrine to Alexander Hamilton?

        • Federalism is opposed to power being concentrated exclusively in the central government. It’s confusing because the Federalist Party argued for a strong central government, but only in contrast to those who opposed the Constitution and wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation, which was too weak a charter, in my opinion. Yes, Hamilton was on the extreme centralist end of the Federalist Party, but James Madison was also a Federalist. Today, “federalist” is often used in contrast to “statist.” Think Federalist Society.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Federalism

          • OK, that shows that I really don’t know enough about the whole issue to add any value to the discussion one way or another.

            Thanks!

      • haven’t you heard of the fugitive slave act which made it a crime not to capture a free slave in northern territories and which allowed for vigilanties to track down and kidnap slaves. this part of history is particularly left out out by southern revisionist because they want the ignore the so called “slaveocracy” that existed where large slaveowners used their slaves 3/5 status as a way of being plutocrats and undermining republicanism and self rule by establishing an ad-hoc feudalism in the south.

        • It seems to me this a victim of NORTHERN revisionism as well.

12. “Career Criminals” Gee where did they go to school for that career.Oh that’s right,prison and jail when BOZO states like Stupid New Jersey “Graduate ” them by letting these losers back out to pray on the public with more bags of tricks that they learned in prison.The gun Leonardis used had to be illegally shipped as ANY post1898 firearms MUST be shipped to an FFL even private purchased if it is mailed through any carrier.So the transaction was also illegal(if you would enforce the laws already on the books,HELLO, new concept here!)but again the Liberal philosophy; Don’t Confuse Me with Facts cause I like to make stuff up!

    • PREY on the public!

      • “I am a very devout criminal. I prey every day.”

13. The thought that has been rattling around in my brain this morning (Yes, I know, it is a big empty space) is that we need to equate “It’s just common sense!” with what it really means–“I have no facts to refute your statistics, so I’ll just imply that you are an idiot for suggesting that I’m wrong.” I remember a law school professor admonishing us that “common sense is nonsense.” I think he was right–common sense is what anyone wants to say it is.

    • Actually, the approach we in the grassroots orgs are taking is asking:

      “Why are California gun owners the only group whose Constitutionally Protected Civil Rights routinely violated by the state’s legislature, AS A MATTER OF STATE POLICY?”

      • That’s a good one. How’s it playing in Sacramento?
        I don’t see much point in fighting with facts dealing with corruptocrats like Kamala Harris, Eric Holder, et al, but I would really like to know if anyone really gets it in the Legislature.

        Sounds like the basis for a massive civil rights case.

14. The totalitarian’s advantage is that they control the media. If freedom got half the airplay that servitude does we’d take the whole country back in a generation.

15. This may seem like an odd suggestion coming from NC….

    Why not with great regularity, set up NRA membership drive booths, tables, etc in order to expose as many Californians as possible to the NRA and what it does. It seems that a lot of times the only exposure is at a gun show, we need to get the word out to the masses not just to the choir. A lot of people get their impression of the NRA from the haters and not from direct experience with members. That needs to change.

    • I could see kiosks in mall corridors next to the cell phone and calendar spots – sweet.

      • NINE Fucking Million. In a state of 33 million…27%. And YOU don’t think that makes a difference?

        The reason we are losing is 9 million don’t walk into a state rep meeting with a big fucking button that says representaive Asshole wants me murdered by a criminal! When 100 show up they raise a brow. 500 crowd a room you have their attention. A thousand….you now have their balls. Constant continous pressure. You have bowling night…time to switch to bust your reps balls night. Once a month just like your wife’s bunko night. You”ll do more for the cause of individual freedom than blogging your thoughts.

        Fuck the courts, fuck the NRA, Fuck writing a check, YOU want your right on the left coast, you better god damm get your ass in the Arena, box your rep on record by taking the moral high ground and ask why they author a bill that works to suspend the lawful self protection. Why do work to make a rapist job easier. Why do they want elderly assaulted? Why do condone a 4 min law enforcement arrival when someone is being assaulted or robbed?

        Get OFF your fucking blogging ass and develop a plan. You won’t cause life is getting in the way of preserving your “right”. fuck you

16. Yes, the mindset of the California pols is a cancer that spreads out from here. If they’re successfull in making guns impossible to own for the 9 million gun owners in California, what’s next? How many of those 9 million give money and other support to the gun rights cause? How many will stop giving support when their rights are gone?

    How would the elimination of 9 million owners affect the outcome of gun laws at a federal level? UBCs, AWBs?

    Now is where the French surrender monkies pipe up and tell us just to move out of California. 9 million people are not going to become refugees to protect the rights of people in Ohio, and Arizona and Texas etc. who would not lift a finger to help the California gun owners. Snarky remarks are not aide.

17. Who wouldn’t laugh at the “most of the guns come from just seven states” line: The list includes every sizable state down the eastern seaboard and the first two states heading west. In other words, most of the guns come from someplace with a good easy highway connection. North on I95? Not even criminals are willing to put up with that traffic.

    Just remember that NJ is the state that once appointed Nucky Johnson as Clerk of the NJ Supreme Court during his brief time out of elected office. The state is better known for mafiosi and over-powerful police unions (figure that pair out…) than for tough gun laws, as if one doesn’t simply go with the others for their convenience.

18. OK, so I am not writing off CA gun owners. What good is that going to do them, exactly?

19. Shenanigans! Shenanigans!

    No, seriously. If civilian disarmament is a cancer then each state must be a separate organism because it can’t spread from one to another. Perhaps it’s a virus in which case my object to the metaphor falls apart but the argument doesn’t.

    The demographics of California and those of say Missouri are so different that what is business as usual on the left coast would be instant political suicide in other places. Note the recall elections in Co. Not just political suicide but instant political suicide. Do not pass go, don’t even wait for the general election. California could pass a law saying it was illegal to wear a John Deer hat and it would have no more effect on other states that their unconstitutional and tyrannical firearms laws do. Try passing a law against John Deer hats in the Southeast, or Midwest. . . you might as well just resign, you’d get the same effect; no new law, and no more career in politics.

    California isn’t lost because the people of the gun did to little but rather because there are too few of them. I personally wouldn’t donate to a gun cause in California because it’s throwing away money that could be spent where it might matter. You don’t commit troops to a holding action that is clearly already lost, you withdraw them for use elsewhere . . . which is why I advised POTG in Cali to get out ASAP.

    Not only are the POTG left in Cali still paying taxes there and by their very presence thus propping up a failed regime, totalitarian in its nature and hateful to freedom, but they demonstrate that the POTG will not rise when called, will not so much as move away from tyranny let alone fight it when they see it. That California doesn’t experience a mass exodus emboldens other states that may be on the fence to enact laws contrary to the benefit and will of their citizens. If California has a cancer and it is spreading the metastatic agent is everyone who claims to love freedom that is still within its borders.

    And so, I cry Shenanigans! When there are not 49 other states with less restrictive gun laws, not 40 who are at least cognizant of the 2A and make reasonable accommodations to its exercise, not 20 who are free and not 10 actively improving as we speak then it may be time to devote the resources to California. Until that dire day, may it never come, let us spend our efforts where they are most fruitful, and to those who remain in voluntary captivity, let us salute, but move on.

    • The cancer can’t spread from 1 state to the next? never heard of the AWB of 94? Waiting periods are somethingthat also started in California. What about Colorado? Once a solid pro gun state. What about Mikey Bloomberg? He’s just a mayor and he’s spreading his crap from state to state.

      Go ahead and delude yourself into thinking that what happens in California is of no importance elsewhere. Difi, Pelosi, kapo bloomberg, barry and slow joe are hoping we’ll turn away from each other.

      How about the 9 million gun owners in California practice what you preach and we stop all support to gun rights outside of our borders? No money, no calls, no emails unless it’s just to fight for our rights? Those defeated 9 million Ca. gun owners won’t be missed at the federal level.

      • The “Billionaire Bully” Mike Bloomberg is one of the most influential American’s today. Money buys anything. He’s committed himself and his bankroll to rid America of firearms.

        • He’s got a lot of famous company:
          http://richgrise.tripod.com/images/gun-control-experts-agree.jpg

      • It’s called metastasis.

20. Just for the record, New Jersey DOES have a gang-related incidents. The Hackensack shooting is not the first. Latin Kings and Bloods are in many towns, including Bergen County. Hackensack and Teaneck have seen shootings and homicides that are linked to these two already.

21. “Leonardis is a member of the Sex, Money, Murder set of the Bloods gang”

    Law enforcement needs to start satisfying requirement number 3 for their members.

22. To all you bastards who voted libtard (democrat) in Cali, ya got what ya got.
    Next time, don’t do it again. Lesson learned (hopefully, not too late).

23. “… know what scares criminals more than anything else? It’s the armed citizen.”

    There’s a reason for that!

    FBI statistics show that, in calendar-year 2011, nationwide, armed private citizens shot and killed (ignore non-lethal encounters for this discussion) about 3,100 criminals. Of those shooting incidents, only 56 – less than 2% – involved erroneous shooting (misidentified persons, poor aim, ricochets, etc). In that same time frame, law enforcement officers shot and killed about 1,000 persons. Of THOSE shootings, 106 – more than 10%! (twice the actual number and 5 times the percentage!) – were erroneous.

    No wonder criminals fear responsible citizens more than they fear police!

Comments are closed.