More than ever my thoughts drift towards Ronald Reagan. If there is any hope of saving what is left of this Nation, the Reagan blueprint must be used. God Bless you for reading this.
- Law Archive
- Gun Laws By State
- NY Article 265 (State Firearms Laws)
- NY Article 35 (Defense Justification)
- NY Article 400 (State Firearms Licensing)
- NYC Title 38 (NYC Firearms Laws)
- NYC Prop/Airsoft/Replica Gun Laws
- HR 218 “LEOSA” Carry Law
- NYS Police Guide to SAFE Act
- Kwong vs. Bloomberg
- Beach Vs. Kelly (NYC Residents and FOPA)
- Maloney v. Cuomo (Nunchukas Banned)
- ATF Section
- TSA: Traveling with Firearms
- Chronology: US Historical Documents
- NYCG Radio
“AR-15 Bans Die Painfully”
- 2014 (1317)
- 2013 (2777)
- 2012 (2380)
- 2011 (43)
- 2010 (27)
- Pistol-packing pastor stops… by Glenn At New…
Praise the lord . . . and pass the ammunition.
A pistol-packing pastor helped catch a grandmother last week who police say has been stealing dozens of packages from the front porches of homes in a Texas town, KTRK reported.
Pastor Benny Holmes was, to hear his wife Pat tell it, “at his wits end” after packages delivered to his Baytown home kept disappearing.
“He was determined in his mind that he would sit here, however long it took, to see if he could find her,” Pat Holmes told the station.
His determination paid off when he apparently caught the thief on yet another trip to allegedly steal packages.
- Gabby Giffords Gets Mean in… by Glenn At New…
Gabby Giffords, irreproachable figure of sympathy, has fashioned an improbable new role for herself this election year: ruthless attack dog.
The former Democratic congresswoman, whose recovery from a gunshot wound to the head captivated the country, has unleashed some of the nastiest ads of the campaign season, going after GOP candidates in Arizona and New Hampshire with attacks even some left-leaning commentators say go too far. And Republicans on the receiving end are largely helpless to hit back, knowing a fight with the much-admired survivor is not one they’re likely to win.
Some of the toughest spots from Giffords’ newly formed pro-gun-control super PAC, Americans for Responsible Solutions, hammer Republican Martha McSally, a retired Air Force pilot who is running for the Arizona seat Giffords once held. One features a wrenching testimonial from a woman named Vicki who weeps and stumbles over her words as she recounts how her 19-year-old daughter was hunted down and murdered by an enraged ex-boyfriend.
“He had threatened her before. I knew. I just knew,” Vicki says. A narrator then declares that McSally “opposes making it harder for stalkers to get a gun.”
It’s no accident that Giffords is singling out McSally, people close to the former congresswoman say.
During her unsuccessful 2012 campaign, McSally ran TV commercials comparing herself to Giffords. The Giffords team fumed, and her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, released a terse statement declaring, “Martha McSally is no Gabby Giffords.”
Glenn Says: Remember when the Democrats flew her to DC for a “historic comeback” vote on a party-line Bill not too long after she was shot in the head? She was so mentally handicapped that a staffer had to press the button for her. Probably the single most disgusting thing that has happened in politics in 30 years. She is a tool now. A puppet worked by her spouse to raise money and assassinate the character of pro-gun politicians. See our enemies for who they are: they use brain damaged people like Giffords and Brady to take away your civil rights!
- Limbaugh on the Republicans… by Glenn At New…
Look, let me tell you where we are with the Republicans. I had a guy was chatting back and forth, a friend last night. He said, “You seem remarkably calm.”
I said, “I am. It’s all about expectations. I finally figured out, the Republican Party’s what it is and isn’t anything gonna change it, and every day being invested in the hope they’re gonna change is a waste of time and energy. Let me give you an example…”
And then my friend said, “Let me just tell you something. If one of these ISIS guys get in through the Southern border and sets off some kind of bomb in LA, that’s the end. That’s the end of the Democrat Party.”
I said, “See, no. That’s where you’re looking at this the wrong way. If some ISIS guy gets into the country through the Southern border and drops a bomb, sets off a bomb in LA, it’s the Republicans who will get blamed for not working with Obama on comprehensive immigration reform that could have kept the ISIS guy out!”
The Republicans are going to get blamed for everything, and because they’re gonna get blamed for everything, they’re going to keep cooperating with the Democrats in hopes that they will stop being blamed. That’s the reality of the day, folks. Call it Battered Wife Syndrome, call it PTSD, call it outright fear of the media or what have you. But the Republicans… Look at John Boehner!
He just voted for the continuing resolution that funds Obamacare. All right? At the same time said that comprehensive immigration reform is got to happen. It’s the only thing that can help the American people. Well, so, I have ceased… That’s not the way to put it. The question that drew all these answers out of me was, “How do you get up and go to work every day? Aren’t you just totally frustrated?”
- George Zimmerman Details Wh… by Glenn At New…
With a smile on his face, George Zimmerman spent Saturday afternoon posing for photos, sharing hugs and shaking hands with gun enthusiasts at a firearms expo in Lake Mary.
“It’s so odd to me,” said Zimmerman, about the celebrity treatment he receives in public. “[But] it is appreciated.”
In his first interview with the Orlando Sentinel, Zimmerman described life after his acquittal last year in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The former Neighborhood Watch volunteer shot the unarmed black teen in Sanford on Feb. 26, 2012.
Now life for the 30-year-old is completely different.
He’s always moving.
He’s in debt.
And he’s constantly receiving death threats.
“I just try to be smart where I go,” said Zimmerman, who described the gun show at Gander Mountain Academy as a “friendly” event that didn’t warrant extra protection.
Zimmerman said he carries a semi-automatic handgun for added safety.
- Sale of toy guns banned in … by Glenn At New…
Atlantic City officials have voted to ban the sale of toy guns.
While they’re just for play, some look extremely realistic and have even been used in crimes – that’s why police are trying to get them off the streets.
The toy gun ordinance which was passed early Wednesday evening bans the sale and possession of an imitation firearm – unless it’s a bright color, clearly indicating that it’s not real.
- Libtard Time Magazine Comes… by Glenn At New…
With apologies to popular songwriter Paul Simon, Time magazine is apparently “still crazy after all these years.” Crazy about gun control, that is.
On Monday, Time, which has supported gun control for decades, ran an article subtly promoting “universal background checks” on firearm transfers. Titled “How Little Has Changed on Gun Control Since 1967” and written by “pop culture and entertainment” reporter Lily Rothman, the article compares President Lyndon Johnson’s campaign against interstate mail-order firearm sales in the 1960s to President Barack Obama’s campaign against so-called “online” sales today.
Rothman gets one important thing wrong, however. She implies that Johnson never got a ban on interstate mail-order sales of firearms. In fact, the Gun Control Act of 1968, which Johnson signed into law, prohibited all retail mail-order sales not involving federal firearm licensees, which is why Obama and other gun control supporters are being dishonest with their rhetoric about “online” firearm sales today.
By 1968, gun control supporters in Congress had already been working toward banning mail-order sales for several years at the urging of Sen. Thomas Dodd (D-Conn.). As law professor Franklin Zimring explained some years later, “When [Dodd] became chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency in 1961, he ‘directed the staff of the subcommittee to initiate a full-scale inquiry into the interstate mail order gun problem.’”
Zimring further noted that Dodd introduced his gun control bill, S. 1975, on August 2, 1963, and three months later “amended his bill to cover mail order traffic in shotguns and rifles.” Zimring added, “The bill died in the Senate Commerce Committee in 1964, but the forces leading to the adoption of the Gun Control Act of 1968 were already at work.”
At the end of Rothman’s article, Time refers readers to its rabidly anti-gun 1968 cover story, “The Gun in America.” The story, which Time presented as “news,” was really a six-page rant, and in retrospect shows, as Rothman put it, “how little has changed” in the gun control debate.
With rhetoric essentially identical to that of anti-gun activists today, the article said “Americans have turned their country into an arsenal” and “Americans are engaged in a manic internal arms race.” It declared “the U.S. must have gun legislation,” and lamented that “Attempts to tighten the absurdly loose laws have repeatedly been defeated.”
As to how the laws should be tightened, Time said “licensing for the owner, and registration for each of his firearms . . . would hardly be an outrageous imposition.” But the magazine was also willing to go further, quoting a sociologist as saying, “I see no reason why anyone in a democracy should own a weapon.” Given its radical language, the only clue that the article was written in 1968, rather than recently, is that Time didn’t try to buffalo readers by claiming to “support the Second Amendment,” and it didn’t insult readers’ intelligence by referring to registration, licensing and gun prohibition as “commonsense.”
Playing armchair Freudian psychologist, Time stated, “For the man with a feeling of insecurity or inferiority, a pistol in his pocket is the ‘equalizer.’” But the magazine’s writers were apparently the ones needing a psychologist, because even though they admitted that “Gun controls obviously cannot stop crime or wanton killing,” they insisted that gun control laws “are essential” anyway.
Time’s accompanying cover not only indicated the article’s tone, it may have inspired the title of the 2001 book, Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns, by former National Coalition to Ban Handguns staffer Josh Sugarmann, now head of the anti-gun Violence Policy Center.
Curiously, Time neglected to refer readers to its February 1989 “Armed America” issue, which was far more relevant to Rothman’s “universal background checks” topic.
“Armed America” also featured a cover of the sort that eventually inspired Reason magazine to compose a “Top 10 list of the most horrifying, silly, irresponsible, or downright ridiculous Time cover panics from the past 40 years.”
As the ghoulish cover indicated, the accompanying article was primarily designed to contribute to the media’s intense campaign against general-purpose semi-automatic rifles that gun control supporters called “assault weapons,” which had begun the previous month. Toward that end, it claimed that “The Federal Government should ban outright the import or sale of paramilitary weapons to civilians.”
But “Armed America” is particularly relevant to Rothman’s article because it also said that Congress should prohibit private firearm sales, something that anti-gun activist groups, and Rothman, didn’t advocate until a generation later.
At the bottom line, Rothman’s message is consistent with that of Obama and anti-gun activists: Congress is blocking gun control. And in just over six weeks, those of us who understand where gun control supporters would like “universal checks” to lead will have the opportunity to prove Rothman right, with room to spare.
- Anti-Gunners Not Celebratin… by Glenn At New…
Last weekend marked the 10-year anniversary of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” magazine bans’ expiration. True to form, gun control supporters reacted by mischaracterizing what the bans did and by attempting to conceal their plans for future restrictions. For those keeping track, the bans were imposed on September 13, 1994, and expired 10 years later.
Trying to save face, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the bans, issued a press release claiming that they had “worked.” However, her claim is based upon mischaracterizations of BATFE firearm tracing data and the congressionally-mandated study of the bans. She also lied about her legislative intentions, claiming she’s interested only in “reinstating” the bans when her current legislation would instead expand the bans to include all semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and tighten restrictions on magazines. (See NRA-ILA S. 150 Fact Sheet.) Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
Meanwhile, the anti-gun Center for American Progress observed the anniversary by proposing that gun control supporters stop trying to ban the guns outright, and instead push for a law requiring a permit to possess them, mandatory reporting of all interstate firearm sales, and several other restrictions. Just as “universal check” legislation is designed to lay the groundwork for firearm registration, the Center’s permit scheme would provide the federal government with a list of everyone who owns an “assault weapon,” which under Feinstein’s new bill would include tens of millions of Americans.
Surprisingly, the New York Times said that Feinstein’s bans had little or no effect on crime, but the newspaper didn’t fully understand why. Here, for the benefit of the Times and others in the same boat, are five of the reasons:
1. Unless gun control supporters are saying that increasing “assault weapon” ownership reduces crime, they can’t say that Feinstein’s gun ban reduced crime. That’s because Americans bought more “assault weapons” during the 10 years the gun ban was in effect, than during the previous 10 years. For example, Americans bought more than 730,000 AR-15s during the 10 years 1995-2004, almost double the figure for the preceding 10 years.
And here’s why. Feinstein’s “ban” didn’t ban any guns, it merely banned installing various external attachments on certain guns. This is why the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center called the ban “eviscerated” and a “charade” and a “fictional ban” (VPC flyer on file with NRA-ILA), and why it said “You can’t argue with a straight face that the ban has been effective” (R. Montgomery, “Clock ticking on assault gun ban: Flaws put extension in doubt,” Kansas City Star, May 2, 2004, p. A1).
For example, Feinstein’s “ban” defined a semi-automatic, detachable-magazine rifle as an “assault weapon” only if it had two or more external features from a list included in the law. Manufacturers complied with the ban by producing AR-15s with only one of the features, the grip, ironically, the feature that gun control supporters most despise.
2. Carrying the previous point a step further, since the “ban” expired, ownership of “assault weapons” has soared and the nation’s murder rate has decreased from 5.7 in 2003 and 5.5 in 2004, to 4.7 in 2012.
3. Unless gun control supporters are saying that increased ownership of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds deters crime, they cannot say that Feinstein’s “large” magazine ban reduced crime either. That’s not only because the vast majority of criminals who fire guns during crimes don’t fire more than a few rounds. It’s also because 50 million magazines that held more than 10 rounds were imported into the United States during the 10 years the “ban” was in effect. (Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., press release, “Schumer Moves to Renew Federal Ban on Assault Weapons,” May 8, 2003.)
4. The claim that Feinstein and other gun control supporters most often to pretend that the bans “worked” is based upon a mischaracterization of BATFE firearms traces. After the bans were imposed, “assault weapons” slightly decreased as a percentage of all firearms traced by BATFE. However, BATFE traces guns for various reasons, not only if guns have been used to commit crimes, and once the bans were imposed, law enforcement agencies were less likely to request traces upon the guns in question.
Furthermore, guns used to commit violent crimes have historically been a small percentage of guns that BATFE traces. In its current tracing reports, BATFE states “Law enforcement agencies may request traces for any reason. . . . Not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime. Firearms selected for tracing are not chosen for purposes of determining which, types, makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected do not constitute a random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe. Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general are acquired for use in crime.”
5. As the Times pointed out, criminals are more likely to use handguns than rifles or even shotguns of any sort. While gun control supporters try to malign semi-automatic rifles in the context of multiple-victim shootings, the one that had the most victims, at Virginia Tech in 2007, was committed entirely with handguns, and one of the criminals’ handguns was equipped with only 10-round magazines.
Another fact worth noting is that Feinstein’s “assault weapon” and “large” magazine “bans” were separate laws. Her ban on any magazine that held more than 10 rounds applied to magazines for any guns. Most such magazines are for handguns. Detachable magazines are required for the proper functioning of semi-automatic handguns, which are the most common handguns in use today. Moreover, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that handguns cannot be banned and that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear all firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes.
Clearly, gun control supporters had no reason to break out the champagne for the anniversary of the bans, and let’s make sure they feel like keeping it corked as the results of the upcoming elections start rolling in the night of November 4.
- USA FREEDOM Act Would Curta… by Glenn At New…
Americans are justifiably proud of our military, intelligence, and law enforcement forces. Their bravery, dedication, and sacrifice help keep this nation safe and free. They have the gratitude of the NRA, its members, and the American people.
Americans can also take pride that the nation’s commitment to a free and open society has largely survived efforts to enhance security and intelligence-gathering both abroad and throughout the homeland. This preservation of important principles has required sustained and dedicated efforts on the part of many, including your NRA. We take a backseat to no one in our support of the men and women of America’s Armed Forces and law enforcement communities. We also understand that the constitutional safeguards our Founding Fathers built into the American system of government were designed as much for challenging times of upheaval and insecurity as for times of peace and calm.
For these reasons, your NRA has been actively involved in efforts to ensure the incredible technological and surveillance capabilities that have arisen in the last decade do not overwhelm fundamental civil liberties, including the privacy of your Second Amendment choices. As we reported in January, NRA has been participating in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that challenges the National Security Administration’s mass collection of communication data under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
Specifically, the litigation asserts that the data collection is not authorized by that act and violates Americans’ First and Fourth Amendment rights. In its original friend-of-the-court brief and a follow-up filing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, NRA has argued that NSA’s data collection program violates the First Amendment rights of NRA members by potentially chilling their willingness to communicate. It also asserts that the NSA program could use sophisticated metadata analysis to circumvent statutory protections barring the federal government from collecting gun ownership records.
While the ACLU case continues to make its way through the federal courts, Congress has also responded to the privacy concerns raised by a broad coalition of civil rights and privacy advocates with legislation aimed at curbing the excesses of NSA’s runaway data collection. The USA FREEDOM Act of 2014, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), strengthens safeguards against abuse of the surveillance activities targeted by the ACLU litigation. It requires enhanced justification for these activities, limits their scope and duration, requires destruction of information collected that is not relevant to foreign terrorist activity, and enhances executive and judicial oversight of data collection.
The NRA supports the USA FREEDOM Act–currently pending as S. 2685 and H.R. 3361–as a positive step toward protecting the privacy of innocent Americans and ensuring that surveillance activities are properly and narrowly focused on actual threats to the nation’s security. As well as the NRA and the ACLU, the bill is supported by a diverse range of interest groups, including the American Library Association, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Center for National Security Studies, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Sunlight Foundation.
- D.C. Thumbs Nose at Federal… by Glenn At New…
In response to the District’s ban on carrying handguns being declared unconstitutional in July, this week the D.C. Council released a bill to create a licensing system to carry a concealed pistol. While the Council claims that the bill is intended to comply with Judge Frederick J. Scullin’s opinion holding D.C.’s ban to be unconstitutional, a closer inspection of the bill reveals that the practical effect of the bill may be very similar to the District’s current outright ban on carrying firearms.
To start, issuance of a license to carry a pistol would be left to the discretion of the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department. While in some “may-issue” jurisdictions it’s possible for most law-abiding people to get a license, the bill makes clear that only applicants with a “special need” would be granted a license.
Under the bill, prospective applicants would face a number of hurdles just to complete the application. At a minimum, an applicant would have to be at least 21 years of age, meet the already burdensome requirements for registering a firearm in the District, not have “suffered in the previous 5 years from any mental illness or condition that creates a substantial risk that he or she is a danger to himself or others,” complete a firearms training course from an approved instructor that is at a minimum 16 hours in length (including a minimum of two hours of live-fire instruction), complete an in-person interview at MPD headquarters, and “follow any procedures the Chief may establish by rule.” The training requirement in particular will be difficult for District residents (especially low-income resident) to meet given that there are no shooting ranges in the District open to the public.
Even if an applicant completed all of the above steps, MPD could still deny the applicant based on a government bureaucrat’s determination that the applicant does not “need” to carry a firearm. And even if the MPD did issue the occasional license, the bill would also give MPD the authority to “limit the geographic area, circumstances, or times of the day, week, month, or year in which the license is effective.”
These limitations would be in addition to the many places where firearms would remain prohibited even with a license. While too numerous to list, they would include: government buildings; schools, including “adjacent parking lots;” childcare facilities; hospitals and buildings “where medical or mental health services are the primary services provided;” public transportation vehicles, including Metro; public gatherings and special events that require a permit; “[t]he area around the White House, namely: between Constitution Avenue and H Street and between 15th and 17th Streets, all Northwest;” and “[w]ithin 1,000 feet … when a dignitary or high ranking official of the United States or a state, local, or foreign government is under the protection of the Metropolitan Police Department, or other law enforcement agency assisting or working in concert with it.” Private property would also generally be treated as a prohibited place under the bill unless a licensee has permission to carry a pistol from the owner or person in control of the property.
As if the bill itself is not bad enough, the Chief of MPD would be given broad authority to create further regulations governing the carrying of concealed pistols. The bill even prompts the Chief to create certain regulations, including rules “[t]o establish the type and amount of ammunition that may be carried concealed by a licensee” and “[t]o establish the methods by which a pistol may be carried concealed including any standards for safe holstering.” While it’s obvious that the first of these requests for rulemaking is meant to further limit a licensee’s defensive options, the council’s intent with the second request is unclear. It seems unlikely that MPD would create a rule governing when, where, or how a licensee could holster his or her pistol or a rule with a list of approved holsters, but those seem to be the only options that would fit within the language of the request for rulemaking.
Given the numerous and unprecedented hurdles to acquiring a license under the bill, the fact that MPD would have essentially unfettered discretion in deciding whether or not to issue a license, and that so much of the District would remain off limits to carry even to a licensee, the city council has shown that its real intent with this bill is to continue the status quo of denying law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms within the District.
With the continued obstreperousness from the Council, the best option for true recognition of the right to bear arms in the District is intervention by Congress, which maintains ultimate constitutional authority over the District’s affairs. We encourage you to contact your members of Congress and urge them to support the Second Amendment Enforcement Act.
- Limp Wristed Morons at NBC … by Glenn At New…
Americans have a constitutional right to armed self-defense, but they have other choices as well. The University of Colorado, for example, last year offered the students it sought to disarm with statewide legislation other “crime prevention tactics.” Options for female students facing rapists included passive resistance,” biting, and self-degradation. According to one proponent of the bill to ban the lawful carrying of firearms on campuses, such threats are “why we have the whistles.”
Along similar lines, NBC’s Today Show recently offered suggestions on how to deal with violent home invaders. Their basic advice: politely defer to the intruder, but if things really get out of hand, reach for the insect repellent.
For the tips, the Today Show interviewed former NYPD detective Wallace Zeins, whose New York City pedigree was evident in his recommendations. First, Zeins instructed viewers to use their vehicles’ key fobs as a makeshift alarm. Following that, the former detective told the audience to keep a can of wasp spray in the bedroom to use as an improvised chemical weapon against a violent intruder. Further, the report suggested abandoning one’s home to the intruder as soon as possible. If captured by a violent home invader, Zeins’s advice was to comply with the attacker’s every wish, and to never lie to them.
At no time did the report suggest that firearms were a viable option. Also unclear was whether Zeins himself has abandoned the firearms he carried as a police officer in favor of bug spray to protect his own home and family.
The Today Show’s omission of firearms as a legitimate means of self-defense isn’t especially surprising, given NBC’s lengthy history of anti-gun bias. Nevertheless, while the defensive capabilities of firearms for home defense may continue to escape the attention of NBC’s producers, the legitimacy of this option has been recognized by far weightier institutions.
The Supreme Court’s Heller decision noted one of the reasons D.C.’s handgun ban was unconstitutional was that “[t]he prohibition extend[ded] … to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.” The Supreme Court’s opinion in McDonald reiterated this point. State legislatures have increasingly passed Castle Doctrine legislation to protect residents who employ armed self-defense from unjust prosecution and civil liability, amplifying a doctrine well-established in Anglo-American case law.
Further, there is strong evidence that gun use is the most effective means to defend oneself from criminal attack. A 1988 study by Florida State Professor of Criminology Gary Kleck titled Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force determined, “Victim resistance with guns is associated with lower rates of both victim injury and crime completion for robberies and assaults than any other victim action, including nonresistance.”
Despite their best efforts, Today and Zein inadvertently gave one sound piece of advice, when the former detective told viewers to treat home invaders “like royalty.” While he apparently meant that a victim should be as obsequious as possible to an assailant, liberty-loving Americans have a strong tradition of treating interloping monarchs to the business end of their rifles.
- Ray Ficara on “Repeal the SAFE Act&…Are they in the basement of the Gov's Mansion?
- Ray Ficara on Star Witness In Michael Bro…Is he Jenteal's cousin?
- Ray Ficara on An Automatic Weapon Is What…The Media HAVE their "sources".
- Ray Ficara on Gun-grabber Bloomturd’s epi…The ONLY stores not robbed or burned were guarded by owners with GUNS.
- Glenn At New… on Bloomturd’s Departing Front…Notice he 'fesses up only after Bloomturd's last paycheck cleared...
- Ray Ficara on Video: Stupid Liberals Shoo…They ALWAYS do. That's why libs hate ranges and shooting schools.
- Ray Ficara on Bloomturd’s Departing Front…But you can have a NICE living of them.
- Greg Tabor on Bloomturd’s Departing Front…Well, Duh, anyone with half a brain could have told you that it wouldn't work!!!
- Greg Tabor on Trend toward stand your gro…Who else sleeps with a pistol under their pillow?? Mine's a .45, how about yours?
- Greg Tabor on The Second Amendment Only A…Well, Duh, money Rules, Peons eat shit.