Dear Mr. Farago and Dr. Romano:

On behalf of the Richard G. Lugar Academy, I am very pleased to invite you both to be session speakers on the topic of Gun Control at the 37th Annual Richard G. Lugar Symposium for Tomorrow’s Leaders at the University of Indianapolis on Saturday, December 7, 2013. The Gun Control session description sent out in our student invitations is the following:

Gun Control. Opponents of stricter control of firearms generally worry about infringement of the Constitutional right to bear arms, while proponents argue that restrictions on weapons like assault rifles and high capacity magazines could have mitigated the damage of recent mass shootings. Should assault rifles be banned, or should their ownership be constitutionally protected? What weapons should not be constitutionally protected? Some observers note that Americans’ views on gun ownership tend to split on a rural/urban divide. What are the differences between life in a city and life in the country that might make people feel differently about gun laws and gun ownership? Should gun laws be flexible enough to suit the unique nature of each locality, or does the constitutional right to bear arms override local prerogative? . . .

Typically, the format for Lugar Symposium sessions features two experts presenting opposing viewpoints, followed by an informal discussion. The discussion is meant to showcase how to have civil discussions on tough issues.

You are invited to attend a speaker’s lunch, which starts at 12:30 p.m. The first student session lasts from 1:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and the second student session lasts from 3:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Senator Lugar will join you at the speaker lunch to thank you for your time and commitment to the Lugar Symposium.

More than 15,000 promising high school students have participated in the Lugar Symposium over the years, gaining wisdom, insight, and access to some of the finest minds available. Thank you for helping the Lugar Academy ensure that the Symposium becomes one of Senator Lugar’s most enduring legacies.

Thank you for considering this request. I will follow up with a phone call soon to see if you can accept our invitation. We look forward to your response.

Most sincerely,

Lara Mann

—
Lara Mann
Executive Director, Richard G. Lugar Academy

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

126 COMMENTS

    • He looked quite bored about halfway through, and was about to fall asleep just before he was cut off at the end. Also, I don’t think he took more than one breath throughout the entire clip.

  5. I doubt it needs to be said but… Research everything about you opponents background. I would also bring visuals graphing violence, guns, and DGUs.

    • “the youth are the future” Another quote – “The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.” Socrates (469-399 B.C.)

    • “Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.” – Thomas Sowell

  7. conflict resolution has a great and illustrious history of success. consider, e.g., chamberlain and hitler at munich. or begin and carter at camp david. or oslo. in fact, if anyone can suggest a single failure of conflict resolution, i would be interested.

        • that would be TINSTAAFL. It is actually “there AIN ‘T no such thing as a free lunch”. as immortalized by the great prophet ra heinlein in the Moon is a harsh mistress

        • Sorry, I have better grammar than Robert Heinlein, or at least better than a certain professor. But I did love Moon is a Harsh Mistress, even if it did have sort of a sad ending.

  11. Robert – Fair warning – they describe it as “The Gun Control session …”

    You know what the bias of the moderator will be. Brace yourself, and be ready for the moderator to cut you off when you look like you are winning on any point. You might want to look at the date, and be ready for a surprise attack. You might also want to mention Pearl Harbor as an example of a national lack of situational awareness.

    Of course, given the state of public education it is probably a mistake to assume that any high school student has ever heard of Pearl Harbor or December 7, 1941.

    • As much as they tried to hide it, you could see the bias in the moderator in them referring to “assault rifles” and “high capacity magazines” rather than “modern design rifles” and “30 round magazines”

      • Unfortunately, before the AWB that’s how they were marketed — as “assault weapons.”

        The antis didn’t coin the term, and we are stuck with it.

    • Of course the children have heard of Pearl Harbor and December 7, 1941. They all know that is the day the German’s bombed Pearl Harbor.

    • I would be careful with this line of advise. Students just might surprise you with what they currently know. As far as “assault rifle”, “high cap mags”, and even “clips”, are all common words for AR-15s, AK47s and large magazines that are in common usage today. Just because we don’t like them doesn’t mean the general public doesn’t use them.

  12. make sure use the cdc and doj reports on DGUs it will give you more credibility over something like gunfacts which will be dissmissed by antis as “gun freak propaganda”. also use that harvard report on gun control.

      • The BJS report covers crime stats from ’93 to ’11. That’s pretty recent and comprehensive. And it proves incontrovertibly that increased firearms ownership does not cause an increase in crime, and might even decrease it.

  13. They are going to argue opposing viewpoints, one is for gun control, the other is for people control 😉

  14. Do it, but expect a trap. Lugar is/was a RINO Senator, good buds with those POSs McLame and Grahamnesty. Know thy enemy, then destroy them with a smile and good humor.

  15. Wow…peace, love, and butterflies, if only we could learn!

    I expect a lot of emotional/theoretical arguments from him, while Robert will have real-life history and data on his side.

  16. First, it’s nice to know that you are thought of as an expert in the field. We of course already knew that, but apparently they have learned that as well. Study, practice being calm and direct, and I have EVERY confidence that you will make us proud.

  17. Oh, and do what Patton did to Rommel…READ HIS BOOK! Romano seems to believe that Newark, NJ can be saved….

  19. Please, Robert, for the love of G-d and everything that is 2nd amendment, please agree to the assignment. These people cannot live in an eco-chamber that goes unchallenged.

    What in the hell is a “peace educator”? This guy has spent waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time in academia, and waaaaaaaaaay too much money on his degrees. And to do what? Lecture tomorrow’s leaders on peace building? Good G-d. If this individual ever had a man-card, it has long been revoked. No wonder he works in academia. He wouldn’t last one second out in the real world. Out there, people aren’t interested in peace building, they’re interested in YOUR lunch money. It’s a dog-eat-dog world, and this guy can’t hack it.

    • I guarantee you Dr. Romano the Ova… er, Ivory-Towered, sees a gun or the word “gun” and thinks, “death squads”.

  20. Ugh. Looks quite biased to me …

    It is explicitly framed as about “Gun Control” and not about “Gun Control vs. Gun Rights” (or the reverse), or some other more-neutral title, e.g. “Guns in the United States”.

    A statement asks “What weapons should not be constitutionally protected?” as opposed to asking “Should some weapons not be constitutionally protected, and if so, which ones?” It assumes by default that some weapons should not be constitutionally protected.

    It talks about gun laws being “flexible” enough to be adapted to the “unique nature of each locality,” as if the right of self-defense is something we should subject to local politics. Would we even consider any such discussion about other basic rights being subject to a discussion? Would “honor killings” somehow be acceptable if the local folks wanted them to be?

    Be careful. They’ll try to frame the debate on their own terms. Don’t let them.

    • The more I think about this, if I were the one being invited, I would say “Thanks, but no thanks….”

    • I think he should accept only if certain conditions are met.

      The title of the event were changed to something non-bias
      and
      The questions need to be non-biased as well as being agreed upon beforehand by BOTH parties.

      They love to play the ambush game.

      • The “ambush game” is quite common, not just regarding guns but with any contentious issue.

        Poll questions are worded in a very specific way to get a desired result. Debate questions are framed so that the question presupposes answers to other questions – often set up so that the debaters on the “wrong side” of the issue will disagree with the presuppositions (the “what weapons should not be constitutionally protected” question is a nice example of this). The obvious example is the “when did you stop beating your wife” question.

        Often, those who have an agenda put on a “debate” or “discussion” in this manner, stacking the deck against one side. The fact that those who support gun control engage in these tactics is not surprising.

        Sadly, I suspect that a few folks who do this honestly don’t even realize they’re doing it. They’ve been conditioned so strongly to think that their way is the “obvious” way that they don’t even consider the possibility that they’re biased.

        • I believe the word you’re looking for is “programmed”. And like it or not, everyone runs on programs, either the imposed or self-imposed kind.

        • I think a safe way to respond to a “loaded” question is to rephtase it in better terms, beginning with: “I think that what you said was…”

  21. Just read his 16 page brochure. He’s a collectivist peacenik. Plus he lists the Zinn project as a resource to learn more about peace? Bring your A-game, because this is not going to be a home game for you, if you do it. Destroy him with a smile and humor.

  22. Well he’s for peace, we’re for peace, and the peacefulness of the world today is a result of our ability to use force protect it from violent chaos… Sounds like a short conversation.

  23. You might want to weigh the gains against the effort and risks before accepting. Everyone here seems to agree that you will be stepping into an ambush and that is personally unpleasant to say the least. If you decide to accept you should probably expect more than the “usual” anti-gun rhetoric. Good luck if you decide to do this.

  25. Peace is good. The eternal question is “at what price?” Resolving conflict through discussion, etc. is a GREAT idea. We should talk more and listen more. Does anyone really think that a firearm in hand is a solution to a conflict with a neighbor about where the apples from his tree are falling? Conflict happens all the time and I don’t think anyone on this site believes we shouldn’t talk and listen during conflict.

    The point is that at some variable threshold, conflict becomes violence. And THAT is where being capable of self defense matters. Sort of the “walk softly but carry a big stick” form of conflict resolution. At least in my mind that makes sense. You really can’t say that Chamberlain’s appeasement to Hitler is evidence that all conflict resolution requires force of arms. In fact, most CCWs I know prefer to walk away from conflict. Just because one is armed only rarely provides an excuse to escalate. I am sure it happens sometimes, but the norm is the opposite. I think this is something that the antis simply do not understand. To them guns = violence, guns would only be owned by people who can ONLY resolve conflict by using them, thus gun owners are some evil and ignorant archetype. A Neanderthal that should be minimized until they fade into the background and are eliminated.

    Absolutely go and debate and have fun. You could so own this guy, who is probably not a chump, nor a brain-dead liberal. He is probably very bright but has no solution for that break point between conflict and violence, other than to use conflict resolution to defuse a situation before escalation to violence. yeah, you would say, but what if it doesn’t? That, and rape, which is not a crime that would respond well to verbal conflict resolution considering that there is still not viable treatment for rapists and child molesters. That is a problem for some of those arguments, as well. If you can’t cure it, you can’t prevent it.

    Of course maybe he’s just an intellectual Buddhist and doesn’t believe in any form of self defense. That would be a less interesting debate, though.

    Ultimately, I guess I own firearms not to resolve conflict but to prevent or minimize the impact of violence on me and my family. Someone can yell all they want, but kick down my door and we just moved out of the conflict space into violence.

    • I like where you’re going with that. A good analogy might be the relationship between the State Department and the Department of Defense. State does the talking and negotiating; Defense does the deterrence. And butt-kicking if talks don’t work.

  26. For what it is worth if you do decide to do this, and I personally think you should, I would recommend reading Jay Hendricks book “Thank you for Arguing.” It is a phenomenal book on the use of rhetoric in debate and argumentation and has any number of simple verbal devices that can be used to disarm and bludgeon an opponent.

  27. “…while proponents argue that restrictions on weapons like assault rifles and high capacity magazines could have mitigated the damage of recent mass shootings.”

    Be sure to correct the opening statement to include the idea that this argument is just the most recent ‘flavor of the day’ for the citizen disarmament movement.

    • That’s a specoius opening argument, as criminals and psychotics by definition would not obey those hypotheticals, so they would have had no effect.

  28. You really have to wonder about a “peace center” named after an actor who died from “… acute multiple drug intoxication involving lethal levels of cocaine and morphine …”

    Not really a model for anything useful.

    • How many of the wag-the-dog entertainment “idols” led the same paths yet because they made “movies” or other theatrical or political endeavors they get whitewashed into these iconic symbols of forward thinking?

  29. I hope you are able to attend this debate, you seem to be well versed for our side of this.
    I also second some of the earlier comments, Know your enemy…

  30. Regarding how high capacity mags could have mitigated some of the…..
    Eric Harris, one of the Columbine shooters, left 13, ten round mags behind. He was in compliance.

  31. You should use this opportunity to bring up the Pink Pistols and Collin Noir and whoever else is out of the media’s painted picture of gun owners, really. Point out that gun ownership is diverse, and that its not only limited to white guys that thump bibles all day and night (Which is what the Media thinks.) Hell, if you can bring somebody of color, a professional female shooter, or even a gay gun owner with you that would be a huge blow to the Left and destroy a very large amount of their credibility.

    • “a professional female shooter”

      Wonder where we could find one of those… hmm….

      • It should be a young attractive female that’s very knowledgeable possible even written a few articles. That would help relate to female students present.

      • “a professional female shooter”

        I think it’s terrible that anyone would shoot professional females. Or professionally shoot females. Or shoot females professionally. Even amateur females should not be shot.

  32. Does each guest speaker get a free Lugar 9mm?
    Oh wait….that’s a Luger huh?
    meh, go anyway to get the “free lunch”

  34. Robert, when (not if) you go, wear a “Ron Paul Revolution” t-shirt or button. It will help get the idea across that Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty can’t work without lots of unregistered civilian guns.

    To those of you who live in the Indy area: get the word out to pro-gun / pro-liberty, student groups to make sure the audience isn’t packed by the Socialist Students Committee for Bunnies and Unicorns.

  35. RF, if he’s going to give you crap about “what the Bible says”, please do yourself a favor and reread my book (ATTK) for prep.
    P.S. I know you’ll kick his butt!

  36. Can you carry on University of Indianapolis campus? If so excercise your rights while debating them.

    • You would make them wet their pants, and probably put the campus intp lockdown. There’s a proper time and place for everything.

  37. If you are not willing to go RF, I am. Someone has to shine the light of truth and facts for everyone to see.

    I agree with the earlier comments as well that this “debate” will not be a fair fight and more of an ambush.

    And beware of the infamous false dichotomy debate tactic. A perfect example is debate surrounding the wording of the Second Amendment itself. Gun control proponents insist that the Second can only protect one thing — and they argue that one thing is a “collective” right. Too bad (for them) absolutely nothing prevents the Second Amendment from protecting two things: the right of militias (collective) and individuals (the People) to be armed in order to secure a free State.

  39. Before accepting this invitation you should discuss with Ms. Mann the evident anti-gun bias in this letter. Her reaction to your critique will guide your decision about whether or not to accept the invite from this school.

  40. Ask him if he believes in gun control enough to walk his unarmed ass over to Gaza to talk about Peace Learning.

    • I’m wondering just what your image of Gaza is. In point of fact, it’s an open-air prison camp.

      • A prison camp continued and run by the crap pot dictators around its border who use it as a wedge issue (cant let the serfs think about how terrible things are being run by the many turd world islamic nations) instead of just absorbing the population (most are actually Jordanian) and paying them handsomely in cash. A simple look at a map that shows the vast size of the middle east in relation to the speck that is Israel reveals the scheme.

  43. Call in a favor somewhere and show up for the debate in a huey! Though I doubt it would even hold a candle to the verbal theatrics your opponent will try to pull off.

  44. Part of me thinks Robert is the best possible person for such a task. And you are, Robert.

    The table-leg chewing part of me says this is a set-up. The Second Amendment is THE LAW OF THE LAND. It is NOT subject to being “debated”. Debating the 2A is tantamount to an open admission that our rights are OPEN TO DEBATE. And, as such, it sends the wrong message. To those who receive messages.

    • “To those who receive messages.” And therein lies the problem. Quite often changing minds at academic debates is like trying to communicate with the dead.

  45. I would stress to a young student audience that our constitutional and civil rights is what this fight is all about. These students no doubt live under their parents and teachers tyranny amd wording our fight for our rights to property, privacy and self determination will no doubt ring a bell for these students.

    Individual rights is what our fight is about. Who better to understand this struggle than those with restricted rights? How many of these students will be old enough to vote and go to war but are still considered too childish to buy a handgun at an ffl?

    • And also that our constitutional and civil rights are what permit the debate in the first place. First Amendment and all. Where’s the debate on that?

    • “Arthur Romano is an Assistant Professor at the School of Conflict Resolution and Analysis. He is a scholar-practitioner whose research and applied interests include global educational movements, the use of transformative and experiential education in communities affected by violence and nonviolence education. Professor Romano is currently teaching courses on identity and conflict resolution, peace education and group, community and organization conflict analysis and resolution. Arthur’s PhD research utilized complexity theory to examine pedagogical innovation in the field of international peace education.”

      The good Herr Doktor Romano is essential a flowery version of a MEGA-SOCIAL WORKER. Scum of the Earth, social workers.

      And if the phrase “pedagogical innovation” doesn’t scare the pants off you, you need a new dictionary.

  48. RF,

    This catches my eye everytime: “Opponents of stricter control of firearms generally worry about infringement of the Constitutional right to bear arms”. I worry about many things; like the safety of my family and my home, and of the children of the streets of Indianapolis and Chicago and Austin. What I’m worried about is that lawmakers in many states and municipalities (Texas included) have shown that they do NOT know how to protect my kids as well as do I. Anti-gun people quote “if it will save the life of just one kid” and I agree. It’s the next clause in that statement in which we disagree.

  49. Ask your sheriff and other LE’s if he can make a video supporting 2cd Amendment rights. Use the left’s tools against them 🙂

  51. I went to a forum like that once. The esteemed Dr. Sainsbury went on and on about the dangers of gun ownership and the damage done by the hydraulic effect of a bullet passing through a baby’s leg. He said “I don’t want to take away your guns”. He even used to own some. Then he went on with all of the hyper inflated gun death statistics and more about the dangers of having a gun in the home. We found out later that in his past he had a negligent discharge and seriously wounded an acquaintance. So, that’s why he got rid of his guns. In this particular meeting, Every single time somebody from the “pro gun” side tried to speak they were asked, then told to shut up. I’m with Idaho Pete, watch out for the trap! I too like the cheese though.

  52. Hi Robert,

    Please accept the invite. I have every confidence in you sir. If you are willing, please video the ‘debate’. I would like to see it. If I could afford it, I would be there but I am not independently wealthy. 🙂

    Food for thought:
    “Knowledge Is Power.”
    “Power Corrupts.”
    “Go to School and Become Evil!”

  53. I think you should show up, make the opening statement, “The Second Amendment is not up for debate.” *drops mic*, walks out.

  54. Everyone that is peaceful doesn’t need to listen to this drivel. It’s not that are not enough peaceful people, the obvious problem is there are too many violent ones.
    I know it is a horrible thing when violent people, die in a violent manner (gun shot), but these peace people seem to think that it is exactly the same as a when a peacful person is murdered by the violent.

    Conflict is two opposing ideas, the idea I want your money or your life is not conflict, that is criminal.
    I have no idea what peace means in that circumstance.

  55. As a boy growing up in Indiana I was selected to go to this, it was a good time. It would have been better had you been there; go to it!

  56. I have had class with Mr. Romano, and I can definitvely say he is hands down one of the weakest professors in the School of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University. I am a student who genuinely enjoys going to class, however his sessions were mind bogglingly (new word?) boring and far from instructive. The simplicity of his courses are insulting. I legitimately wasted my parents money one session with the incredibly insightful activity of cutting out magazine pictures to create a collage representing myself… Sadly that was the best day of the semester. Our final project was too write 7 pages single spaced on an interpersonal conflict we had experienced. Not only did more than half of the class make their stories up, we had to sign releases for the “data” to be used for a study. My guess was an incredibly lame, obvious, and played out “illumination” on interpersonal conflict for a substandard PHD project. My fellow classmates and I have never enjoyed a smoke break (smokers unite) more in my entire life than in the middle of his classes.

    PS- The man has a very odd way… His body language and cadence in speech were genuinely unsettling for me to deal with especially with a substandard teaching ability..

    O and don’t sit too close to him… He stinks.

    Good luck!!!!

  57. Crush them on the use of the terms “assault rifles” and “high-capacity magazine.” Point out that those are nonsense terms created by the gun-control movement. Take apart the term “assault weapon” and show how it is defined and how arbitrary it is.

    • The problem is that there is a legitimate usage for the term “assault rifle”; it is a direct translation of the German word “sturmgewehr”, which the Wehrmacht used in the Second World War.

      So it is not exactly a nonsense term, used in context. Of course, Robert can, and should, explain this, should the opportunity arise.

  58. Regardless of the uh, ‘topics’ so conveniently provided, and while the so-called ongoing ‘Gun Control’ controversy involves numerous ‘topics’ including but not limited to Morality, Rights, Arms, Laws, Government, Constitutions and the American Constitutional Republic form of government: IMHO,
    the essence of the entire ‘controversy’ is centered upon but two primary elements.
    ‘Rights’ and ‘Arms’. The word ‘Rights’ in essence, is based in philosophy, with of course, readily identifiable and fortunately ‘tangible’ counterparts.
    The word ‘Arms’ in context, represents actual, tangible objects.
    Objects do not and cannot have ‘Rights’.
    Only individuals have ‘Rights’.
    ‘Rights’ are specific to property and the first ‘Right’ of every person is to the property of their own body.
    Ancillary to this are of course, other ‘Rights’. Among them, the ‘Right’ of each person to utilize their own body to acquire possessions and other types of property, including but not limited to monetary compensation in exchange for services rendered and / or goods provided:- AND
    the ’Right’ of each person to defend their own body, property and possessions.
    No device yet invented has proven to be more effective in terms of self defense than a Fire-Arm.
    In essence, a Fire-Arm is an inanimate object that when used for some purpose may be regarded as a tool.
    In terms of the individual and use of a tool — the first tool every person learns to use is their own body.
    In various measures, by degrees and according to individual development and finally age with regard to legal matters, each person becomes personally responsible and accountable for use of their own body as a tool, as is likewise the case for use of any other tool.
    The choice of whether or not to own a Fire-Arm is exactly that. A matter of personal choice.
    The ‘Right’ to keep and bear ‘Arms’ — originally meaning ‘every terrible instrument of War’ — now commonly thought about in terms of hand-held or shoulder braced Fire-Arms, predates and preexisted every form of government ever established in America. Unsurprising then that the majority of State Constitutions and the Constitution of the United States have specific provisions within them specifying it to be a ’Right’ of the Citizens of their respective State, and a ‘Right’ of all Citizens as Freemen of these United States to keep and bear arms.
    In terms of so-called ‘Gun Control’ laws, careful scrutiny should be given to the simple fact that no law, in-and-of-itself ever actually prohibited any person from committing any act who was inclined to do so.
    Consider also that virtually every tool ever invented has been used in some circumstance or another as a weapon to perpetrate acts of violence against another person or persons.
    Worth also at least casual mention here for those who may not yet be aware that — for hundreds of years in America, it has been the Moral Obligation and Duty of all adult-age males to provide themselves with and to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, other persons, property and possessions. Currently this Moral Obligation and Duty also includes one’s State of residence and the United States of America.
    Under the terms and agreements embodied as that of the American Constitutional Republic form, it the Moral Obligation and both ethical and legally-expressed Duty of those in positions within government to Secure ’Rights’ of the Citizens — the keeping and bearing of arms by the Citizens being the oldest and most critical of all ‘Rights’ those in government are Duty bound to Secure — and to refrain from any action which interferes with the Citizens in fulfilling their own Moral Obligations and Duties.
    Any Questions?
    ( editor needed, inquire within )

    • It’s a very thoughtful post, Gw, and a good one. I’m just glad the (prospective) crowd will not be able to hear all those spurious capital letters!

  60. After watching (painfully) the guy’s video above, I don’t understand why he and RF would be put on the stage together. There’s nothing in his video that indicates he’s got anything to say about guns or the 2A. He’s all about conflict resolution, which is not a counterargument to owning and/or carrying a gun, at least not in the sense that we do it. One has nothing to do with the other. We carry a gun to protect ourselves and others, and that usually takes place after the breakpoint where conflict resolution has failed. We’re not debating with the mugger.

    The only place I see where conflict resolution and guns intersect is attempting to teach gang bangers that there are better ways to solve their interpersonal issues than using a gun, and RF isn’t qualified to speak on that subject.

    It seems like RF and this guy would just be arguing past each other, because they’re approaching different issues from different angles.

  61. After watching (painfully) the guy’s video above, I don’t understand why he and RF would be put on the stage together. There’s nothing in his video that indicates he’s got anything to say about guns or the 2A. He’s all about conflict resolution, which is not a counterargument to owning and/or carrying a gun, at least not in the sense that we do it. One has nothing to do with the other. We carry a gun to protect ourselves and others, and that usually takes place after the breakpoint where conflict resolution has failed. We’re not debating with the mugger.

    The only place I see where conflict resolution and guns intersect is attempting to teach gang members that there are better ways to solve their interpersonal issues than using a gun, and RF isn’t qualified to speak on that subject.

    It seems like RF and this guy would just be arguing past each other, because they’re approaching different issues from different angles.

  63. The question of what arms enjoy constitutional protection was addressed by the SCOTUS in 1939, and cited by same in 2008. The continued attempts to resurrect this issue must be summarily be dismissed each and every time they arise.

    So-called ‘assault weapons’ meet both prongs of the judicial test.

    No matter how many times this deceased equine is beaten it will not be raised from the dead.

  64. After listening to the word-salad in that video clip, attending this might seem a bit like going to a baby seal clubbing party, but unlike the seals, this actually needs to be done.

Comments are closed.