Starving SlideFire, Celebrating a Massacre and the Pink Pistols is Growing – TTAG Daily Digest

1. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The way I see it, that’s one less career criminal for the Chiraq legal system to let go with a slap on the wrist.

   • Yep….. these gun grabbers like to put a monetary cost on the “lives taken by gun violence”. I don’t see a contributing member of society lost here, who, according to the EPA, is worth $6.9 million. With his death a t young age, the overall value of everyone else’s life just went up a little bit.

     P.S.- – single shot to the chest huh?…. must have been a 6.5 Creedmore.

     • enough with the creedmoor shit.

       • Someone is jelly. Don’t be jelly bro.

       • Lighten up, there, Bob. Just because it won’t be long before you won’t be able to possess anything shootier than a flintlock musket and one round for it, is no reason to lose your sense of humor. It’s not OUR fault that you live in California. . .
         Besides, the advent of the 6.5mm CM, the One Cartridge To Rule Them All, is such a miraculous thing that already the sea levels are starting to fall, Antarctica is freezing up again, dogs and cats are living together in harmony, and good 5-cent cigars are readily available in the new mom-and-pop stores springing up all over America, building on the ashes where once stood Big Box Stores.
         And I no longer suffer from the Heartbreak of Psoriasis.

       • 6.5 Creedmoor is even bringing peace to the Korean Peninsula.

       • Yeah the creed more shit is getting old. You folks are about as funny as Kathy Griffin.

       • I agree Bob. Enough with the stupid Creedmore bull shit. It’s like telling the same joke over ….and over ….and over.

       • Blasphemy!

     • At least he still has his soul since not a 45

   • The clip missed an important point.

     ” He fired his gun toward the teen to “stop the offender from running him over with his vehicle.”

     The clipping and article emotionalize the situation to make the thief look like the victim. What is wrong withe the chicago tribune? If the firefighter had been run over and killed do you think they would have spent as much ink?

     • This incident happened in August of 2017. The Tribune has revisited the topic several times since then.

       Follow the links in the article and the Tribune also investigated how many incidents occurred involving CCW people.

     • The clipping and article emotionalize the situation to make the thief look like the victim. What is wrong withe the chicago tribune?

       What is wrong with all Progressives?
       They martyrize violent criminals so they can demonize crime victims, that’s what’s wrong with them.

       • Progressives are merely casting a bad light on all American middle class working people and property owners – those folks who “Built” the USA.
         Progressives was a strict Two Class system, political elite in charge and ignorant sheep to lord over. No workers needed, money grows on trees.

       • Dem ignut folk be progtard VOTERS. Follow the money.

     • He was just going to run him over a little bit.

   • To answer the question, though; In Texas and in some other states, it has been legal *forever* to shoot and kill anyone attempting to flee with your property valued at more than $500. Everyone should have such a law.

     • It is in fact legal in Illinois to use deadly force to prevent a felony:

       720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3)
       Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.
       (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

       and

       (720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8)
       Sec. 2-8. “Forcible felony”. “Forcible felony” means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
       (Source: P.A. 88-277; 89-428, eff. 12-13-95; 89-462, eff. 5-29-96.)

       and

       (720 ILCS 5/18-3)
       Sec. 18-3. Vehicular hijacking.
       (a) A person commits vehicular hijacking when he or she knowingly takes a motor vehicle from the person or the immediate presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force.
       (b) Sentence. Vehicular hijacking is a Class 1 felony.

       What is legal and what may be wise can be different.

       • I read that as ‘illegal’ at first and was having a serious WTF moment. 😉

   • “The teen died on the pavement. He did not have a gun on him.”

     Darwin was riding shotgun.

2. Well, maybe the teen shouldn’t have been shot, maybe it’s not a fair punishment for grand theft auto.

   But life isn’t fair, there aren’t any do-overs on the really important stuff, and actions can have consequences that aren’t all apparent when we’re contemplating said actions. Broadly speaking, the consequences for doing something wrong can be more severe when you do it around people who are armed, vs those that are disarmed. If you understand this, it’s a deterrent for wrongdoing. If you don’t, well…see Serge’s comment just above.

   • Broadly speaking, the consequences for doing something wrong can be more severe when you do it around people who are armed, vs those that are disarmed.

     You might even say, “an armed society is a polite society?”

   • In this instance it appears to be the conequence of potentially running someone over with a stolen car.

3. Oh let the sun beat down upon my face
   Stars fill my dreams
   I am a traveler of both time and space
   To be where I have been

   To sit with elders of the gentle race
   This world has seldom seen
   They talk of days for which they sit and wait
   All will be revealed

   Talk and songs from tongues of lilting grace
   Sounds caress my ears
   But not a word I heard could I relay
   The story was quite clear

   All I see turns to brown
   As the sun burns the ground
   And my eyes fill with sand
   As I scan this wasted land

   Tryin’ to find
   Tryin’ to find
   Where I’ve been

   Oh pilot of the storm that leaves no trace
   Like thoughts inside a dream
   Heed the path that lead me to that place
   Yellow dessert screen

   My Shangi-La beneath the summer moon
   I will return again
   Like the dust that blows high in June
   When I’m moving through Creedmoor

   • Oh, I wish I was in the land of Creedmoor! Power there is not forsaken!
     Look away, look away, look away in Creedmoor!
     Advance the flag of Creedmoor, hurray! Hurray!
     In Creedmoors land we’ll make our stand to live and die for creedmoor!
     Away, away, away down south in Creedmore!

     • In the immortal words of CCR also known as Creedmore Clearwater Revival
       Accompanied by former hood Charles Leadchest Macklin

       Well, you wake up in the mornin’, you see the jeep running
       And the man is stand in front, he’s gotta piece in his hand
       Ain’t no food upon the table and no pork up in the pan
       But you better not complain, boy, you get in trouble with the man
       Let the creedmore rifle, blow a hole through me
       Let the creedmore rifle, blow a hole through me
       Let the creedmore rifle, blow an ever lovin hole right through me
       Yonder come Miss Walker, how in the world did you know?
       By the way she wears her jacket and the poodle cut upon her head
       Cheap piece of bling on her necklace, piece of paper in her hand
       She come to see the lawyer, she wants to get back at the man
       Let the……

       • i thought CCR stood for Creedmore Creedmoor Re-Creedmore….

         If i’m wrong, they need to change their name.

       • “and when you ask them, ‘how much should we give?’
         ooh, they only answer creed more, more!
         it ain’t me, it ain’t me, i ain’t no six five gun, lord.
         it ain’t me, it ain’t me, i’m three oh eight and done, done, done.”

   • Of course, the live version will necessarily include the obligatory 8 minute long drum solo.

     • How’s this for a new user name, Gov?
       “If Only Ruger Made the Vaquero in 6.5 Creedmore”

       Too long?
       🤠

       • I am SO using that tomorrow.

         Sadly that will be it for the official TTAG inaugural ‘Creedmoor Week’. Not that we can’t occasionally take a poke at the round my Hornady reloa ding manual describes as ‘Very possibly the most well balanced cartridge to ever grace the pages of the Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloa ding…’ But Sunday it’s back to the plain old boring Gov. Already looking forward to Creedmoor Week 2019. Second week of June!

       • I think “every girl crazy bout a creedmoor man,” is still the best out of all this.

       • ZZ Top was pretty damn iconic.

     • In the midnight hour she creed, moor, moor, moor
       With a rebel yell she creed, moor, moor, moor
       In the midnight hour, Creed, moor, moor, moor
       With a rebel yell, moor, moor, moor
       Moor, Creedmoor

   • Now the king told the boogie men
     You have to let that Raga drop
     The oil down the desert way
     Has been shaken to the top

     The sheik he drove his Cadillac
     He went a cruising down the ville
     The muezzin was a standing
     On the radiator grill

     Jeremy don’t like it
     Shootin’ the Creedmoor
     Shoot the Creedmoor

     Jeremy don’t like it
     Shootin’ the Creedmoor
     Shoot the Creedmoor

     • Can’t say I’m not a little disappointed in the lack of Clash love here.

4. Don’t steal cars and your chances of being shot during a theft of a car goes down dramatically.

5. Wow they “reported” the dead car thief was unarmed?!? I’d think a 2000 pound car qualifies as “armed”…I see this BS all the time on what passes as “news”. Sorry but I don’t give a rat’s anus about SlideFire’s problems.

   • If not for SlideFire in particular, how about on the general principle here?

   • You don’t care that a legitimate company producing legal products was defrauded of over a million dollars because “guns”? Really?

     • The bank is setting a dangerous precedent. If the bank is not called to account over this they and other banks may decide this is a normal practice.

   • I care about bank fraud and misappropriation of funds, especially if it becomes endemic as a tactic against the firearms industry.

     • You’re awfully kind referring to blatant theft as ‘misappropriation’, Carlos…

       • I make a habit of restraining myself, but you make it point that even that has its limits.

     • People, leave the damned banks and go to credit unions !

   • “Sorry but I don’t give a rat’s anus about SlideFire’s problems.”

     Isn’t that simply a paraphrasing of, “I don’t own one, so I don’t care”?
     IOW, the FUDD’s creed.
     (No, not “Creedmore”!)

   • Your mags & semiautos will be banned within a decade because of your ignorant, clueless Fuddery. Bumpstocks today, Binaries tomorrow, high cap mags soon after, and eventually anything that can be rapidly fired.

     All because you don’t approve of how fast your own guns can shoot.

6. I wonder how a firefighter got a pistol permit. Hmmmm

   • Easily. Illinois is actually a “shall issue” state.

     • Oops. I’m still living in the past.

     • Rules for an Illinois Concealed Carry License for Illinois residents

       -Must be at least 21 years old.

       -Must have a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification card.

       -Must have not been convicted or found guilty of a misdemeanor involving the threat of physical force or violence to any person within the past five years.

       -Must not have two or more violations related to driving while under the influence of alcohol, other drugs or intoxicating compounds within the past five years.

       -Must not be subject to a pending arrest warrant, prosecution or proceeding for an offense or action that could lead to disqualification to own or possess a firearm.

       -Must have not been in a residential or court-ordered treatment for alcoholism, alcohol detoxification, or drug treatment within the past five years.

       -No objections are filed by law enforcement.

       Checklist prior to applying for an Illinois Concealed Carry License for Illinois Residents

       -16 hours of Concealed Carry firearms training provided by an Illinois State Police-approved instructor.

       -Electronic copy of training certificate(s).

       -An Illinois Digital I.D. (can be obtained through link on ccl4illinois.com)

       -A valid driver’s license or state identification card.

       -A valid FOID card.

       -A head and shoulder electronic photograph taken within the last 30 days.

       -Proof of the last 10 years of residency.

       -Fingerprints.

       -$150.00 payable with a credit card or electronic check.

       Source: Illinois State Police website

       I would not call 16 hours of mandatory training and $150 fee to exercise natural, constitutionally protected human right “easy”, but that’s just me.

7. A late addition for the ‘Digest’ –

   Remember the woman who was busted for concealing a Kimber .380 in her ‘Hoochi-Coo’?

   It got her 2 years in the greybar hotel :

   “Woman Gets Two Years For Gun In Body Cavity
   Defendant’s “projected discharge date” is listed as September 2019″

   “JUNE 14–A woman who had a loaded handgun hidden in her vagina at the time of her arrest last year has been sentenced to two years in state prison on weapons and heroin possession charges, Illinois court records show.”

   http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/anika-witt-sentenced-902843

   • ^From “thesmokinggun…”

     That’s what she said.

     • I hope FireClean was her choice for gun oil. It’s non-toxic!

       • Or frog lube.
         For that minty fresh smell…

8. I wonder what the reaction would be if banks started treating abortion providers the same as they’ve been treating firearms/accessories companies.

   • Liberals would dust off their copies of the Constitution with all the government restraint sections cut out and start blathering about Interstate Commerce or something.

9. “This sends a message that [working with gunmakers] is an expensive and nasty business for banks to be in,” Heidi Li Feldman, a tort law expert and legal theorist at Georgetown University Law School, told The Trace. “It’s a good example of a regulated market doing its thing.”

   That a bank can contemplate stealing money from a customer that the bank made money from in fees is nothing short of *chilling*.

   That bank needs to be made a very expensive example of for pulling that kind of stunt with a civil right…

   • The bank did not exactly “steal” the money. The bank obviously had loaned SlideFire money, and they unilaterally decided to hold the funds in a reserve account as security for repayment of the loan, given the possibility that the company would soon be sued or go bankrupt. I suspect that the fine print of those massive loan documents allowed them to do so. Then again, banks are stupid, as shown by this case and Freedom Munitions; they are so concerned about getting their money repaid (plus lots of interest) that their actions precipitate the fate they were protecting against. Self fulfilling prophecy and all that.

10. Why spend the money to grab a GWACS lower if you’re going to put non-freefloated upper on it? It’s not even mid-length.

    • Have you compared the weight of a single-shielded CAR handguard to a free-float forend?

    • It’s probably an older, Cav Arms produced receiver. They used to offer upper plastic that was color-matched to whatever lower you ordered.

11. I couldn’t possibly care less if the car thief was unarmed. IMO, a person should be able to defend their property with deadly force if necessary. Furthermore, any unauthorized entry into a person’s home should also excuse deadly force.

    • It’s ridiculous you have to let them walk away with all your shit as they laugh in your face because you can’t defend it without going to prison.

12. Had cars been banned, this would’ve never happened.

    • Are you saying ban gunz or just want cor vetting?

13. I think eventually there will be independent financial services that will arise from all of this. If banking and other industries become explicitly politicized, then there will be a demand for services for those not on the left. At that point, pressure tactics will be irrelevant, or even counterproductive.

    • This is true. While some business seek to dominate entire markets, others look for a niche. Servicing at least a third of the country is one hell of a niche.

      • It could have been the NRA to make more money than they could have ever imagined…but they’re morons who couldn’t manage a lemonade stand profitably.

14. >stupid kid got shot trying to steal a car
    SHEEEEEIT, das rayciss mang.

    and nothing of value was lost.

15. “‘When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?’”

    Am I the only one who when I read that, thought it meant the person was, er, ‘pleasuring’ themselves in the car when they got shot?

    If so, they had the rare experience of coming and going at the same time… 😉

    • ^LoL
      Hell yes!
      Guess that makes us old…

16. Though being named pink pistols, I am glad the P7 wasn’t painted pink, and instead it is a pink rifle. Good job keeping it classy on the p7, looks like it is well used, maybe a police trade. Just glad it isn’t leopard print or something. I have seen pink and leopard mp5s, pretty horrifying… Sure, your gun, you can do as you please, but, if you want to play dress up, there are ARs and Glocks aplenty!

17. They took an otherwise ugly Gunn( Ak) and made it even uglier with that slide fire. I like my AK however it is kinda ugly. That Ruger falling block that jwt’s got, that’s what I call a beautiful firearm. Sleek lines, blued steel, wood stock yeah man. Browning B78 looks nice too,,, the p08 is about as pretty a pistol as I could ask for. ..Revolvers ,1851 navy. No matter what you do with plastic yah just can’t top those..That’s just my opinion.

    • Nothing wrong with ugly, so long as it works.😉

    • 1851 Navy with ivory grips. Just sayin.’

18. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

19. I’d shoot someone driving off in my car. However, I’m never going to leave it running. Also, not sure my car is an ideal getaway car or drug hauler, so no real reason to steal it.

    • Joy riders don’t need a reason as long as it just goes. Sometimes you can get back relatively unharmed, sometimes just an empty hull. If it gets invloved in a police chase you may get it back totalled out in a crash. May actually kill a bystander or two in the chase and not get it back at all until case closed and perp is sentenced to jail because of it held as evidence.

      Insurance would likely not pay out either on liability or property loss if found you were negligent by leaviing the keys in it running or not. Some states will prosecute the owner for leaving the keys in the car, running or not, stolen or not.

20. I don’t like the notion that Americans can’t defend their property from unlawful taking. It shouldn’t matter he was 17. It shouldn’t matter it was a Jeep. It shouldn’t matter if the lieutenant has insurance. If someone is taking your property and they refuse to stop stealing it when confronted you should have every right to do what’s necessary to stop them. If they are willing to die for a piece of your property that’s their choice.

    What if I have a car that has been heavily modified with very expensive parts, will the insurance company cover all of it? What if the car is rare and/or old? What happens to your rates after you make a claim?

    I look at property as hours of someone’s life spent working. If you take someone’s $80,000 car it’s like taking years away from them, as if they were kidnapped by the thief. Insurance doesn’t cover everything. What’s not covered will require many more days of your life to replace. It’s like the thief is holding you hostage and requiring you to work just to get back where you were before they came along.

    I understand not shooting someone for a misdemeanor, but if it’s a felony it should be a non issue. If you punish people for exercising their right to protect their property the criminals will take advantage of the situation. In England, they don’t chase after robbers who run away on mopeds. Guess how many drive-by moped crimes there are now.

    • This. Thank you. And you needn’t qualify this analysis as “the way you look at it.” This is simply the truth of the matter. When you steal property, you are negating hours out of a person’s finite supply on this earth. They can’t be replaced. He doesn’t get those hours back unless he gets the value back. It is, in essence, a partial murder. For instance, if you make $50 per hour and he takes your $500 TV, that’s ten hours of your life you can never get back. Specifically, it is ten hours you spent working for someone else rather than yourself, in expectation of negotiated compensation in the form of that TV. You went to his office and you worked your rear off, rather than being at home with your kids, making meals for them, teaching them to hunt and fish, whatever’s your pleasure, on the promise that you would be able to get this TV in return. Why you wanted the TV is no one else’s business in a free society. People who say “it’s just a TV” can give you their TVs, if they really think so. See how many do. It’s not about the TV, it’s about the choice, and the time. That was your choice, as to how to spend your time, and the thief now has taken that choice, and that time, away. Now, if you want to watch movies with your children, you have to leave them and go back to that office for another ten hours, because the previous ten have vanished from your history, as if they never happened. As if you were dead for that brief but all too real interval. And if people say, “It’s just ten hours,” they can give up ten hours of their spare time to you. Ten hours of time with their children—of visitation rights, perhaps—or one of their few precious deer hunting days this season, spent doing your job, at your place of work. See how many do. The cultural and legal proscriptions against using lethal force to stop such an act are wrong.

      The other thing that is wrong is the conflation with “punishment” or “justice” of an armed person’s response to a crime in progress. The stopping of a crime in progress and the pursuit and punishment of a criminal after he has successfully committed a crime are two separate things, and both are distinct from revenge.

      The justice system absolutely should be blind, and divorced from the victim. If a crime has occurred and the perpetrator has “gotten away,” has completed the criminal act and egress, it is a police force which should pursue him and a further separate attorney structure which should bring suit against him (so that the police who must engage violently and personally with a suspect are not also in a position to seek and influence his punishment). This allows for a deterrence of crime while preventing both revenge and vigilantism, which are anathema to a moral society and morally unhealthy for the individual.

      Intercession in the crime in progress has no kinship with these after-the-fact response actions. By definition, in a personal crime as it is happening, the perpetrator’s identity cannot be in doubt to the victim, and the victim’s response is not related to punishment but to escalation of a fight, with the intent of stopping the illegal violent act. Whatever the perpetrator’s goal, his crime is an act in violation of the liberty of the victim, and the victim has a natural right to fight back. If the victim has a right to fight, he has a right and moral duty to win, and to win with the maximum margin of safety for himself and all others who are not violating the liberty of their neighbors. The victim is not shooting to “punish” the perpetrator with death for the crime of stealing an hour of the victim’s life. He’s shooting in order to win decisively and safely a present fight over that hour. To prevent it being taken. He has the right to do so as long as he has the opportunity to do so–generally until the criminal has broken visual contact and there begins a logical possibility of doubt about the perpetrator’s identity. (The point at which we go from perpetrator to suspect.)

      If a person has a right to defend himself in a fight that was brought against him involuntarily, then no restriction on his ability to escalate against that perpetrator is reasonable. Any such restriction is to say, “You should have given the perpetrator more of a chance to succeed,” which is anathema to justice in a definitively involuntary scenario. Yes, a two hundred pound man should be able to shoot a one hundred pound woman if she walks up to him on the street, out of the blue, and starts punching him with her teenie, tiny fists, because parity is not at issue. Fairness is not at issue. And while the crime is in progress, preserving the life of the perpetrator is not at issue. What is at issue is the right of the victim to win the present fight as efficiently as possible, and at no point during the crime to empower the perpetrator of the crime.

      For this same reason, any restriction on a victim’s ability to fight back in a robbery is also unreasonable. Whether I take a part of your life by being bigger than you and grabbing your neck or by being faster than you and grabbing your purse, I am still bringing violence to you in an assault on your liberty, and you have a natural right to fight back. And if you have a natural right to fight, you have a natural right to win as efficiently and safely as possible. Any restriction on your ability to win is, again, anathema to your right to fight. For this reason, you absolutely do have a right to shoot a fleeing robber in the back, if he is fleeing with your property. Until he has broken contact such that his identity could be in doubt (such that were you to give chase, the best you could hope to do is catch up to someone who is “most likely” the perpetrator, and is therefore a suspect)—until that point, the fight for your life, or that part of it which he is taking, is still on, because you still have a chance to win it and prevent his success.

      Yes, once he has broken contact and there is room for a shadow of a doubt as to his identity, the window has closed and the justice system should pick up the process from there. Follow, if you like, and identify the suspect to the police, or even make a citizen’s arrest, but the fight is over, he won, and any act of violence against the person you at this point suspect of being the perpetrator is an attempt at justice after the fact and is in danger of becoming revenge or vigilantism.

      Yes, you should be held responsible for stray rounds in your shooting. The purpose of empowering you to shoot—or to cut with a sword or call in an air strike or to employ orbital lasers—is to empower you to win the present fight, the one which was brought to you, with maximum safety for yourself and those fellow citizens who like you have not willfully violated the rights of others. Your right to defend your liberty does not extend to the point of infringing on the liberty of law abiding neighbors.

      Yes, intercession on behalf of a second party (I.e., defense of another) should be covered under the same principles given above, but with the caveat that as a third party intercessor, the identity of the perpetrator is not necessarily beyond doubt to you, and as such your actions should be subject to review by your peers (properly versed in the principles above) against the “reasonable man” standard, as to whether or not you were justified in identifying a given person as the perpetrator in the event as it played out. If you watched the kid grab the lady’s purse and run, while she screamed helplessly, “Stop, thief!”, then your intercession is sound. If you came upon two men struggling over a TV and picked a side based on which had more tattoos, not so much. If one of them then pulls a gun on the other… even then you should not intercede, because you have no way to know if he is exercising his right to defend his life against the other, and if you draw down, you can only intercede by creating the effect you would at this point be trying to prevent, the taking of a life. Your proper course is to let it play out, and involve the justice system to weigh the survivors dispassionately.

      Yes, the police should take a back seat to the citizens while a crime is in progress. Like the third party citizen in the scenario above, they should not shoot unless and until they can positively identify, beyond any doubt, the perpetrator, and their actions should be subject to the same review by their peers—their citizen peers, not their professional peers—against the reasonable man standard. If they can bring to bear enough force to subdue all parties while preserving the lives thereof, then so be it, but simply shooting one man to save another, with no knowledge of which was the perpetrator, is wrongheaded. The job of the police is not to ensure safety (an impossibility) but to promote liberty by protecting the rights if the law-abiding. The job of the police certainly is not to rush in and mow down everyone engaging in a action they find distasteful.

      These principles, implemented, would lead to a far less violent and more just society than we now endure.

      • Your math is wrong. Between income and sales tax it’s more like 20 hours of work or a half a week of full time work. Other than that, you’re spot on.

        • Ain’t that the truth. Defense of property against government theft is a whole other discussion.

21. Not sorry, Bro!

22. The financial system’s attack on the Second Amendment,who made the financial system the arbiters of the Constitution.

23. Only when gays with guns start voting for Liberty will they be trustworthy. Until then they are just a FUDD who has homosexual sex. If you want a Link explaining this then just ask.

    Anyone who fails to support SlideFire really doesn’t understand the second amendment. (very Sad)

Comments are closed.