Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Three Things You Need to Tell A Liberal About Guns
The Truth About Guns ^ | 3 July, 2011 | Robert Farago

Posted on 07/05/2011 3:50:50 AM PDT by marktwain

As Lola and I rocked up my Mom’s waterfront idyll, I knew there was going to be trouble. The Lexus 460hl sitting in her driveway told the tale. It’s a $100k+ carcoon powered by a 438 horsepower hybrid gas – electric engine. The 20mpg luxobarge can scoot from zero to sixty in 5.5 seconds. The 460hl’s a hugely expensive, enormously powerful automobile for wealthy owners who want to believe they’re doing their bit for the environment. It is the perfect car for a liberal. Mind you, the good Doctor, his erudite wife, successful son and beautiful daughter-in-law proved to be relatively open-minded. They didn’t sneer once. It was my mother, as usual, who blew me away . . .

I love my mother. As did my father, who only talked politics at the distant reaches of my mother’s limited hearing. And for good reason. Mom is the only person I know who’d fail to grasp the irony of Sean Hannity’s nickname for Barack Obama: “The Anointed One.” If Mom heard Hannity’s not-so-gentle jibe, she’d simply swear sailor-like at the Fox News curmudgeon—not for a moment suspecting that Sean nailed it: she’s deified President Obama.

Mom provides me with excellent insights into the “see no evil on our side” hearts and minds of American liberals. She personifies your basic Kind-Hearted Artistic Intellectuals (Us) vs. Neanderthal Boorish Robber Barons (Them) mindset. I never fail to sup from her splendiferous anti-Bible basher buffet, served as it is with a magnum of champagne socialism.

“Selling” my Mother on gun rights would be a bit like promoting the joys of bee-keeping to someone prone to anaphylactic shock. But her friends and I got into it. Mum felt obliged to, as the Brits say, put her oar in. She did so when the Lexus liberals started talking about high-capacity “clips.”

“There’s no need for those guns that shoot lots of bullets and kill people,” Mom said, miming a fully-automatic firearm.

“Mom, they don’t sell machine guns to civilians,” I corrected.

“Yes they do,” she said, brooking the usual amount of debate. “You can go into a gun store and buy them.”

I didn’t argue. (Hey, what do I know?) Besides, I was grateful for the wake-up call. Mom’s remark reminded me that gun control is high concept; liberals and independents are not “up” on firearms regulations’ real world impact (or lack thereof). “Supporting common sense gun control” is a euphemism for “uninformed and proud of it.”

If you’re debating gun control, never underestimate your opponents’ lack of knowledge on the subject. Before you try to explain the rational basis for your position, make sure liberal-minded gun control advocates and fence-straddlers have a basic understanding of the subject. Here are the three key points you need to cover . . .

American have the right to own guns

What? What part of “the right to keep and bear arms” don’t they understand? The “right to keep and bear arms” bit. True story: millions of people don’t know that gun ownership is a Constitutional right and/or what that means.

Before you can point out the lunacy of “common sense” restrictions on gun ownership, ask your opponents if they’re familiar with the Second Amendment. No really. And then ask why Americans have the right to armed self-defense.

There are still plenty of people who believe that the framers guaranteed the right to own guns solely to maintain a militia (i.e. a volunteer army). They think gun ownership is a collective right.

Disabuse that notion by pointing out that all our constitutional rights are individual rights. And that a “well-regulated militia” is merely a bunch of people (legal term) with an individual right to keep and bear arms getting together for common defense.

If your debatee knows that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms, ask if they agree that all our constitutional rights exist to protect us from the government. This they need to know.

Guns are safe

By and large, gun control advocates are urban dwellers who aren’t familiar with or comfortable around firearms. The “logic” they deploy when discussing firearms regulations is colored by personal ignorance and a deep-seated fear of “gun violence.”

[NB: The most liberal person I know---other than my mother---is adamantly, experientially pro-gun: "I want us to have at least the same amount of firepower as the right wing extremists."]

Pro-gun folk who counter gun control advocates’ fear with stats—proving that guns are safer than prescription meds or swimming pools (true story)—miss the point. The real basis for the antis’ argument: THEY don’t have guns so YOU shouldn’t either. NO ONE SHOULD.

Gun control is not about criminals or gun safety. It’s all about creating a level playing field—making non-gun owners feel more comfortable about not owning a gun.

The best way to make a gun grabber feel safe enough to let them let you own/carry a gun: range time. If you’re careful, a hands-on demo with an unloaded carry piece can be equally transformative. You’d be amazed how five minutes’ familiarization changes the tone of the debate.

Short of that, ask them how many gun owners there are in America. Tell them it’s around 80 million. Ask them if they’d consider privately held guns safe if .01 percent (one tenth of one percent) of these firearms owners were involved in some kind of fatal shooting.

Tell them that in 2007, less than one-half of .01 percent of American firearms owners were involved in a shooting. Half of those deaths were suicides. Most of the remaining deaths involved guns held illegally by previously convicted criminals. Are cars that safe?

Machine guns are illegal

When gun control advocates popularized the term “assault rifle,” they did more to harm gun rights than any other of our opponents’ Machiavellian maneuvers. Vast swathes of America believe that commonly available “assault rifles” are fully-automatic rifles.

The obvious cure (again) take the ballistically misinformed down to the gun range and show them what’s what. Unfortunately, most liberals would rather attend a Bush barbecue (roast pork, not politician) than shoot a gun.

Meanwhile and in any case, remind our loyal opposition the difference between semi and fully-automatic weapons, and that bad guys can’t buy machine guns at a gun store.

I know: what the hell difference does that make? American citizens should be able to buy fully-automatic rifles to defend themselves or just because of the “shall not infringe” part of the Second Amendment. But a good poker player doesn’t reveal his or her cards until they have to. And maybe not even then.

Just as gun control advocates wrap their gun banning hopes and dreams in the mantle of crime prevention, gun rights guys need to appear politically palatable to liberals who see them as “gun nuts.” Begin by not being unpalatable. Tell them machine guns are illegal.

And there you have it: three basic concepts to move the ball forward. Just remember to wipe your feet before you enter the house or my mother will have you, mate.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; liberal; liberals; philosophy; shallnotbeinfringed
I find range time to be very effective, but simply handling a gun can have a very positive effect.
1 posted on 07/05/2011 3:50:56 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

If the media were not a lying libtrash propaganda machine, there would be very few libtards regurgitating their lies.

The holocaust would not have happened without propaganda to mislead the masses.


2 posted on 07/05/2011 3:57:50 AM PDT by MikeSteelBe (Austrian Hitler was as the Halfrican Hitler does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Tell them that your guns are none of their business.


3 posted on 07/05/2011 4:01:40 AM PDT by popdonnelly (Democrats = authoritarian socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Machine guns are illegal

Since when?

4 posted on 07/05/2011 4:04:20 AM PDT by 03A3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Geez...what a yawner of a post....is there a reason for this?


5 posted on 07/05/2011 4:11:15 AM PDT by Tainan (Cogito Ergo Conservitus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tainan
"Geez...what a yawner of a post....is there a reason for this?"

Yes, 'yawner' enough for you to respond. /rolleyes.

6 posted on 07/05/2011 4:15:48 AM PDT by Wizdum (Wisdom is what you gain when things go wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Done with talking to them. That all ended November 2008. Universally, without exception, their attitude has been and always will be “guns for me, but none for thee.” Liberal leftist mentality in a nutshell. They may come to the point of owning a gun. Even liking it. But they remain the same lot who will support government directives to have them registered, and will even support confiscation so long as it only applies to others, and not themselves. Witness the vociferous proponents of “reasonable gun laws.” I, therefore, refuse to help them acquire arms or learn of their use. They made their bed. Now let them sleep in it.


7 posted on 07/05/2011 4:32:33 AM PDT by PowderMonkey (WILL WORK FOR AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 03A3
Since when?

New machineguns for civilians illegal since 0000 hrs, 19 MAY 1986.

You want an M16A2? $20,000.00 plus $200.00 tranfer tax, duplicate pictures, law enforcement signoff, and about 6 months backgroundcheck from NFA Branch.

If you are a cop, your M16 A2 just needs a letter from your chief/sheriff, and will cost you $900.00.

8 posted on 07/05/2011 4:38:10 AM PDT by DCBryan1 (Forget the Lawyers....first kill the journalists! - Die Ritter, die sagen, nee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PowderMonkey

Agreed. Besides, they are the enemy. End of story.


9 posted on 07/05/2011 5:09:32 AM PDT by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
From the post:
When gun control advocates popularized the term “assault rifle,” they did more to harm gun rights than any other of our opponents’ Machiavellian maneuvers. Vast swathes of America believe that commonly available “assault rifles” are fully-automatic rifles.
That is planned:
"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's
confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic
assault weapons anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to
be a machine gun can only increase that chance of public support for
restrictions on these weapons."

-- Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.

10 posted on 07/05/2011 5:10:39 AM PDT by Peet (Leftists think personal liberty is so important it must be carefully rationed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Good article, but I would point out that full auto weapons are NOT illegal.
They simply require a Class III Federal Firearms license.
Which are not easy to obtain.


11 posted on 07/05/2011 5:22:27 AM PDT by G Larry (I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1
New machineguns for civilians illegal since 0000 hrs, 19 MAY 1986.

You want an M16A2? $20,000.00 plus $200.00 tranfer tax, duplicate pictures, law enforcement signoff, and about 6 months backgroundcheck from NFA Branch.

Your second sentence seems to contradict your first sentence.

12 posted on 07/05/2011 5:26:36 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The USSR spent itself into bankruptcy and collapsed -- and aren't we on the same path now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PowderMonkey

;-)


13 posted on 07/05/2011 5:30:27 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Morgan at Cowpens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Your second sentence seems to contradict your first sentence.

So it may seem. Machineguns made after 19 May 86 are illegal for civilians. Want an M16 a2, your receiver (the registered part) must have been made prior to 18 May 86 at 2359. YOu are paying for an older receiver in a less supply, more demand market. Is it worth 20k? No. You want one? Cough it up as your LEO buddies and .gov types pay <$1,000.

14 posted on 07/05/2011 5:47:01 AM PDT by DCBryan1 (Forget the Lawyers....first kill the journalists! - Die Ritter, die sagen, nee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1
"If you are a cop, your M16 A2 just needs a letter from your chief/sheriff, and will cost you $900.00."

You may be correct about the 200.00 transfer fee being waived if you are a cop. However, how can you say that it will cost 900.00 vs. 20,000.00 for a civilian (which is about right from what I've seen. In the 16,000 - 20,000 range at least). Reason being is that they have to buy it from someone who is selling it. How do they get a discount of thousands of dollars? If I can get 20,000 for my fully auto M-16, why in the world would I want to sell my fully auto M-16 to a cop for 900.00?
15 posted on 07/05/2011 5:48:43 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
"They simply require a Class III Federal Firearms license."

Plus, it has to be a pre-87 made fully auto rifle. There are not a lot of them out there, hence they are very expensive. What criminal is going to shell out 20,000 for a 'Legal' fully auto rifle when they can get one illegally for (most likely) 1,000 or less? Even the left's minds should be able to comprehend that logic.
16 posted on 07/05/2011 5:52:58 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The three things I tell Liberals about guns is:

1. Not you.

2. Not mine.

3. Not ever.


17 posted on 07/05/2011 5:57:27 AM PDT by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tainan

You have to know what people think- we don’t need to hear ONLY our side all the time

Always preaching to the choir is not helpful


18 posted on 07/05/2011 5:57:37 AM PDT by Mr. K (CAPSLOCK! -Unleash the fury! [Palin/Bachman 2012- unbeatable ticket])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
How do they get a discount of thousands of dollars?

They don't. They get to buy brand spanking new receivers. Civilians can only own those manufactured before 19 MAY 1986.

If I can get 20,000 for my fully auto M-16, why in the world would I want to sell my fully auto M-16 to a cop for 900.00?

You would be stupid to do so. Plus, why would a cop want a 20 year old + receiver when he can get one made last week on even better milling and CNC machines?

Basically it is the law of supply and demand which exaggerates and inflates the civilian "legally transferable" machineguns....more and more money chasing fewer and fewer items as they disappear into collections.

19 posted on 07/05/2011 6:12:15 AM PDT by DCBryan1 (Forget the Lawyers....first kill the journalists! - Die Ritter, die sagen, nee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 03A3

Since 1968 when they decided that no new MGs will be allowed to American collectors.
To own older MGs, you have to get a tax stamp, own a safe to store them in, and give the BATFE a map to your home showing where you keep them. Further, they reserve the right to make unannounced inspections of your home to make certain the MGs are there.
That may not be “illegal” but that sure as Hell is “infringement.”


20 posted on 07/05/2011 6:30:21 AM PDT by Little Ray (Best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

You are absolutely correct in your declaration of why these 25 year old fully auto rifles are so expensive. However, this is the first time I have ever heard that police officers are able to buy brand new fully auto M-16s or fully auto receivers. Not that I doubt you, but I would really like to hear from a LEO out there if this is true or not. Is there something in the Hughes amendment that allows them to do so or is there been something passed since the Hughes amendment and the 86 law has been passed that has allowed this?


21 posted on 07/05/2011 6:50:39 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Machine guns are illegal” is hardly a principled position to take in arguing guns with liberals. If it’s somehow good that they’re illegal, why can’t anything and everything else be illegal too?


22 posted on 07/05/2011 6:51:03 AM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
However, this is the first time I have ever heard that police officers are able to buy brand new fully auto M-16s or fully auto receivers.

Perhaps, I overstated that I guess. The DEPARTMENT can buy whatever they want, subject to their mayor/city atty/police commission, etc. An individual cop CANNOT send/fax his B&Cs to HK and say, "send me an MP5, im a cop".

There has been some abuse by LEOs and NFA, for instance, Greenland, AR has 8 full time cops, but the chief was a gun-nut and had HUNDREDS of machineguns in the vault to take out and play with. Also, constables would deputize his brother, cousins, etc, and get them brand new HK G36s to play with.

ATF has SOMEWHAT been cracking down on LEOs, but not nearly as much as infringing on law-abiding citizens' rights lately.

23 posted on 07/05/2011 7:05:45 AM PDT by DCBryan1 (Forget the Lawyers....first kill the journalists! - Die Ritter, die sagen, nee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Ask them if they’d consider privately held guns safe if .01 percent (one tenth of one percent) of these firearms owners were involved in some kind of fatal shooting.

Math was never my strong suit in school, but... Doesn't .01 percent = one-hundredth of a percent? If so, I think the writer meant to say .10 percent is one-tenth of one percent.

Regardless of my fuzziness on math, I agree that fatal shootings involving privately held guns are very, very infrequent occurences, statistically speaking.

24 posted on 07/05/2011 7:06:45 AM PDT by deoetdoctrinae (Gun-Free zones are playgrounds for felons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

You can have a fully automatic rifle.....it just can’t be selective fire.and that’s here in The Peoples Republic of CT


25 posted on 07/05/2011 7:11:46 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

So what you are saying is they are breaking the law by doing this? I really don’t like to see the ATF crack down on what I believe to be unconstitutional laws. However, in this instance I fully support the ATF doing this. If we can’t have these guns, then why should LEOs or those “more privileged” than us have them. Maybe when the “more privileged” among us get this right taken away, there will be more of a push for all of us to have our constitutional rights restored.


26 posted on 07/05/2011 7:28:58 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
You have to know what people think- we don’t need to hear ONLY our side all the time
Always preaching to the choir is not helpful

Well...I do agree with that.

27 posted on 07/05/2011 8:03:09 AM PDT by Tainan (Cogito Ergo Conservitus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Look at the absurdity of our PC anti-violence culture in schools where a cub scout pocket knife or even a butter knife is regarded as almost a weapon of mass destruction. During my high school years most of the student’s cars in the parking lot had shot guns during pheasant season and there was never a Columbine type incident anywhere.


28 posted on 07/05/2011 8:05:53 AM PDT by The Great RJ ("The problem with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people's money" M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

b


29 posted on 07/05/2011 8:08:32 AM PDT by Maverick68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

It’s true. Actually went out with a LEO a month ago shooting a full auto AR15 which ran the county around $1K.


30 posted on 07/05/2011 8:33:12 AM PDT by 03A3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

LEOs do not require BAFTE permits-they are sold to a government agency.

The reason why “my” M16 costs $20K and a LEO can opder one brand new from COLT, Rockriver Armalite etc is because they are post ‘86 LE guns. Cannot be transferred to a private citizen.

As stated in earlier posts, the cost of the M16 or whatever version of a full auto firearm you wish to own is a supply and demand issue; very limited supply, high demand= high price point. Civilians must find a “for sale” pre ‘86 firearm, whereas LEOs can buy one made yesterday.

Best;


31 posted on 07/05/2011 8:56:40 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War" (my spelling is generally korrect!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: deoetdoctrinae
Math was never my strong suit in school, but... Doesn't .01 percent = one-hundredth of a percent? If so, I think the writer meant to say .10 percent is one-tenth of one percent.

I found the total number of firearms homicides in 2008. It was 9,484 total. Say 80 million firearm owners... I suspect that this is a low estimate... That would by 9485/80000000 or .0119 percent of gun owners involved in a fatal homicide.

As we know that Suicides are about 55% of all fatalities involving guns, suicides would be about .00145% of all gun owners.

Fatal firearms accidents are a very small number in the U.S. The last figues I can come up with are 613 in 2007. That comes to .00077 percent of gun owners involved in a fatal firearms accident.

32 posted on 07/05/2011 9:41:39 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
As we know that Suicides are about 55% of all fatalities involving guns, suicides would be about .00145% of all gun owners.

Oops..got an extra zero in the suicide line. Should be .0145% of all gun owners.

33 posted on 07/05/2011 9:44:26 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

My response, what about my right to privacy?

It leaves them looking a bit confused.


34 posted on 07/05/2011 10:00:04 AM PDT by dangerdoc (see post #6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peet; marktwain

***When gun control advocates popularized the term “assault rifle,” they did more to harm gun rights than any other of our opponents’ Machiavellian maneuvers.***

actually gun owners were their own worst enemy in this. I have several magazines from the early 1980s that use the term “assault rifle” well before Josh suggarman latched on to it.

PISTOLERO 1980. Assault Rifles to use against Sneaky Snipers.

COMBAT ARMS 1983 (Guns and Ammo pub) ASSAULT RIFLE ROUNDUP.

EXOTIC WEAPONS (Pistolero) 1985. Customize your H&K Assault rifle!

SHOOTERS SURVIVAL GUIDE 1981, Assault Rifles for Defense.

ASSAULT WEAPONS 1983 ASSAULT RIFLES-RIOT GUNS-SNIPER RIFLES.

ASSAULT RIFLES (Gund and Ammo) 1982

ASSAULT FIREARMS (Guns and Ammo) 1984 Big Bore Battle rifles, Assault Rifles.

ASSAULT RIFLES (Guns and Ammo) 1992

I believe Mel Tappan first popularized the term in his book SURVIVAL GUNS AROUND 1975.


35 posted on 07/05/2011 10:43:14 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name. See my home page, if you dare! NEW PHOTOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Machine guns are not illegal per se, just highly regulated and punitively taxed.


36 posted on 07/05/2011 12:10:59 PM PDT by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
Plus, it has to be a pre-87 made fully auto rifle.

How hard would it be to fake date-stamp some parts?

37 posted on 07/05/2011 12:13:55 PM PDT by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
"How hard would it be to fake date-stamp some parts?"

I'm no expert in this. I have a bushmaster semi. I owned a lot of pre 86 banned M-16's in the Marine Corps, but I eventually had to turn them into the armory!! : )

I would just say that you would have to buy the lower receiver or full rifle illegally to begin with. My understanding is that most of those have their serial numbers erased. Plus, in order to fire it you probably need your own property. At least around where I live in western PA. My gun club and all the gun clubs that I know of around here will not allow you to fire a fully auto rifle, legal or not.
38 posted on 07/05/2011 12:19:49 PM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"I found the total number of firearms homicides in 2008. It was 9,484 total. Say 80 million firearm owners... I suspect that this is a low estimate... That would by 9485/80000000 or .0119 percent of gun owners involved in a fatal homicide."

Outstanding job of finding the numbers. Thanks very much. So, in reality, if 2008 is representative, we can expect that in a given year, the number of American firearm owners involved in a fatal homicide would be slightly greater than 1/100th of one percent. Strange, I thought we were all supposed to be crazed vigilantes, filling the streets with blood. /sarc

As long as the gun-control crowd continues to paint us with that super broad brush, we will continue to have a battle on our hands defending our 2A rights.


39 posted on 07/05/2011 12:57:56 PM PDT by deoetdoctrinae (Gun-Free zones are playgrounds for felons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson