The black nationalism of the Black Panthers — otherwise known as the “Black Panther Party for Self-Defense” — couldn’t be further from our own vision of building a future for black and white Americans together. But they weren’t wrong that law enforcement in certain cities was not trustworthy in 1966. When the Panthers started placing armed patrols in neighborhoods known for police abuse, the overwhelmingly white state legislature proposed the Mulford Act, named for Oakland assemblyman Don Mulford, which prohibited carrying loaded firearms in public spaces. The media dubbed it the “Panther Act” in spite of Mulford’s claim that it wasn’t racially motivated, and indeed, most of the examples cited in favor of the bill involved the Panthers, even though there were many armed groups at that time.
The Mulford Act, signed by Governor Ronald Reagan, opened the door to the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibited former felons, among others, from owning guns and introduced background-check requirements. The use of gun control as a way to oppress black men has now turned into a significant element of our mass-incarceration crisis, as black men are far more likely to have gun charges stacked onto other charges (whether or not the gun was involved in the crime) or be sent back to prison for owning a gun, even if no other crime was committed. Given the dangers many people face in destabilized neighborhoods, it is unsurprising that even well-intentioned citizens returning from prison may choose to arm themselves.
In 1962 Robert F. Williams found support from the NRA, but by 1968 the organization was supporting the Gun Control Act, and it has been silent when the gun rights of black Americans have clashed with police tactics. In contrast, Gun Owners of America reiterated its ongoing concerns that no-knock warrants are incompatible with the right to self-defense. Every American has the right to defend himself or herself against violent aggression, and conservatives need to defend this right consistently, no matter who the aggressors may be.
If the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to EVERYBODY, it might as well apply to NOBODY.
All or nothing.
Wow, left logic much? This is EXACTLY what is being implemented a little bit at a time, until a short while in the future someone notices that a certain segment of the population is way overrepresented in certain crimes, so in order not to appear discriminatory, we will have to take away the tools of destruction from the whole of the population. Frog in the pot.
Wow! Red Herring much?
The Second Amendment does NOT apply to everybody, it applies to the United States Government and by incorporation to all of the lessor governments throughout the United States.
And the protections from government “…the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” apply, as it plainly states, to ALL OF THE PEOPLE, without exception, and the government(s) have no Constitutional role nor ability to modify that level of protection.
Nor do they have the Constitutional authority to “take away the tools of destruction from the whole population” under any circumstances.
The frog in the pot is the people who will stand quietly while the fire under the pot is stoked with targeted anti-gun legislation that targets anybody but them, especially if it is people they do not like or approve of.
I wrote on another site: “If you are in fear the solution is to exercise your own Second Amendment protected right, not attempt to deny me my rights.”
So if there are people who scare you, tool up and prepare to defend yourself and your community from them. Criminals and felons will have firearms no matter what legislation you support that pretends to prevent it. The solution is for you and others to be prepared to respond to illegal gun use, not piecemeal make it illegal for certain people to use or even own guns.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-Martin Niemöller (c) 1940
No chink can be tolerated in our armor which is the Second Amendment!
Hey Cliff Clavin, you’ve been sitting at the rail down at Cheers a little too long. Where the fuck did I say that I endorsed discriminatory exclusion? By ignoring statistics and refusing to prosecute the perps for fear of being “racist”, gun crimes are spiraling out of control in Dem cities. This is by design, not by accident. I never said blacks should be denied their constitutional rights, nor any other groups.Hell, the black population in those cities are also statistically overrepresented as the victim class! If you want to kid yourself that the overall destruction of the constitution is not the goal of the left, it’s time for you and Norm to get off of the stools and drink in some reality, Sam’s putting something funny in your glass.
Not so fast rachel ferguson and marcus witcher in Black Gun Rights Matter…Race based Gun Control was around long before 1968. And Gov. of CA. R. Reagan did not sign the Muford Act over race especially when political assinations during the era were attributed to white breads. And besides Gov. Reagan has no record of ever using the N-Word or being a bigot as did the recorded democRat LBJ.
Let’s cut the chase…The democRat Party owns the legacy of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, the KKK, lynching, Eugenics, Gun Control and other race based atrocities.
Even today as I read your article Gun Control is more alive in the democRat Party than it ever has been…And that means the democRat Party has not seen the error of their ways and they have not changed a bit.
Frankly rachel ferguson and marcus witcher…A Black American belonging to the democRat Party makes as much sense as a Jew belonging to the nazi party.
Debbie W.
Nicely done!
You are so correct. People need to stop blaming a dead white president. California had racist gun control, long before Regan moved to California, to become an actor in the 1930’s.
“The Racist Origins of California’s Concealed Weapon Permit Law”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2599851
Do I need to dig into my TTAG archives and post all of the comments that the so-called a Libertarians Liberals Leftists, have made against open carry, for the last 10 years on this website? And all of them at the same time bashing Ronald Reagan.
“The Mulford Act, signed by Governor Ronald Reagan, opened the door to the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibited former felons, among others, from owning guns and introduced background-check requirements.“
Another Saintly act by Republican Ronald Reagan!
As usual, well said Debbie W. Spot on!
Hear! Hear! Well said, Debbie.
There was a war going on in Oakland. It was the Oakland PD invading and terrorizing black neighborhoods, much as we see today in Ukraine. The only difference was the cops didn’t have the armor or militarized weaponry the Russkis have.
The Panthers organized to fight the war that was being fought against blacks. They peacefully marched in front of the capitol building while carrying weapons. No weapons were discharged. No cars were burned. No stores trashed. No motorists were dragged from their cars and beaten. It was a demonstration carried out in accordance with the Constitution. The People’s right to peaceably assemble and protest. The legislators trembled in the capitol building and shat their drawers. Immediately a bill was introduced to forbid the carrying of loaded weapons within incorporated city limits. Prior to that open, loaded carry was legal in CA. It was introduced as emergency legislation and was hustled through the legislature and onto Reagan’s desk before the ink was dry. It passed with such an overwhelming majority in both houses that vetoing it would have been a useless act. It would have only slightly delayed the passage of the bill over Reagan’s signature. Like the song says, “You got to know when to hold ’em and know when to fold ’em.” When you look at the votes and you see that the bill is going to pass even if you set yourself on fire in front of the capitol building, the smartest move is to just sign the bill.
Clearly when it was written, it was not meant to apply to slaves, so they didn’t have “EVERYBODY” in mind from the get-go. Applying it to all Americas is a revision anyway you look at it, even if you argue that it is a just and desirable revision of the original intent. There is also significant evidence from sources contemporary to the Constitution that “the People” were conceptualized as the law-abiding citizenry, and not felons. It’s too early on a Saturday AM to find and post a bunch of links to sources I’ve read in years past, but it’s not hard to find if you want to do your own legwork.
*Sunday morning. I haven’t had enough coffee to even remember what day it is.
Western Man,
You have hit upon the key element of the controversy: what exactly does the word “people” mean in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution?
In a nutshell we might refer to it today as the “body politic” interested in living their lives and allowing others to live their lives in harmony in society. By definition a person who steals from others–whether that person steals another person’s property and therefore time (theft), body (assault-and-battery including rape), and/or life (murder)–has excluded him/herself from the body politic.
And yet that definition falls short. Even a person who excluded him/herself from the body politic and was righteously convicted of a crime still falls under the umbrella of Constitutional protections. (The U.S. Constitution forbids excessive fines as well as cruel and unusual punishment of convicted criminals.)
“that “the People” were conceptualized as the law-abiding citizenry, and not felons”
Spot on WM. 👍
The right to bear arms belongs EXCLUSIVELY to “the people”.
𝑫𝒐 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒏 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒊𝒏𝒗𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚? 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕’𝒔 𝒉𝒐𝒘 𝑰 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒋𝒐𝒃 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑵𝒐𝒘 𝑰 𝒂𝒎 𝒎𝒂𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 $200 𝒕𝒐 $300 𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒒𝒘𝒆03 𝒅𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒉𝒐𝒎𝒆.
𝑨𝒑𝒑𝒍𝒚 𝑵𝒐𝒘 𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆__________ 𝑾𝑾𝑾.𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌𝒃𝒛.𝑪𝑶𝑴
Steps.
NYC’s infamous ‘Sullivan Act’ (no guns for the Irish, or anyone else considered ‘undesirable’) will soon be in the trash can of history. Baby steps, but steps nevertheless…
Well, we’ve heard from Geoff. Now can we get the perspective of someone who’s *not* a hate filled nobody who hasn’t been inside a woman since the day he was born?
“Now can we get the perspective of someone who’s *not* a hate filled nobody who hasn’t been inside a woman since the day he was born?”
Meaning we can ignore your idiot input, nameless, brainless, d***less troll? Great, I was planning to, anyway.
Go join the daily circle jerk, loser.
Isn’t pee-gee2’s eternal butt-hurt just ever-so precious?
So much big talk from the poster boy of cowardliness… 🙂
I was actually referring to Geoff. But I know that basic reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
No, nameless, brainless, d***less troll, I was QUITE aware of who you were attempting to respond to (and failing, as you do in all things – even the circle jerk). I just despise your useless, drive-by, always inapposite, trolling, so I mock you at every opportunity. Remember, I’m laughing AT you, useless troll, not with you.
Like I said, go join the circle jerk (although you’ll fail at that,, too).
Wrong, Geoff. The Sullivan Act was put into place from Tammany Hall, the central headquarters of the Irish mob. “Sullivan” now that sounds like a good up right, up tight wasp name, doesn’t it? I just finished reading a book entitled “Paddy Whacked” which deals with the Irish mob in the U.S. from the early decades of the 19th century up to the end of the 20th century and the final demise of organized Irish crime. The Sullivan Act was to keep the “d-a-g-o-s” and the “k-i-k-e-s” had to do that in order to get around the censor) from owning guns. The Irish mob wanted to be the only ones with guns in New York. I am really surprised that you don’t know that. Perhaps you didn’t grow up on the east coast. I thought everybody knew that it was aimed at latecomers to the crime scene on the east coast, especially from Baltimore on up the coast.
Thank you Mr. Zimmerman for bringing up how the NRA, in an effort to appease white people who fear that gun rights should not apply equally to African Americans, agreed to support legislation which started a movement for more the gun restrictions that impact the rights of all Americans.
Fast forward to modern day, the NRA stood silent while conceal carry holder Philando was shot in his car by a police officer after he identified himself as a conceal carry holder, attempted to comply with the officers instructions and was in no way combative. The officer was not only found not guilty of causing his death, but let off the hook for discharging his firearm with a woman in the passenger seat and a toddler in a car seat in back of the car.
A year after this incident the only statement that came out from the NRA was by Dana Loesch, who marginalized Castile‘s death by indicating that he was in violation of the law, as he was apparently using marijuana
If we started removing firearms from the homes of every American that uses marijuana, I think you’d have tens of millions of fewer gun owners in this country.
That officer should have been found guilty of manslaughter. Our justice system isn’t perfect and this is one of those instances. The family will never see justice.
Thanks for the drivel Mr CNN pothead. Meaningful. NOT
“If we started removing firearms from the homes of every American that uses marijuana, I think you’d have tens of millions of fewer gun owners in this country.”
You are correct that this was a miscarriage of justice. I will say this: If you legally purchase a firearm you must fill out federal form 4473. Question 21e asks if you are a user of marijuana. If you answer yes, your purchase will be denied. If you answer no and are caught lying on the form, you can be imprisoned for up to 5 years. I’m not making excuses for the cop, he was wrong and should have been prosecuted. I agree that there are many marijuana users that own firearms. Just stating the law as it now stands.
Too true, A&A. The federales are still fighting the war on drugs with even less success than they have had in the war on terrorism
As the leftists increasingly make life in the cities they control more dangerous, so, people will continue to arm in response.
The question is whether the recently armed citizens and legal guests will defend the 2A at the ballot box (citzens) and in the street (everyone). My bet, that number will also grow.
Pray for peace, prepare for war.
Hey Debbie, where’s the standard “DemocRat” rant? Looks like GOP’s the party of racist gun control too.
Yep, California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, etc. All hot beds of Republican conservatism.
Not to mention the example cited happened over fifty years ago. Desperate clinger?
Just like Reagan, GOP Gov signed sweeping gun bans from 2003 to 2011 including 50 caliber rifle ban, micro stamping requirements and ammo restrictions among many others. (JFK was an NRA member.) Moving to Congress today look at the turncoat GOP members who backed expanded background checks, which are really registration. Sure D’s are far and away pushing for more gun control than R’s–but R’s have dirty hands too. It’s just not as black and white as Debbie and others would like to believe.
I thought we were talking about racist gun control? I’m no GOP defender.
‘…no-knock warrants are incompatible with the right to self-defense.’
If we really want no knock raids to end we need to put television ads with pictures of all the dogs police have slaughtered in cold blood. Maybe play some Sarah McLachlan music in the background. Because, let’s face it, nobody really cares about the perps. But images of dead puppies is a powerful force for change.
I’m with you on that.
Do it for Dogo !
If it saves one dog.
If you can legally own a gun, you should. Criminals and crazies do not care about your ethnicity. That baseball bat or golf club you have for home defense is no longer valid, as the criminals travel in packs now, like hyenas.
There’s nothing in the constitution that bars any person from owning a gun.
I guess I’m a fudd. I draw the line at NBC weapons.
Nowhere in “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.,” does it exclude or include slaves or indentures. Any and all legislation dealing with slaves and/or indentures occurred on the local and State level. So saying it was meant to exclude the enslaved and indentures, is reading more into the Amendment than the verbiage stands. That lower courts never struck down said legislation was an egregious unconstitutional failure on their part.
What occurred after the passage of the 14th Amendment to infringe upon the rights of the former slaves was evil and wrong.
Freedom is messy. Truest statement ever. I don’t do drugs. But it is not my place to mandate against you using drugs. Just be aware that I am armed and will not excuse your crimes because of your drug addiction.
Freedom is for us all regardless of color or religion. If statistically black men commit more crimes than any other race that means nothing. The individual black man still has all the rights the constitution provides. Including the right to arms.
I agree with your position jwn.
And yet you vote for the people that would disarm all. You’re a hypocrite.
When you’re convicted of a felony, you lose certain rights. The right to vote, own a firearm, the right to hold certain jobs etc. Hell, you get convicted you get locked up in a cell and lose the right to walk around freely. Rights can be restored however. I don’t know about you but I don’t want people who are violent felons walking around on the street armed no matter what color you are. This has nothing to do with race.
“When you’re convicted of a felony, you lose certain rights“
You know, I can’t find it in my copy of the constitution, can you point out where that is please?
Western Man posted the answer 10 hours before your comment. 🙄
See above.
I agree with your opinion, jwm.
I feel like Dan’s trolling us with the picture of that commie fool.
Got to keep the clicks up. Next Willy Smith and the slap head round Hollywierd
First minute……….
https://youtu.be/ENtRwoV52fY
I’d be weary of these groups that have adopted firearms as some accoutrement to their pet-cause. They’ll happily tolerate disarmament as a trade for whatever mythical nonsense they hold above their 2ndA rights be it “social justice”, pregnant men or any number of “free shit” schemes or simply if it means their perceived “other” will also be disarmed because if there’s one thing these astro-turf, fair-weather revolutionaries love more than free shit it’s stickin’ it to whoever they think is their enemy.
I’ve been a single-issue voter my entire life and I won’t trade away the 2nd for anything for with the 2nd all others enumerated or not are possible. Without it you end up at the mercy of bullies and begging people half a world away to come save your ass and you must know if they do come it’s gonna cost.
where do you stand on abortion?
I do not care when people I’ve never met or known die regardless of age. Nor do I care when people murder people I’ve never met or known.
I do resent the fact that either way I’m being forced to pay through the extortion of taxation.
Defending 2A means supporting the Constitutional rights of Americans without regard to race, religion, national origin, etc. That’s a far cry from supporting the rights of everybody to arm up, including lunatics and felons.
The Constitution is supposed to protect us from our government. It is colorblind, yes, but its not deaf, dumb and blind.
If you want to turn 2A into a suicide pact, I invite you to go first.
So you believe that the government can and should forcibly remove arms from anyone they deem “undesirable”?
he didn’t say that
“Lunatics” (i.e. parents who went to school board meetings to peacefully but firmly express displeasure with the massively racist shit their kids were being taught, and were then labeled by the FBI as domestic terrorists) and “felons” (i.e. a mother inadvertently driving through New Jersey with a single hollow point round).
You sound like a hardcore statist now
As much as I loved President Reagan, he sure screwed us over when it comes to gun rights.
I can’t see how anyone can justify his actions.
Yes Reagan was a very good president but don’t forget, he was a Californian.
It is difficult for me to take someone open carrying a slung rifle while also sporting shorts and a Budweiser shirt. Sure, people could get shot. But these people look like they are more likely to shoot themselves.
If you can get green lighted through NICS then you can have a gun. If that bothers you then do something about NICS. But don’t tell me about a life long weed habit and whine about a NICS rejection.
These things have always reminded me of the cops in the first Rambo movie. Sure Rambo pushed back much harder than he ever needed to but so did those cops. THOSE are the same racists cops the black community complains about.
Prndll,
Not quite sure where you were going with this.
“It is difficult for me to take someone open carrying a slung rifle while also sporting shorts and a Budweiser shirt. Sure, people could get shot. But these people look like they are more likely to shoot themselves.” So, your aesthetic preferences determine THEIR right to keep and bear arms?? I largely even agree with many of your aesthetic preferences, but I’m not arrogant enough to believe that my aesthetic preferences should control ANYONE else’s rights. They either have a RKBA, or they don’t – whether you like their Hawaiian shirt or not means f*** all.
“If you can get green lighted through NICS then you can have a gun.” Thank you, Mr. Liberty. I missed the part of the 2A that said, “as long as they can pass a background check”. While I am totally OK with denying a felon the RKBA while serving their sentence. Please direct me to the portion of the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to deny felons basic human rights AFTER they have “paid their debt to society”. By what authority does the Federal government deny an ex-felon, who served their sentence (and any parole), ANY rights??? Missed that part of the Constitution, too.
This assumption that many seem to have that the Founders intended all sorts of “implied” powers and authority to the government is errant, ridiculous, ahistorical nonsense, with literally NO historical support. It is, frankly, absurd revisionist wishcasting by people absurdly addicted to authoritarian nanny-state government.
I would expect this kind of gabble from the likes of dacian the stupid or MinorIQ. I generally respect your comments, even when I disagree with them, but this one was just . . . an infringement too far. Sorry, not sorry.
I never said I agree with all this government crap. NICS is there and that is reality. That can be changed but until it is then that is what we have to work with. You can get around NICS if you have a license to carry. If you buy guns from people as a simple person to person exchange. You can even make your own. But buying new at an FFL requires a 4473 and for most people, a NICS check. These are not new ideas and I would have thought all this to be understood by now. So what exactly are you questioning?
As far as how people dress…
You can don whatever you wish. That means nothing to your right to defend yourself or your country. I’m not saying you have to ‘look’ like a soldier. I’m saying that if you take this seriously but make yourself look like an idiot that It is difficult for me to take you seriously. This is the problem with the NFAC.
“By what authority does the Federal government deny an ex-felon, who served their sentence (and any parole), ANY rights??? Missed that part of the Constitution, too.”
You also lose the right to vote
One of the biggest problems the general population has with cops is that no one knows before hand who is the good cop and who is the bad cop. That really is something we should all expect to be handled by their respective departments, Chiefs, judges, mayors, governors, and internal affairs. It just doesn’t always work out that way.
By the same token, who is the reformed felon and who is the felon filled with insane blood thirsty hate that was simply let out for any one of various reasons? to include those that were released for fear of catching Covid, dismissal, low bond, or some other technicality?
Personally, I could not care less about someone with a grow room for their personal consumption. What does get my attention is the killer that confronts the average law-abiding citizen. When government does not take care of things, the only way forward falls on a gun owning citizen that cares enough to handle the situation.
Your question begins from an established false premise.
Im sorry Armed and Dangerous
That was meant for LampOfDiogenes
Always the anti gun crowd try to use fear, or some version od othering/discrimination as their reason/logic for disarming the populace or some segment thereof. “We must keep guns or of the hands of ______.” Which never works as advertised or desired. No matter the law, criminals and nut cases seem to be able to get their hands on whatever weapons they desire, while the more or less law abiding are forced to jump through whatever hoops, or just go without the means to defend themselves from the criminals or from an overbearing tyrannical government.
Deal with the person committing the crime, and don’t worry about what hardware they used.
Today I saw a guy open carrying. I had never seen this guy before, he was a stranger to me, but still he saw my Glock (I was open carrying at the time) and commented on the holster saying “nothing says class like leather.”
The holster is a black leather Desantis F.A.M.S. holster. The Glock and the holster I cherish because they both were a present given me by a friend I’d had since childhood, he is now deceased. He died about six hours after he gave me that holster and Glock. He walked into a robbery at a convenience store on the way home and after taking down two of the bad guys a third hidden one shot him in the back of the head. Every year on this date I wear that specific holster and Glock to commemorate him.
When the stranger said that it startled me because my friend was a fan of leather holsters and used to say “nothing says class like leather.” too.
Anyway, the stranger introduced himself and we briefly discussed guns. There was this guy behind us in line waiting to pay for his stuff. The guy waiting behind us speaks up and says “I think both of you should burn in hell for carrying guns.” and that is what some people think and they don’t care about the second amendment. And of course we ignored this guy, and continued our discussion. So because we exercise our constitutional rights we should burn in hell so I wonder where that guy is going for exercising his constitutional rights.
It always amazes me the gross and obscene disrespect people have for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights enshrined within. They gladly want to use those rights for their own lives but if they disagree with one then its not a right and those that exercise it should burn in hell.
But it occurs to me now, reflecting upon what that guy said to us, that “Support for the Second Amendment Means Supporting Gun Rights for ALL Americans” is a noble idea. But no matter how hard you try no matter what you do there will always be those who are simply not worthy of the fantastic gift the Constitution is.
“So because we exercise our constitutional rights we should burn in hell“
Don’t feel bad, every Christian on the planet believes I should burn in hell because I don’t worship there a particular sky daddy.
This Christian leaves that between you and whatever God you may believe in. It is not and never has been up to me. You make your own choices.
Shifty, is my understanding that all Christians worship a god (or three) who requires the eternal suffering of those who refuse to worship it.
And even if I accepted (without evidence) the existence of a particular God, I would never willingly swear allegiance to a God that required me to:
“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
Miner49er,
What is the source of that quote that you provided? If it is from the Bible, which book and chapter and which translation?
@Miner49er
Not three gods but one God in three forms. Just as you are one person but with multiple facets. Nothing ‘shifty’ about it.
Suffering is a result of human free will. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is not a decree or a God imposed edict. more than anything else, it’s about how we interact with eachother.
You will swear allegiance to someone/something because even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Even if that allegiance is to yourself.
Your understanding of this is twisted. As long as it is that way, you will never see any value in the word.
That is all I have to say on this subject.
Prndll,
You provided some interesting perspectives with a bit of a different “twist” than I have heard before. Thank you for sharing.
Numbers 31:17-18 KJ ‘Version’
Miner49er, I don’t feel bad over what the guy said about burning in hell. I’m not going to burn in hell for carrying a firearm. But thinking about it now I realize also the guy was echoing the basic sentiment you and dacian express with the comments of your overall anti-gun stance.
No, I don’t have an “anti-gun stance.”
I simply believe an individual should be required to receive classroom instruction on the rights and obligations of carrying a firearm, as well as demonstrate proficiency on a live-fire range, before they are permitted to carry firearms in public spaces.
Only people that have bullets should have gunms.
Only people that have bullets should have guns.
Only people that have gums should have teeth.
The real problem with ex felons having gun rights is the fact that our judicial system is broken. Someone murders someone else and plea bargains to manslaughter and receives 8 years and gets out in 5. I don’t think they should have the right to own a gun. When you commit a serious crime especially when in possession of a firearm you forfeit your rights. All of them. That’s right I said all of them. They put you in a cell and you can’t have a firearm, or go to a ball game, or attend a party or you daughter’s wedding. No you’re locked up. You have NO rights. If instead of slapping these felons on the wrist and plea bargaining they would give stiff mandatory sentences and keep them locked up, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. And no, I don’t care what color you are.
I have made 100 DLR every hour in one day. That was my ideal day in my life and my boss b was very content with me.. CNN is additionally intrigued from my work and is very happy..
For more__________ Click My Profile
Not so fast rachel ferguson and marcus witcher in Black Gun Rights Matter…Race based Gun Control was around long before 1968.
Comments are closed.