Billy Johnson’s genius is in his tendency to look at things from a different angle – one you may not have considered – and then present his point simply and clearly. In his latest piece for the NRA, ‘Everyone Gets a Gun’, he notes that unlike the nation’s polices promoting things likes free speech, equal employment, home ownership and higher eduction, when it comes to firearms, America has an anti-gun policy. That’s based on the premise that we need to be protected from firearms. Then he really strays over to the dark side, asking, “What would happen if we designed gun policy around the assumption that people need guns — that guns make people’s lives better?” Why, that would mean creating guns-required zones, rewarding people for arming themselves, teaching firearms safety and competency from an early age. Can you conceive of a world in which we deal with guns as a need rather than a problem to be regulated and controlled? We know one person who sure can’t . . .
Everyone’s favorite civilian disarmament sock puppet, Shannon Watts, saw Billy’s little thought experiment and went into a predictable, ostensibly maternal tizzy.
OMG you guys! Look! We caught the NRA saying they want to use taxpayer money to give guns to kids! And now they’re trying to distance themselves from it!
Only they’re not really backpedaling at all. The video is still right here on the NRA’s YouTube channel, Shannon. Oh, and it’s still proudly featured on the NRA News site, too.
Shannon’s hissy wasn’t in vain, though. It had the desired effect, whipping up her dozens of anencephalic acolytes for whom a thought experiment is hopelessly beyond their capacity. And her post prompted some predictable responses to the video from anti-gunners for whom gun (and knife) violence — as long as it’s in pursuit of a good cause — is always warranted.
Since her followers don’t have much else to do, why not inject a little homophobia, too?
And while they’re stamping their feet and spittle’s dripping from the corners of their mouths, might as well threaten rape and murder.
Yep, Shannon’s followers are an unquestionably classy bunch.
Don’t try to let Shannon know what you think of her desire to disarm law abiding Americans, though. While the Moms’ FB page is open to all manner of supportive feedback, try to put up a comment arguing a point or disputing their logic and it will be taken down quicker than a hobo on a ham sandwich. Or a former PR exec on a billionaire’s check book.
Wow…. Yet no headlines reading “MDA followers threaten to Rape and Murder NRA spokesman and his family.”
Follow that with how insanely uneducated and grammar incompetent they are.
The content of the comments was predictable, but the real tragedy was the grammar and sentence structure! Who writes like that?
Right? I mean, usually their grammar is bad, but this one is just out the park with how bad, and rather childish it is. And they like to say we’re the uneducated ones….
Also, I just Love how the loony liberals claim to be all pro equal rights for everyone especially gay rights, yet here again we have them lashing out calling people “queer” and threatening gay rape. Once again showing their true bigot side…
Feminists. Male & female version. aka Leftist puppets.
They all think and act like spoiled 12 year olds. Read their tweets & FB posts and tell me that I’m wrong.
As such, putting them away ought to be a breeze if only we can summon the will to do so.
This reminds me of that Ricky Gervais Audi commercial.
Dang it! Wanted to hear the ending to “pig-nosed troll”.
Yet we say anything 1/10th as toxic and they’re on us like nobody’s business.
Plus if we call them out they yell ‘free speech’.
Exactly.
Passive Aggressive “semi anonymous” internet warrior syndrome.
What a bunch of little b*tches threatening like that. They cant even quote and correctly articulate their own states use of force/lethal-deadly force law. LOL.
Thank you idiots for confirming exactly why I carry to defend myself, family, loved ones, and third parties from the articulated threat of grave bodily harm, crippling injury and/or death.
Yes sir! When they ask, “What do you need an assault rifle for”, respond with a copy and paste of their own quote threatening to rape and murder, and then say, “You.”
+1
That is the ULTIMATE answer. Because it works with the drooling mothers, and all the other web fingered trolls that threaten to kill the NRA president, to kill ALL 5,000,000 NRA members, the PETA people that threaten to murder hunters and their families.
“Free speech” for everyone on their website as long as you totally agree with their agenda. Not so much if you don’t.
If I’m not mistaken, Switzerland subsidizes shooting. Why don’t we? That would improve the “General Welfare.”
And I am willing to bet that if you pulled the average Swiss, and the average American the Swiss would know how to operate a rifle, and shoot it reasonably well.
The idea of a rifle behind every blade of grass isn’t true anymore. I do think that we should teach basic rifle marksmanship in high school, using pellet rifles, as part of the physical education requirements many schools have.
a rifle behind every blade of grass
Those must have been some teeny-tiny rifles. Maybe carbines in .9mm?
Not sure if serious.
Anyways in case you are, it is a quote attributed (many consider falsely) to Japanese Admiral Yamamoto:
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
Oh, come on, Ralph takes .9mm carbines very seriously.
Not sure if serious.
Of course I’m not serious. You must have missed the coverage here of the amazing number of MSM reports about “.9mm” and “45mm” firearms that seem to plague this great country of ours.
And I’m very familiar with the “quote” that Yamamoto never said but probably wished he did.
I learned to shoot with a .22 cal rifle in grammar school courtesy of the Boy Scouts. That would have been in the late 1940’s through the late 1960’s.
.
Since the programs were well established by then, I have to presume that those programs had been in place for a long time before I came along.
Billy Johnson’s “new philosophy” was called “common sense” at the time. No free firearms but the government and the NRA subsidized public shooting activities and competition by providing instructors, ammunition, and facilities.
.
Does seem like the crime rate was lower then.
.
You were in grammar school for approximately twenty years?
One of the training courses I went to was paid for by my Gramma, and the rifle range was in a room under the bleachers of William and Mary’s football stadium (GASP! In school property!) when I was about 15, in 1961. How things have changed, and not for the better.
Interesting idea. MDA’s facebook page? Not so much. Rational discussion with the other side is deader than Billy the Kid.
The big owie to their side on this is that they can no longer pretend it’s civil discourse. It’s become just short of a bar fight. And bar fights make it pretty hard to claim moral authority-even the good guys look like drunk assholes.
I say good on him. The progressives have been using extremism to push the window of what is mainstream as far to the left as possible. Keep on talking about this and constitutional carry seems right down the middle.
I have followed Billy for a number of years. His videos are thoughtful, and in depth. no one liners or cheesy sound bites from him. He makes you think really.
The emotional vitriol from MDA is expected. Sigh… The real morons are the ones who are incapable of true debated and thought provoking discussions.
But this exactly the people they want. This is true of the democratic party in general. If you are dumb and uneducated, you are easier to fool and control. If your first reaction is always emotional, it means your not a thinking person. A person who reasons is dangerous to politicians because they see through the BS.
Billy makes you think. That’s what MDA and others on their side are afraid of most. No individual that thinks for themselves would write that dribble. As an aside on homophobic comments; what if Billy said, “yes I am gay, so what?” “I’m a person that deserves the right to self-defense too”. That poster assumes everyone thinks of homosexuals as evil just at they assume everyone thinks of guns as evil. They’re pro-equal rights as long as it gets votes, but they can’t get away from the way their views are structured (for them by the party). Any individual that thinks for themselves would allow the objective facts to dictate what is best, and despite their attempts the “fact” MDA members have feelings doesn’t make the response to those feelings right or good. MDA doesn’t want facts and free-thinking to get in the way of their fears (and funding).
“You mean you want us, the people, to pay for us, the people, to learn how to safely handle firearms? That’s sick! But the taxpayers should pay for illegal immigrants’ (aka new democrats) school, food, housing, and transportation.” We could go all day along those lines, but I’ll keep it brief.
I like how his entire speech doesn’t actually suggest such policies, but instead asks us to imagine America with them in place. And yet they probably didn’t even watch 30% of the video before they made that poster.
They didn’t watch any of the video. They just responded after seeing a tweet from twatts.
is ams rapes you, kills your, shooots ded.
I just love trying to picture the quality of these “mothers”. Maybe the real problem with this nation is not the lack of a father figure but rather a lack of competence on the mother side. It is very sad to see that people in charge of raising our next generation are so willing to swat the flies of logic with the Constitutional Bill of Rights. I guess we can only be glad that there is enough toilet paper in their homes or the “mothers” might start looking for something else.
You make a really great point that I’ve never thought of before. People often attack the lack of fathering, and rightly so, there is not enough of it… However, we should also look into mothering. Parenting as a whole is definitely a huge issue these days, because people just don’t do it.
Think about this; a single father raises a kid who ends up in jail, he was a bad father. A single mother does the same thing, he was a bad father. And on top of that, the fact that some small percentage of bad ass women manage to raise nobel prize winners without a father means that ALL women would have that same ability, if it weren’t for… yep, bad fathers.
Also as PPGMD said, teaching basic gun safety marksmanship with pellet guns in school would be a great idea. If the antis could stomach it of course. I would probably tack it onto health class requirements (they teach safe sex, why not gun safety?) with a specialized, certified instructor.
Or some kind of extracurricular class like driver’s ed. At that point it would probably be best to use .22LR instead of pellets.
I wouldn’t tack it onto PE because conventional marksmanship isn’t really a strength building sport.
Among the things we did in High School PE, there was the traditional calisthenics, soccer, flag football, and other various physical sports. But we also did archery, and dancing (partner dancing like swing, and line dancing).
Of course there was also rifle team for JROTC, but it wasn’t open. You had a be a descent shot to join.
I think pellet would be better as a no hearing protection is required, if accidents happen they aren’t major, no lead concerns, and the bullet trap required is something a school can deal with easily.
“they teach safe sex, why not gun safety?”
Wrong gun.
This is my rifle, this is my gun, one is for Japs, the other for fun. Now hold the rifle overhead with one hand and grab your penis with the other hand, and run in place. USMC WWII. You have to read “Helmet For My Pillow” by Robert Leckie.
“Helmet for My Pillow” and “With the Old Guard” should be required reading in every American school.
Leckie and Sledge are both gone now. We will never see their like again.
Perhaps the teach “safe sex” not so much about the ‘safe’ part but because that fits a promiscuous, “if it feels good, do it” moral relativist world view.
Firearms safety does not.
Many believe sex education in high schools was designed to sell abortions. It was made to make kids curious enough to make mistakes. It didn’t work as well as they wanted so they moved it into middle schools and then again in high schools. While the physical functions and some diseases are described viable birth control methods are not discussed, to the point that adult females now don’t even know the options available and how low cost they are, and the importance of sex in marriage only is never touched. I had premarital sex with my now wife and only understood the harm as an adult years later, but schools don’t want to teach it because it’s outlined in the Bible (and presumably, it doesn’t sell abortions).
So what democrat-backed program would firearm education aid? None, which is why there is just as much support from them. This is an increasingly confusing concept as well as guns are being held as “public health and safety risks”, especially when it comes to children. So guns are considered dangerous to the general population but they are completely against educating the general population on guns. It’s probably because they know the “health and safety risk” tagline is just that, a marketing tool to disarm people and not an actual medical issue. Once people are educated on guns they’d see that, but when someone doesn’t have any reference they can only listen to the message.
They claim to want open discussion and education, but what they really mean is they want to talk and they want to teach the way they see fit.
Do you have any kind of source for that irrational conspiracy crap, or do you just make it up as you go along?
I did say “many believe”, indicating it’s not my view or thoughts. Hard to make up something I didn’t think of in the first place.
—-
There is one story that is quite popular that sums up the experience of one clinic owner in Texas:
Everett explained how sex education at the earliest ages aimed at eroding in the children what she called “natural modesty.” Everything was calculated to “separate the children from their values and their parents.”
By third grade, children were shown explicit ‘how to’ diagrams of intercourse. By fourth grade, children were encouraged to masturbate, either alone or in groups of the same sex.
“My goal was to get them sexually active on a low dose birth control pill that we knew they would get pregnant on. How do you do that? You give them a low dose birth control pill that, in order to provide any level of protection, has to be taken accurately at the same time every single day. And you know and I know, there’s not a teen in the world who does everything the same time every day.”
“That pill did not work, and we could accomplish our goal of 3-5 abortions between the ages of 13 and 18,” she said.
Everett said that if the sex-education was done correctly, then when the girl becomes pregnant, she believes she has only one real choice.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/we-created-demand-for-abortion-by-pushing-sex-ed-on-kids-former-abortion-pr
Apparently Louisiana tried some legislation on this topic.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/04/14/3426413/louisiana-abortion-providers-sex-ed/
—-
Evidence from certain states or regions does not necessarily mean a systematic plan across all regions of the nation or a cohesive effort by any party or organization, it simply applies to that scenario.
Assuming it is true it goes to show, those that teach will use it to control and benefit themselves.
Gotta love how the first thing they pull is ad hominem attacks….
Well he is correct in every thing he says. I can fathem a world where guns are a need. Just look at Switzerland’s constitution.
Be careful about the whole Switzerland thing… there’s a lot of misconception from both pro and anti-gun. I’m not Swiss, but I’ve look a little bit into it. And yes, Swiss that do serve will keep their service gun at home, as well as some munition (they can’t use, it’s in case of emergency). They also do receive some ammo for regular shooting practice. But their weapons are all registered, with background check and proper teaching and training (Which IMHO isn’t a bad thing because it makes them better marksmen).
But also, it’s apparently part of their constitution, so they can bear arms, which is quite different from other countries in Europe where firearms are a privilege for sport shooting and hunting only (or close to nothing at all for some countries such the UK).
As a Pro-gun guy, I love the Billy Johnson’s thinking. The government should provide a “Gun Dotation” (like any military/LEO) that could be a conceal carry pistol, a side pistol, a shotgun, a semi-auto rifle and a long range bolt action rifle. It would cover most of situations. And of course, each person should go to the range few times a year (once a month or quarter?) to practice with government munitions. And those “armed people” could even provide help to military/LEO to guarantee safety and protection in their area, even more in case of emergency. As Oath Keepers, it’s better to wish to work with military/LEO, not against…
And we should indeed teach properly kids about guns… and not only the “fun” part. It would make them more educated about it, and surely more respectful of the law (gun owner are more inclined to obey the laws and not use guns to kill). And it would prepare them better to join ROTC/Military/LE Agencies, etc…
Also, I’m always shocked when I read articles and comments from anti-gun people… Why armed civilians would be so crazy? How is that different from any military/LEO? Because they wear a uniform… So one day you wear a uniform and you’re considered as a good guy here to save them… but the next day you’re wearing some civilian clothes and you’re considered as a crazy nut job here to kill them? I just don’t get it!
I challenged many people that I knew to entertain this thought path many years ago. I argued that the government should add to it’s growing list of handouts, a subsidized gun program or gun welfare program. They should give firearms to the “disenfranchised” who can’t afford to buy guns for protection and subsidize training and ammo for practice.
He is going down the same path that I have and when I proposed it to many people, I never heard a good counter argument. I mean we give handouts for things that are NOT basic civil rights such as health care for example. So in my mind we should hold the government responsible to provide firearms to those less fortunate and subsidize an important civil right.
My response: The government shouldn’t be handing that stuff out either.
But you and Billy Johnson (and others) are quite correct; it IS a glaring inconsistency.
I hate mandatory government involvement and I hate welfare but since I am on a loosing battle Obamaguns may be nice when the administration pushes hard enough to finally bankrupt me. Considering those on Welfare live better than I, I would imagine an Obamagun would have to be like a Wilson Combat 1911 or Nighthawk and that would be something to look forward to after they foreclose my house 😛
I get that it’s a thought experiment, designed to provoke some thought and, hopefully, some discussion among those who’ve done some thinking. Toward that end, he upends conventional thinking by bringing in line with other practices. That’s interesting and valuable, until people start taking the experiment for a means to an end, rather than as an end in itself, and start actually promoting government support of firearms. That’s dangerous.
Consider the education example he cites. In the name of preserving access to education, we’ve created an education-industrial complex suckling from government, one rife with liberal dogma, underqualified matriculants, uneducated graduates, and highly indebted participants. Thanks, government.
Similarly, in the name of the American Dream and securing the blessings of homeownership, we likewise hijacked a thriving sphere of society until saturation subsidization wrecked our economy. Thanks, government.
Preserving access to natural resources has produced an overzealous and Kafkaesque regulatory scheme that thwarts employment for many thousands and stifles responsible extraction of energy from many areas of our country. Thanks, government.
Consider any other major field of human endeavour and assess for yourselves how well the government performs as noble, social steward. Commandeering of its direction and corruption of its purpose in aid of government aims is the norm.
The Second Amendment enshrines the concept that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It preserves choice. Advocating government promotion of the shooting sports or self defense necessarily advocates a reimagination of the amendment, one mandating that the obligation to keep and bear arms shall be imposed. That’s an antithetical interpretation of a right. Worse than transforming a God-given right into a state-approved privilege, is its transformation into a state-sponsored inducement or compulsion.
Jonathan – Houston, Your examples of govt. ineptitude are great. I would just like to point out one minor detail. The examples you cite are areas where there is no Constitutional foundation for the govt. to even be involved. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution and the govt. is responsible for the national defense, so the two do go together. Therefore, under the Constitution, govt. encouraging all citizens to be armed and providing weapons and ammo would be allowed.
Cordially,
David
…taken down quicker than a hobo on a ham sandwich. WTF? We going anti-Hobo?
When does Farago get back?
How about taken down quicker than an IRS email on a tax exempt organization policy…
quicker than John Kerry can make a flaccid statement…quicker than Eric Holder can not investigate himself… quicker than 40 people get shot in Chicago…quicker than Shannon Watts can glug down 16 ozs of sugar free liquid..quicker than Michael Bloomberg can think of ways to rule the world…quicker than you can change a liberty into a privilege.
why not push this to fox news or the daily caller “Bloomberg-owned and funded interest group advocates for male rape, murder and bloodshed!”
let’s make his life uncomfortable in certain social circles
Seems like riziablaadjes is part of the brain trust. I think my Sheltie has more going on upstairs than this poster.
I wonder if Billy Johnson is referring to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Not exactly a new idea.
I know it well. A good plan, add in about a billion bucks a year and it could be great. And the NRA knows all about the CMP, trust me.
“Can you conceive of a world in which we deal with guns as a need rather than an problem to be regulated and controlled?”
The Founding Fathers already did — all one has to do to confirm it is pick up a US History book. I have to wonder if US History is even being taught nowadays as so many people don’t seem to understand the 2nd Amendment or the pivotal role firearms played (and still play) in the US’ formation affording people the lifestyles they obviously take for granted.
I don’t recall the exact year, call it early 2000’s, the most highly recommended high school history book began US history with Susan B. Anthony.
I’d wager it has gone further downhill since then.
Look at reviews and comments for an AP History test prep text book from 2010:
http://www.amazon.com/United-States-History-Preparing-Examination/dp/1567656609
Those are some comments that should NEVER be imagined applying to an Advanced Placement test prep course.
The NEA. Rewriting history one page at a time. What did the B stand for in Susan B. Anthony? Anyone…Foghorn…
“… anencephalic acolytes …”
Nice. 🙂
Jonathan-Houston, I’m with ya buddy. You said,
“The Second Amendment enshrines the concept that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It preserves choice. Advocating government promotion of the shooting sports or self defense necessarily advocates a reimagination of the amendment, one mandating that the obligation to keep and bear arms shall be imposed. That’s an antithetical interpretation of a right. Worse than transforming a God-given right into a state-approved privilege, is its transformation into a state-sponsored inducement or compulsion.”
You see, that’s exactly the kind of thought process that I hope this ends up at. By questioning the entitlement mentality which tries to claim every civil right (and a whole lot more) as something the government should provide, then why does it not pertain to all civil rights? See where I’m going with this?
I believe that Billy is doing the same thing.
And Shannon and her ilk wonder why we don’t want to have a “conversation” with them? Not much of a conversation when Shannon’s folks are threatening to kill you. “Do what I want or I’ll kill you” is the message Shannon appears to approve. Who’s the real bully?
You know, why aren’t pro gunners threatening to shoot and kill anti gun people like hardly ever if ever? I think I am more afraid of someone against a gun than someone that is for it. I wonder how many of the anti gun crowd would actually pass the mental health requirements to own one…. but then again maybe that’s exactly why they’re so against them…
I know exactly what your talking about. Everyone that is anti gun has that “fanatical look” in their eyes… You can see it, its the same look you see when you look into the eyes of Bin Laden. You can just tell their waiting for someone to lead them into some violent fanatical campaign against the American way. These types usually end up behind bars eventually, and rightly so.
Never forget that so-called Progressives are all about violence and do little to hide it. While they prefer to have their violence done by proxy (via the State), comments like these show how close to the surface it is and that some may be willing to enact it directly on those who refuse to see things their way.
Watch Moms Demand Helplessness continue to try to tie your freedom to evil capitalism.
Nice of the MDA sycophants to demonstrate that the RBKA is necessary, in a very immediate sense for self-defense, because there are such people who wish death and mayhem on us, merely for exercising our first-amendment rights.
inject a little homophobia, too? Stop using moronic libtard non-words.
Homophobia, fear of homogenized milk.
Dont forget the show me your tits branch based in texas. A sick twisted group of astroturfs.
“8th grade kid has a bully, Ill steal daddys gun and take it to school and kiII him because now I know how to shoot one and its ok.”
But. But. But. I’m just sure I’ve heard somewhere that teaching an 8th grader how to use a condom doesn’t mean they’re *going to* and that it’s ok.
So teaching them how to safely handle firearms does?
Man, that’s weird.
I think its funny that after all their wasted efforts, our 2a rights are expanding little by little.
Help make the anti-gunners heads esploded…. click over to Youtube and thumbs-up the video.
Mom’s don’t allow dissent or opposing discussions? Doesn’t surprise me, I seem to have been banned from the “Being Liberal” FB page. Seems to be the modus operandi for these groups.
To honor and commemorate the little group of mda,
I just picked up my first Mosin Nagant rifle.
Geez, it felt like 2 years ago. Rifle, ammo, cleaning kit, oiler, ammo pouches for a whopping 75 bucks.
Then I picked up 4,000 rounds of .22 ammo.
Take that shannon!
I’ve been sharpening my teeth on feminists for a few weeks, just for practice. I’ll be ready to take on the #Gunsense spinsters with a lot of new & improved material.
Your article is right on point.
I like Billy’s videos and his thought experiment is a good one. Why not have gun safety and marksmanship promoted in public schools? Why not have a gov’t subsidized ranges where citizens can shoot for free with ammunition provided for free for the purpose of training people and promoting safety (maybe you would get a “federal public safety tax credit”?)
The closest example I can think of are high school Kalashnikov teams yah have competitions to field strip / assemble a rifle or The Swiss mandatory service programs.
Sounds like a cool thought experiment to me!
So when do we get Billy on to a ballot for Congress?
When I was in high school we were all taught safety and shooting in the Rifle Club. Can you imagine the shitstorm if that existed today?
I love how the antis will threaten to rape and murder somebody, then in the same breath ask “Why does anyone need a gun in America?”
let’s see..
>Ralph says:
>July 27, 2014 at 18:41
>Not sure if serious.
>Of course I’m not serious. You must have missed the coverage here of the amazing number of MSM >reports about “.9mm” and “45mm” firearms that seem to plague this great country of ours.
>And I’m very familiar with the “quote” that Yamamoto never said but probably wished he did.
45mm?? where you getting a 177 caliber? please do tell… I want 2 or 3, Wisconsin Mosquitos are REALLY huge… that .9 mm is pretty small though…. I think ya ment 9 MM and .45 Cal 😛
In any sense, we need common sense… if rights to guns where taken today, tomorrow you shut the heck up, because tomorrow it would be right to free speech that they take, and the next day freedom of religion… If nobody wants to kill me, I want to kill nobody, but once we start taking away rights, it’s a short step from “Some people use guns to kill, let’s take guns away so everybody (that is not the elite) is equal.” to “Some people force their beliefs on me, let’s take away that and have one government endorsed belief system so everybody (but the elite) is equal.” problem is that soon, only the wealthy have rights…. I may not choose to carry a gun with me all the time in my small and safe little town where everybody knows everybody, but the point is that our constitution says. I have the right to if I should choose to… let’s keep it that way.
It’s always strange how when MDA or other anti-gun orgs say something we don’t like sometimes the lesser of us rain down on them with insults such as: idiots, morons, statists, socialists, etc. But, when we say something they don’t like – it’s always: die fXXXXX, he should be shot, shoot yourself in the face, someone should rape and murder you, death, death, die, I want to kill you, etc.
I have come to the conclusion that it is us that are tolerant people. If they don’t want guns – fine. They don’t want to own guns – fine. I’m not forcing them to the gun range. But if we have guns then… bad. We don’t need high capacity. Why do you need that? What are you going to use it for? That doesn’t have any sporting purpose. Ban guns! It is them that wants to take guns from us. They are the intolerant ones. We are promoting freedom and rights and they are promoting rules and restrictions and legislative penalties over victimless crime. -And they will fight tooth and nail to spoon feed their opinion blanket wide over all the United States.
Shannon Watts, MDA
Tweeted June 10th 2014 0928
“I’ll be pretty clear on this. @MikeBloomberg and I want guns gone. Period. It doesn’t matter what it takes.”
Comments are closed.