https://youtu.be/CNb34vPqrN0

Over at nj.com, GKWtheRealist posted the following comment underneath ‘Call for ban on AR-15 ammunition another act of harassing law-abiding gun owners: Letter’ –  “Ammunition AND GUNS should be banned except for use by law enforcement and LICENSED security guards . For those who are hunters, paraticipate in another sport and get another hobby (it’s 2015 – take a computer course!). For home defense, have an alarm system installed that’s connected to the police department and buy a taser. And for legislators at the federal and state level, increase the penalty for gun possession that includes a very large fine.” Do you know anyone like this? Or do the antis you’ve known and loved ascribe to the “ban bad people from having guns” Trojan horse school of civilian disarmament?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

88 COMMENTS

  1. Most relocated New Yorkers and ex-Kalifornistan residents who then move to pro 2A states.

    • On the flip side, you have us pro-gun political refugees leaving their homes to move to a freer land.

  2. what an a******! Haven’t these people look at countries like Russia? guns have been banned there for years same with Mexico but yet the criminals still have guns??? Go figure, if you take guns away from law abiding citizens criminals still have them!! You are a freaking retard! If you believe banning guns is going to solve any problems whatsoever!

    • (You are a freaking retard if you believe banning guns is going to solve any problems whatsoever!)

      Fixed.

    • “You are a freaking retard if you…..”

      I personally know 2 people who suffer from genuine forms of “retardation”(1 mental, 1 physical) that would be offended to know they were being compared to the guy in the video. They also VERY likely contribute much more to society than that looney.

  3. My ex had an uncle while we were dating who committed suicide by cop. He didn’t have a criminal history or anything he was just depressed. She hates the thought of guns ever since, and the rest of her family did before that even happened. They were from Ct, so go figure.

    I never tried to debate anything with them, they’d drag me down to their level of stupidity and beat me with experience.

    • I was tallying up the number of cartoon leopards for same, but yours is better. Either way, get that man a fur felt fedora and a pimp cane, and he has a whole new career path opening up before him.

    • I’m surprised the discourse your banner friend is capable of cab be called “debate.”

  6. People who are squeamish or against the idea of owning guns? Yes. Actual antis who stand up for their beliefs and get involved in their cause? No.

    That’s our advantage. We are fighting for our life, liberty, and property. They just BM about things they do not understand.

  7. A whole bunch in CT. I assume they’re still on the other side of that bridge I burned all those years ago.

    • PS. I like how Captain Clown suggests you buy a taser. In NJ.
      A lot of morons in CT and MA offer up the same suggestion (taser or pepper spray) completely oblivious to the crimes you are committing in those states for having one of these suggested evil-gun alternatives.

      It highlights the fact that they know not of what they speak. If only they would take each others advice and all get locked away and lose their right to vote.

      • They also rarely(if ever) take into account the fast recovery time from a tazer. If you taze someone in your home they can recover well before the 911 dispatch call can go out leaving them plenty of time to kill/fight/run before the cops show up UNLESS you restrain them somehow.

        Wanna guess how many laws and liabilities that could open up in court?

        “Justice” system, my A$$.

      • It also highlights why you need to stop the “disarmament treadmill” here and now, before it picks up any speed. Where ordinary people having real weapons is a non-issue, you don’t have to worry much about the status of alternatives. If you look at places that ban guns, you’ll also generally find that not only are all methods of self-defense restricted, but people have to live in fear of being criminalized for carrying ordinary objects the government has arbitrarily decreed to be weapons. See for example NYC and so-called “gravity knives” or the TSA in general.

  8. Don’t like using fossil fuels?
    Don’t own a car.

    Don’t like eating meat?
    Don’t eat any.

    Don’t like abortion?
    Don’t have one.

    Don’t like gay marriage?
    Don’t go to the wedding.

    Don’t like guns?
    Don’t buy, use, or own any.

    I won’t intrude on your freedom if you don’t intrude on mine. See how easy that is?

    • It’s not that simple. Fossil fuels, as you call them, are a source of far more products than just gasoline.
      For instance, the polymer firearms we love would not exist without petroleum, and without the volume needed to keep the nasty motor vehicles fed, your bargain Glock would be much more expensive than metal-framed guns due to materials costs.

      The rest of your analogies don’t go very far either, but that’s a case for another day.

      • I believe that making plastic out of fossil fuels usually produces much less pollution than burning it in an internal combustion engine. So that point seems weak to me. We need fossil fuels for now to drive our economy. But we need to find more and better ways to use them without producing as much pollution as they do. That technology has come a long with with automobiles, trucks and even some diesel machinery but could still be improved on. And of course we could have the whole CO2/Global warming discussion. But probably not enough room here for that. 😉

      • What a bunch of tripe. At best your nonsense suggests that we might go back to all-metal firearms.

        Oh, and polymers are being made from natural plant products and have been for years. It happens to be a rather active area of research. Who knows what industrial processes would open up in the future if the economic balance of cheap petroleum shifts.

        Good grief. I’m not sure your point could get more narrow minded if tunnel vision was a goal you worked at and cultivated for years.

    • All of those (yes, even firearms) carry negative externalities. Want to live in a world where one man’s rights have zero impact whatsoever, ever, on anyone else? Fine. Go find your own land, and lots of it, an found your own nationvwith a population of one.

      Want to have it both ways and live in such a world, but with a population greater than one? Fine. Let’s all hop on your herd of unicorns and ride the rainbow road that leads to your magical land of make-believe.

      Such utterly simplistic worldviews will never advance our cause. It’s like the guy in the video believing that violence will cease if only we ban guns and everything sharp, and teach everyone to be kind.

  9. I was giving a class on the 2nd Amendment in my Civics class. When I was done a female student said I had changed her opinion (guns are bad) on gun ownership. I know a lot of teachers that own guns. I avoid talking to banners.

    • NJ has undisputed claim to the height of ridiculousness in weapons law.

      It is a felony to possess a slingshot in NJ.

      If that – by itself – is not ridiculousness enough, you need to know how the NJ legislature came to bar the humble slingshot. It’s all entirely rational you see. The bill began with a provision to ban the slUngshot; a black-jack on a handle suitable for assaulting strikers and similar applications. Some typographer decided that slUngshot was a misspelling; which was duly corrected before the bill was passed banning the humble slingshot.

      You will be relieved to know that it remains perfectly legal to keep and bear a slUngshot throughout the Garden State.

  11. Move to one of those countries that bans guns and take your hand bag with you. You idiot you.

  12. Yes, I know only of one. An acquaintance of mine that lives in Chicago (big surprise I know) that is actually a gun owner, and thinks all guns should be banned, period. He’s ultra left wing, and stated the following..

    “Individual ownership of arms is outdated, and eventually the government will have the ability to beam rays from satellites based in space that will automatically make everyone passive, so gun ownership is pointless…”

    Yeah… A whole lot of wrong with him. I’ve argued every single point he’s ever made into the ground and he eventually just stops talking.

  13. I live and work in Chicago. So, yes. And a lot of them. My favorite is my friend who touts that her father worked for the ATF whenever the subject of gun control comes up. Like it gives her some kind of bona fides on the subject.

  14. No, I don’t know any weak-kneed hoplophobes like that, and if I did it wouldn’t be for long.

    Life is too short to deal with @ssh0les.

  15. I’m from Canada……so I’m surrounded by them unfortunately. Where I’m located, an interest in firearms is akin to having leprosy, syphilis, and a mental illness.

  16. My ex despises guns. Not in an “I want to ban them” kind if way, she doesn’t complain about me carrying my pistol, but in a “I won’t touch one” kind of way. Her reasons are pretty personal, but it really bugs me because she lives in a bad area and flat out refuses to have anything more dangerous than pepper spray.

  17. “For home defense, have an alarm system installed that’s connected to the police department …”

    Anytime folks mention relying on the police I go through the precedents:

    – Ballesteri vs Pacifica PD
    – Riss vs The City of New York
    – Castle Rock vs Gonzales
    – Warren vs DC

    and for folks in CA, California government code 845 which states:
    845. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
    failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide
    police protection service or, if police protection service is
    provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection
    service.

    Tends to be a bit of an eye opener explaining that the police do not have to send anyone in response to a 911 call…

    • I worked for three alarm companies in my lifetime. Home burglar and panic alarms are not worth the money. Police departments are often inundated with false alarms, so these alarms are often pushed to the bottom of the dispatch queues. Most big alarm companies have more customers than the capacity of their alarm centers, which delays response times. It will likely take several minutes for an alarm to reach an alarm center, and if an alarm center is well staffed, it will take another 2 minutes before the initial call is made to the police. If understaffed, it will take much more time to dispatch the police. In other words, expect at least a 4 minute wait from the time you press the panic button to the time the police are called…who will probably assume it is a false alarm anyway. You are better off calling the police directly.

      • “Home burglar and panic alarms are not worth the money.” I understand the facts you recite; they make sense. At the typical rate of $30.00/month for central station service I agree that they are expensive. My service costs only $13.00/month.
        Given the timings you recite I have no illusion of the cops arriving in time to bail-me-out. I’d only hope that the alarm will wake me up in time to reach for my gun and then encourage the home invader to consider whether he wants to stick around trapped between two sources of fire. The central station is a back-up in case I don’t call 911 myself.
        When I’m away from home there is no one to respond at all without a central-station monitored alarm. That’s really where the monthly cost seems justified.
        Admittedly, my experience is confined to one user in a community of 5,000 where the police station was less than 2 miles from my house. The cops showed up pretty promptly to each false alarm.
        Your experience doubtlessly includes major metropolitan areas where response is apt to be inconsistent at best. Kindly consider writing up a relatively extensive discussion of the merits and limitations of central station monitoring and any suggestions you might offer.

  18. Wait-Did I hear you correctly-This guy in Chicago OWNS guns but thinks all guns should be banned? Except his I guess. This guy is some piece of, well, let’s just say work.

  19. I have had lengthy discussions with one guy here that “did not see any reason for 30-round magazines”, but he was amenable to reason (he’s a Vietnam Marine vet). I had a lengthy discussion with him about the Declaration of Independence being the founding legal document of the USA, and how the 2nd Amendment must be read in the context of the only DUTY mentioned in the Declaration: “… when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” He was not exactly happy about it, but he did admit that I was right.

    On the other hand, I knew a total hoplophobe many years ago when I lived in the PRCa, and I had lengthy discussions with him about crime rates and gun ownership, the total ineffectiveness of the drug laws in preventing illegal drug use (and the failure of gun laws in keeping criminals from getting guns), and the basic human right of self-defense. He was unable to counter any of my points logically, and he finally got down to his basic level of belief on guns: “I just don’t like guns.”

    I then pointed out that I did not like Brussels sprouts, but I wasn’t trying to ban their consumption by other people. He was never willing to discuss the issue with me after that, so maybe I at least got him to realize that his anti-gun stance was emotional, not rational.

    • Guns tend to be such a hot-button issue that most middle-of-the-road kinds of folks avoid the subject. One day the subject of magazine capacity came up with someone Not From Here. I got the I-own-a-gun-but . . . comment that ended with him explaining that nobody needed 30 round magazines. I smiled and simply asked, “and how do you know that”? He seemed genuinely surprised that I didn’t see the inescapable logic in his comment. But then he also had no answer for my very simple question. Turned out he’d never given any thought at all to how many rounds one might need in an armed confrontation. Most people’s involvement with gun issues is about as shallow as this guy’s naive comment.

    • I’m left less than satisfied by the Brussel sprouts argument when framed in some-such NON-threatening context. We need to take care to make this argument in a POWERFUL frame so that it isn’t summarily dismissed.
      The frame that seems most powerful to me is that we think nothing of driving a 72.0 calibre 2-ton destructive device down the highway at 65 MPH with nothing more than a yellow line separating ourselves from millions of unknown drivers in the opposite lane similarly armed. (Professionals’ devices in the opposite lane weigh up to 40 tons and often carry explosive cargos).
      Many drivers in the opposing lane are: teenagers; elderly; DWI; convicted of numerous traffic offenses; in a state-of-rage; . . .
      Still, we persist in driving our highways and walking on sidewalks with absolutely no effective means of defense against these threats. Drivers’ licenses are on a Shall-Issue basis. One must really screw-up badly before his license is suspended. Suspension of a driver’s license for life is practically unheard of. Even the penalty for driving without a license isn’t especially harsh. All without benefit of any explicit Constitutional guarantee of a right to drive a motor vehicle on highways.
      In the face of a century of carnage from this lightly-regulated practice of widespread licensing of drivers, why have our legislators done so little to constrain the privilege of driving to government employees and the chauffeurs of men-of-means? What of the rights of motorphobics?
      I’m looking for still-more-powerful framings then my own.

        • “I am going to shamelessly steal that – great argument!” You are not authorized to seal my argument until you can contribute a still better one.

  20. Personally no, but quite a few commenters here at TTAG fall into that bucket or one very similar.

  21. Hmmmm… I know the chairman of a local county Dem Party. She’s a customer and a pretty good friend. She owned a .380 but recently sold it because her hands got too weak to rack the slide without undue effort. I told her to get a revolver and she is considering it. But she also worked to get Wendy Davis and any number of other gun-grabbing politicos put into office. So I guess I know a gun-grabber once removed or something like that. We don’t talk about politics.

    • So she thinks guns are fine. For her, at least. And for you, for now. But the rest of us? She’ll sell us down the river without a second thought.

      She’s not your friend. You’re merely useful to her. She thinks you can be bought for a few pieces of silver. Well, are you a whore or not?

      • Don’t forget the guy she sold her .380 to–he’s apparently OK too. Seriously, you are surly, aren’t you? Like I say, we don’t talk politics. She didn’t even tell me which party she belonged to until after the last election (but her donkey key fob had already kind of clued me in). We talk about music and old movies and jokes and family stuff. So yes, she’s my friend.

  22. I used to but after that unfortunate boating accident I no longer…hey wait a second. Wrong thread…sorry my bad.

  23. I know a few who are like that, most are fairly open minded though.

    The two who were the least open minded were MDA, stay at home mom types, who thought boringa few children was resume’ enough to discuss guns and gun laws. No surprise there.

  24. I think a few of my relatives are probably in that extreme. I haven’t brought it up, and I no longer follow their feeds on facebook since it was giving me heartburn.

  25. Yeah I know a dyed in the wool ultra liberal commie progressive NYC tranny who hates cops, hates soldiers, and thinks that guns should be outright banned and everyone should be disarmed, including police. At least the dialogue is consistent, so I’ll give her credit there.

  26. The guy being interview is obviously either brainwashed, an idiot or has mental health issues. His positions make no sense and he disputes any facts to the contrary. Unbelievable that folks like this exist.

  27. My ex-wife hates guns. But, after finding her boss/boyfriend in his office one morning after he killed himself with a gun, I think I know why. He was a selfish, egomanic, idiot from what I have heard. And that pretty much sums up many folks who take their own lives in many cases. At least the selfish, ego driven part. But the bottom line is that it was not the gun’s fault and he probably would have found another method if that one had not been available. Idiotic to blame the tool IMO.

  28. Yeah I also live in Chicagoland so I know quite a few. Most are black and decidedly pro-odumbo and dumbocrat. My own ex-military(police) and spy for the DoD son thinks gun ownership should be quite limited. Of the many girlfriends and wives I’ve had I can’t think of a single one who was anti….and my extremely left-wing brother who lives in the gun-land of central Florida. He lived in Europe for many years and thinks England and Holland are swell. Poland not so much…and I would NEVER be with a woman who was anti-gun ownership. Life is too short…

  29. “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

  30. Most people in my circle know me as “that guy” when it comes to gun control. If you open your mouth in support of gun control you better hope you brought your A game for the debate because the numbers, facts and figures are coming in PILES. The willfully ignorant or purposefully deceitful have no place in my life. Several of my friends have enlisted me from time to time when dealing with belligerent antis as well.

    As for customers or professional acquaintances, I deal with them on a case by case basis that ranges from ignoring/refusing to discuss the issue to asking/telling them to leave depending on stance and situation. I refuse to conduct myself in a less than professional manner but I won’t be walked over either.

    Truthfully, I’ve made more REAL friends in life and in business this way than I have enemies.

    Sometimes being “that guy” isn’t such a bad thing after all.

  31. Most of those I know personally are Fudds. or just misinformed – tough to drill past the misinformation like “who needs more than 10 rounds”.

    Well what difference does it make? You can swap a magazine in seconds anyways.

    “see, so if you can swap the magazine, then it’s no hardship and we should ban more than 10 rounds!”

    and there’s always the “Well why do we need so MANY guns” types.

    Well this gun is for partridge, this one’s for concealed carry, this one’s for deer hunting…

    “I don’t need to go through an Inventory of them!”

    But you asked why I needed so many; so, without running through the whole inventory, I need so many because each has a different purpose!(that one was my ex-wife.)

    • “Why do we need so MANY”

      My answer is always “because I didn’t have one of those yet” over and over again until they get the idea.

    • The logical answer to the 15 – 10 – . . . round magazine argument didn’t occur to me until I took my nephew to the range with a .22 single-shot “Cricket”. It seemed to me that it would be no trick to maintain a rate-of-fire of at least 3 rounds per minute assuming no practice. That rate-of-fire is sufficient to yield 20+ victims before the police could arrive.
      Regardless of the number of rounds allowed in a magazine such a limitation can easily be overcome with multiple guns. Given the determination of crazy people and the relatively low price of guns, there is no difficulty reaching a 30-round capacity with five revolvers.
      Magazine capacity is simply barking-up-the-wrong tree.

  32. I have met Kevin De Leon a couple of times, does that count?
    Seriously though…
    What we are seeing here is a distinct utopian projection. If we just ban them all and go door to door and take them away, all will be solved. This is a nanny state mentality on steroids. The only problem is, it doesn’t work. In order to achieve such a Orwellian Utopia, the individual must completely surrender themselves to the governing body, what ever that may be. All power to control must be handed over without question. Sadly this particular individual is blinded. They believe in the benevolence of the leviathan. Unfortunately history has taught us that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
    What we will find at the end of this surrender is a dystopia from which the individual can not escape. They say ignorance is bliss, but you can only bury your head in the sand for so long before it is painfully aware that you have lost everything. The founding fathers understood this idea. Those fighting for constitutional rule of law understand the dangers involved with the all controlling government. The individual here is a lost cause.

    • Just ask them a simple question. “You want to take away our guns? Are you willing to kill me — or have someone kill me, on your behalf — to get my guns?”

      Either they haven’t thought things through — because they’re ignorant, or stupid, or just plain intellectually lazy — or they’re willing to have you killed. In either case, you will have learned a valuable lesson about what sort of person they are and can take appropriate action.

      • I agree that you have hit upon the S-or-get-off-the-Pot question. Will you come to my door – unarmed – and demand that I disarm? Will you send your police? If you summon him, will he come – knowing that he might not return home safely? Will you send him? Yes of course! Will you accept responsibility for the outcome?
        Our last civil war cost 600,000 American lives; will you up the anti?

  33. Re: the video,
    Picking on the mentally handicapped who were obviously dressed by their mother before they escaped from the looney bin may not help the cause quite as much as we’d like.

  34. My cousin has a PhD in economics and teaches at an Ivy league school.
    He usually says “we are only common sense gun laws” but will occasional blurt his honest endgame — total ban on civilian ownership.

    What is amazing is he is an educated guy, a PhD, adamant on the issue — and also certain US gun murder is up. On new years two months ago when he mentioned US gun murder being up, I simply said “I believe it is down.”

    he said: “You just need to look at the news to know it is up.”

    This is a highly educated person, a social scientist who works with numbers, and he is literally inverting the core metric of the issue.

    Flat earth inversion of the main trend. In fact US gun murder has plummeted and the 2014 numbers how per capita it is approaching 1/3 the rate we had at the 1992 peak and are already at a 100 year low.

    • A doctorate does not equal intelligence or sense. I know as I have a brother with a doctorate. A medical degree is much more impressive. YMMV…

    • PhD. = Piled high and Deep, for some folks. I have one in the family that way too. My lady also has a relative who has as much admitted that even if she had firearm, she would not use it to defend her husband or children.

      For these two eggheads, I wear my Government Model in an OWB holster, cocked and locked. IWB at all other times…easier to conceal that way.

  36. I want to ban modern liberalism. All liberals should be forced to register their ideas with the government, and pay a tax to keep possession of each thought. If they don’t, the government should kick down the door in the middle of the night and take possession if those thoughts. Those thoughts should be locked up in different rooms with a key hidden in a seperate location. This should help protect our children from the most dangerous thing in America.

    Also, liberals cannot possess those thoughts in public (openly or concealed) or in a “liberalism-free zone.”

  37. My neighbor is one of those “ban all guns” people. He actually thinks it would be better if only cops and criminals (yes, CRIMINALS!) were the ones who had guns. To top if off, he’s retired Army. The only good part is that he and I can discuss the topic openly and without any hostility whatsoever. And we agree to disagree. Well, unless he’s had a few beers, then he gets a little extra mouthy, lol.

    • Does he have a “Gun Free Zone” sign in his front yard, or is he not happy with putting safety where his mouth is?

  38. That is one of the more painful videos I have seen in a while.

    Aside from his awesome leopard print coat, he is about a crazy as they get.

    But….it sounds like he has conjured the spirit of Shannon Watts and the hundred or so “moms” that follower her.

  39. I don’t know many that openly talk about it, but the ones that do are mostly of the “lets have a conversation, you need to compromise” variety.

  40. too bad in Ma tasers and other electric self defense weapons are “not part of the second amendment”.

  41. Again.

    Newark, Camden, Trenton, AC.

    Aside from VERY special circumstances, nobody should be carrying a gun in any of these cities, right? Since it’s against the law? So there shouldn’t be any gun violence?

    What gets me is that idiots like this actually think that bans or penalties will gain them any more security. Do you seriously think a ban or heavy fine is going to scare somebody with nothing to lose?

    Remember- not all places in NJ have local PD, and some have police response times that are very high.

  43. I want to scoop this guys eyeballs out with a spoon. Then we’ll see what he thinks about weapons. Also, if the government sucks so much, how will banning anything help anything?

  44. I sometimes run into people like that when travelling out of state, but not often in Texas. Austin is the exception. Even a seemingly harmless Halloween party last year was the scene of some discussion. Someone’s costume included a little plastic toy snubbie revolver, which they kept referring to as a Glock…..

    Just for conversation, I mentioned that it more closely resembled what they used to derisively call a “Saturday night special” back in the day. Instantly, I was the “gun nut”, and it was on. Have to be cool about it in those situations, though.

    In here? It’s full grown men and women, usually pretty well informed, and animated debates are par for the course. Most everyone’s up for it and it’s not personal. Out there? You can be dealing with man-children. Guys who have no idea what they’re talking about, but do so with such anger and energy and tenuous self-control, that I’m glad they don’t carry a firearm. Filtered through the prism of their own irrational, emotional volatility, it’s no wonder they don’t trust anyone else to carry one.

    Still, these are people who are friends/coworkers of friends, and you’re a guest. Have to represent, as the kids say, but hold your tongue some, too; especially at some of the mind numbingly stupid things these antis say. Ban knives? Glad I didn’t hear that one. No way I could’ve kept it together.

  45. In my dictionary the word “cunt” has a secondary meaning: (n) contemptible person. This label would fit this gentleman better than his ratty leopardskin coat. His feeble views and arrogant yet pitiful self belief render him incapable of grasping many central realties. I would not allow him to carry a pointy stick in self defense, let alone a dangerous firearm he would be unable to use effectively.

  46. I wonder about his diversion on the safety of tableware. If knives and forks are too potentially deadly, maybe a spork could be the new standard of mealtime cutlery. Maybe with one sharpened edge. But only plastic, and disposable, into a sealed container that could be recycled. How fine would your dining be after that?

  47. In one right now with my ex and my sister. I guess there’s an image on Facebook that more women wee killed than soldiers in Iraq. I happened to comment perhaps it’s because the soldiers could shoot back. And we’ve been on a roll ever since. It’s tragic. Because these are intelligent women who on this one issue are vociferously stone cold stupid. And they are family so messing with them is just plain fun

  48. The interviewer should have thanked the nut-case, and then wrapped the mic cord around his neck, shouting ‘maybe we oughta ban street interviews too’.

  49. This gentlmen is insane to the point of entertaining.

    But he interestingly refers to American society as “Jonestown”. These folks were famously thought to have “drank the kool-aid” laced with cyanide in a mass suicide. Yet in reality this was a mass murder, because most of the people who died were easily FORCED to drink the kool aid at GUNPOINT because they were DISARMED by their “rulers” and couldn’t fight back. So unintentional wisdom has come forth from Mr. CrazyMan.

    I find myself agreeing with him that the only solution to the problem is to teach peace love and understanding. He’s right. I’m ALL IN for peace love and understanding and teaching it, but the gun on my hip is to account for people who AREN’T all in for peace love and understanding and don’t want to learn it.

    -D

Comments are closed.