Should the US institute a ban on assault weapons.

1…1415171920…28

Comments

  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    Yes
    EM194007 said:

    myoung321 said:

    Every damn day I have to read about shootings or someone shooting themselves by accident..etc.etc..... when is enough enough?

    Every day I have to read about people getting killed, or killing others and also getting injured, as well as injuring others in car accidents. 38,300 people were killed and 4.4 million injured in car accidents last year. When are we going to get rid of cars? They're weapons on four wheels. Enough is enough there as well, correct??
    You want to start a thread about car deaths go right ahead. This thread is about a ban on assault weapons. Thanks in advance.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited June 2016
    other
    Pretty much what I have been arguing all along, prohibition does not work... Gun control advocates would make a lot more headway in actually helping reduce violence if they put their money and mouths into other strategies...
    https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,381
    other
    PJPOWER said:

    Pretty much what I have been arguing all along, prohibition does not work... Gun control advocates would make a lot more headway in actually helping reduce violence if they put their money and mouths into other strategies...
    https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ

    Like the black market and just where THOSE guns enter the pipeline. Lets start there. Register ALL sales by serial number.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited June 2016
    other
    mickeyrat said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Pretty much what I have been arguing all along, prohibition does not work... Gun control advocates would make a lot more headway in actually helping reduce violence if they put their money and mouths into other strategies...
    https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ

    Like the black market and just where THOSE guns enter the pipeline. Lets start there. Register ALL sales by serial number.
    Or rebates/tax or insurance breaks for people that follow through with safety classes or active shooter awareness trainings. People get insurance rate reductions all the time for defensive driving classes, CPR training, etc. We're always going to be dealing with crazy people using different strategies for killing. It's been stated over and over that a little situational awareness or basic first aid skills could have saved lives in different circumstances, not just those having to do with an active shooter. Hell, you could go city by city and give everyone $50 for taking a class with the billions being wasted on "gun control".
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    Yes.
  • Degeneratefk
    Degeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    Yes
    PJPOWER said:

    Pretty much what I have been arguing all along, prohibition does not work... Gun control advocates would make a lot more headway in actually helping reduce violence if they put their money and mouths into other strategies...
    https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ

    Nobody is advocating a prohibition on all guns.
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited June 2016
    other
    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Pretty much what I have been arguing all along, prohibition does not work... Gun control advocates would make a lot more headway in actually helping reduce violence if they put their money and mouths into other strategies...
    https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ

    Nobody is advocating a prohibition on all guns.
    Where did I imply they were? Did you read the article?
    Edit: "Nobody" is not a true statement. There are some on this board that have stated all guns. Maybe the majority are not, but some definitely are.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • Degeneratefk
    Degeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    Yes
    PJPOWER said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Pretty much what I have been arguing all along, prohibition does not work... Gun control advocates would make a lot more headway in actually helping reduce violence if they put their money and mouths into other strategies...
    https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ

    Nobody is advocating a prohibition on all guns.
    Where did I imply they were? Did you read the article?
    Edit: "Nobody" is not a true statement. There are some on this board that have stated all guns. Maybe the majority are not, but some definitely are.
    No, I didn't read the article I read your post. And I haven't seen anyone on there boards say they wanted to see all guns banned.
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    other
    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Pretty much what I have been arguing all along, prohibition does not work... Gun control advocates would make a lot more headway in actually helping reduce violence if they put their money and mouths into other strategies...
    https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ

    Nobody is advocating a prohibition on all guns.
    Where did I imply they were? Did you read the article?
    Edit: "Nobody" is not a true statement. There are some on this board that have stated all guns. Maybe the majority are not, but some definitely are.
    No, I didn't read the article I read your post. And I haven't seen anyone on there boards say they wanted to see all guns banned.
    Okay...so you were just replying to reply...wow. Seems kinda strange to post the reply that you did, when it does not pertain to the statement I made what so ever. Maybe try looking into what people are actually talking about for starts. Wow...
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,667
    Yes
    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Pretty much what I have been arguing all along, prohibition does not work... Gun control advocates would make a lot more headway in actually helping reduce violence if they put their money and mouths into other strategies...
    https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ

    Nobody is advocating a prohibition on all guns.
    Where did I imply they were? Did you read the article?
    Edit: "Nobody" is not a true statement. There are some on this board that have stated all guns. Maybe the majority are not, but some definitely are.
    No, I didn't read the article I read your post. And I haven't seen anyone on there boards say they wanted to see all guns banned.
    I think there might be one single person who said they support banning all guns. Can't remember who it is. But anyway, almost no one thinks that.
    Anyway, I did read the aritlcle, and it about prohibition of assault rifles, not all guns.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    other
    PJ_Soul said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Pretty much what I have been arguing all along, prohibition does not work... Gun control advocates would make a lot more headway in actually helping reduce violence if they put their money and mouths into other strategies...
    https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ

    Nobody is advocating a prohibition on all guns.
    Where did I imply they were? Did you read the article?
    Edit: "Nobody" is not a true statement. There are some on this board that have stated all guns. Maybe the majority are not, but some definitely are.
    No, I didn't read the article I read your post. And I haven't seen anyone on there boards say they wanted to see all guns banned.
    I think there might be one single person who said they support banning all guns. Can't remember who it is. But anyway, almost no one thinks that.
    Anyway, I did read the aritlcle, and it about prohibition of assault rifles, not all guns.
    Thank you for at least reading it...
  • Degeneratefk
    Degeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    Yes
    PJPOWER said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Pretty much what I have been arguing all along, prohibition does not work... Gun control advocates would make a lot more headway in actually helping reduce violence if they put their money and mouths into other strategies...
    https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ

    Nobody is advocating a prohibition on all guns.
    Where did I imply they were? Did you read the article?
    Edit: "Nobody" is not a true statement. There are some on this board that have stated all guns. Maybe the majority are not, but some definitely are.
    No, I didn't read the article I read your post. And I haven't seen anyone on there boards say they wanted to see all guns banned.
    Okay...so you were just replying to reply...wow. Seems kinda strange to post the reply that you did, when it does not pertain to the statement I made what so ever. Maybe try looking into what people are actually talking about for starts. Wow...
    You asked a question. Your point was prohibition doesn't work. Great, nobody is asking for that
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited June 2016
    other
    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Pretty much what I have been arguing all along, prohibition does not work... Gun control advocates would make a lot more headway in actually helping reduce violence if they put their money and mouths into other strategies...
    https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ

    Nobody is advocating a prohibition on all guns.
    Where did I imply they were? Did you read the article?
    Edit: "Nobody" is not a true statement. There are some on this board that have stated all guns. Maybe the majority are not, but some definitely are.
    No, I didn't read the article I read your post. And I haven't seen anyone on there boards say they wanted to see all guns banned.
    Okay...so you were just replying to reply...wow. Seems kinda strange to post the reply that you did, when it does not pertain to the statement I made what so ever. Maybe try looking into what people are actually talking about for starts. Wow...
    You asked a question. Your point was prohibition doesn't work. Great, nobody is asking for that
    "Prohibition of assault rifles" is most definitely a type of prohibition. I'm done replying to you, you clearly are trolling and adding nothing to the discussion. If you read the article and respond, then maybe I will not consider your response moot.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    Yes
    PJPOWER said:

    Degeneratefk said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Pretty much what I have been arguing all along, prohibition does not work... Gun control advocates would make a lot more headway in actually helping reduce violence if they put their money and mouths into other strategies...
    https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ

    Nobody is advocating a prohibition on all guns.
    Where did I imply they were? Did you read the article?
    Edit: "Nobody" is not a true statement. There are some on this board that have stated all guns. Maybe the majority are not, but some definitely are.
    I call bullshit. Name one.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited June 2016
    other
    2-feign-reluctance said:

    All guns should be banned.

    Thirty...^^^ page 4 of this thread. That was easier to find than I thought.
    I would suggest pulling up the "Coalition to stop Gun Violence" Facebook page and reading through comments if you want to find more examples of people wanting to ban all guns. They are out there.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • mcgruff10
    mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,114
    No
    What an excellant article I found this morning:

    Gun control isn't the answer. We already know how to stop the violence

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/gun-control-isnt-the-answer-we-already-know-how-to-stop-the-violence-commentary.html?__source=yahoo|finance|headline|headline|story&par=yahoo&doc=103753749&yptr=yahoo

    It's a vast understatement to say that the U.S. is at a political impasse when it comes to gun violence in this country. And like all good impasses, the reasons for it are multiplying rather than shrinking every day. But it boils down to a very old and stubborn argument. Pro-gun control forces insist on new laws and bans to stop gun violence while their opponents say those new laws and bans will only end up punishing and endangering the law-abiding gun owners or would-be gun owners in this country. Politically, this has been an unbridgeable divide for going on 40 years in this country. And no amount of sit-ins, NRA rallies, mass shootings, accidental shootings, or incidents where armed citizens stopped crimes in their tracks are going to break it.

    The crux of the problem revolves around legislation. As long as Democrats insist that new gun laws and bans are the only way to stop or slow gun violence, the Republicans and most of the American people will stand in their way - unless they rush to pass new gun laws and bans within 2-3 weeks of major mass shootings. The reasons are many, but one of the biggest problems with the new legislation approach is the fact that gun violence is mostly committed in urban areas by people in demographic groups and living in geographical locations that a large segment of the American people believe are heavily connected to the Democratic Party. As "Dilbert" creator and blogger Scott Adams wrote last week, that leaves many non-Democrats who own guns looking at newly proposed gun laws by Democrats as essentially saying to them: "put down your guns… so we can shoot you." This approach simply isn't going to work.

    But here's the funny thing, in a tragically laughable way of course: we already know how to reduce gun violence and gun crimes because we've already done it many times before. That's right, we actually solved the issue of rising gun violence in America in the mid-1990's and again in the early 2000's by doing something really radical. We enforced the law.
    Now Republicans often get off too easy with their base voters by talking the talk about enforcing existing gun laws and leaving it at that. While it's technically true that there are already enough gun laws on the books to put the hammer down on gun violence, most Republicans know all too well that law enforcement all over the country needs a lot more funding and other tools to enforce those laws better. And that became clear during both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations when new funding programs to cut down on gun violence were instituted and they worked.

    "There's no denying that maintaining the high number of gun arrests and prosecutions is expensive, and the money available for that kind of law enforcement has indeed become scarcer because of budgetary constraints brought on by the Republican Congress."
    I'll start with the Clinton years and remind everyone that it wasn't the Brady Bill or the Assault Weapons ban that made the real difference. It was the increased funding to police departments from his 1994 crime bill that showed real progress. I was on the White House lawn that day in October, 1994 when President Clinton was joined by an army of police chiefs and mayors to announce the $200 million being released to put 100,000 more cops on the streets. It's not clear just how close the Clinton Administration came to reaching that 100,000 number, but the message the funding sent had almost as much of an effect as however many new cops actually hit the streets.

    The message was that police weren't the problem, which just a couple years after the Rodney King beating and subsequent L.A. riots wasn't such an easy thing for any Democrat to say. And President Clinton was never shy about trumpeting the falling crime statistics during his presidency. He and Hillary Clinton are trying to backtrack on that a bit now as the "Black Lives Matter" movement has started a new anti-cop sentiment in the new Democratic Party base, but there's really no denying that the increased Clinton administration funding for policing and incarceration made a difference.

    Clinton's successor, President George W. Bush, saw similar successes with boosted funding for the FBI to go after gun runners and then his "Project SAFE" program in his second term aimed at prosecuting criminals who used guns. Project SAFE alone got more than $1.5 billion from the Bush administration. Violent crime fell sharply during the Bush years, even when compared with the already falling crime numbers under President Clinton.

    But at the end of the Bush years, the focus shifted from gun prosecutions to new regulations. That was probably the result of Republicans losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterms and the Bush domestic agenda was gutted.

    President Obama has sadly continued this trend. Thankfully, violent crime has mostly remained at historic lows. But prosecutions of gun-using criminals has decidedly gone down. Federal prosecutors brought a total of 5,082 gun violation cases in 2013 recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, compared with a record 8,752 prosecutions of ATF cases brought by the Justice Department in 2004 under President Bush according to the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.

    There may be ideological reasons for this decline, as many of President Obama's critics insist the White House is more interested in scoring political points by harassing law abiding gun owners. But there's no denying that maintaining the high number of gun arrests and prosecutions is expensive, and the money available for that kind of law enforcement has indeed become scarcer because of budgetary constraints brought on by the Republican Congress. The White House may be blaming the GOP a little too much for the gun prosecution decline, but it does have a solid point. Both the Clinton crime initiatives and the Bush crackdown on illegal guns cost money, big money. And Republicans haven't been so forthcoming with budgetary cash lately.

    That leaves us with a unique double "put your money where your mouth is moment" when it comes to guns in America. The Democrats, if they really want to slow gun violence in this country, need to put their money where their mouths are and support renewed efforts to enforce existing gun laws like Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush did in the recent past. Republicans, if they really want to prove they believe enforcing the existing gun laws is all we need to do, need to put their money where their mouths are and get proactive about offering money funding for that enforcement up front.

    So far, both sides just aren't stepping up to the plate. So we're stuck with stunts like sit-ins and scare tactics. I remain convinced that the presidential candidate who refocuses the gun debate towards a push for more funding would enjoy a significant boost in the polls. The question is: which candidate is smart enough to simply promote what we already know works?
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited June 2016
    other
    mcgruff10 said:

    What an excellant article I found this morning:

    Gun control isn't the answer. We already know how to stop the violence

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/gun-control-isnt-the-answer-we-already-know-how-to-stop-the-violence-commentary.html?__source=yahoo|finance|headline|headline|story&par=yahoo&doc=103753749&yptr=yahoo

    It's a vast understatement to say that the U.S. is at a political impasse when it comes to gun violence in this country. And like all good impasses, the reasons for it are multiplying rather than shrinking every day. But it boils down to a very old and stubborn argument. Pro-gun control forces insist on new laws and bans to stop gun violence while their opponents say those new laws and bans will only end up punishing and endangering the law-abiding gun owners or would-be gun owners in this country. Politically, this has been an unbridgeable divide for going on 40 years in this country. And no amount of sit-ins, NRA rallies, mass shootings, accidental shootings, or incidents where armed citizens stopped crimes in their tracks are going to break it.

    The crux of the problem revolves around legislation. As long as Democrats insist that new gun laws and bans are the only way to stop or slow gun violence, the Republicans and most of the American people will stand in their way - unless they rush to pass new gun laws and bans within 2-3 weeks of major mass shootings. The reasons are many, but one of the biggest problems with the new legislation approach is the fact that gun violence is mostly committed in urban areas by people in demographic groups and living in geographical locations that a large segment of the American people believe are heavily connected to the Democratic Party. As "Dilbert" creator and blogger Scott Adams wrote last week, that leaves many non-Democrats who own guns looking at newly proposed gun laws by Democrats as essentially saying to them: "put down your guns… so we can shoot you." This approach simply isn't going to work.

    But here's the funny thing, in a tragically laughable way of course: we already know how to reduce gun violence and gun crimes because we've already done it many times before. That's right, we actually solved the issue of rising gun violence in America in the mid-1990's and again in the early 2000's by doing something really radical. We enforced the law.
    Now Republicans often get off too easy with their base voters by talking the talk about enforcing existing gun laws and leaving it at that. While it's technically true that there are already enough gun laws on the books to put the hammer down on gun violence, most Republicans know all too well that law enforcement all over the country needs a lot more funding and other tools to enforce those laws better. And that became clear during both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations when new funding programs to cut down on gun violence were instituted and they worked.

    "There's no denying that maintaining the high number of gun arrests and prosecutions is expensive, and the money available for that kind of law enforcement has indeed become scarcer because of budgetary constraints brought on by the Republican Congress."
    I'll start with the Clinton years and remind everyone that it wasn't the Brady Bill or the Assault Weapons ban that made the real difference. It was the increased funding to police departments from his 1994 crime bill that showed real progress. I was on the White House lawn that day in October, 1994 when President Clinton was joined by an army of police chiefs and mayors to announce the $200 million being released to put 100,000 more cops on the streets. It's not clear just how close the Clinton Administration came to reaching that 100,000 number, but the message the funding sent had almost as much of an effect as however many new cops actually hit the streets.

    The message was that police weren't the problem, which just a couple years after the Rodney King beating and subsequent L.A. riots wasn't such an easy thing for any Democrat to say. And President Clinton was never shy about trumpeting the falling crime statistics during his presidency. He and Hillary Clinton are trying to backtrack on that a bit now as the "Black Lives Matter" movement has started a new anti-cop sentiment in the new Democratic Party base, but there's really no denying that the increased Clinton administration funding for policing and incarceration made a difference.

    Clinton's successor, President George W. Bush, saw similar successes with boosted funding for the FBI to go after gun runners and then his "Project SAFE" program in his second term aimed at prosecuting criminals who used guns. Project SAFE alone got more than $1.5 billion from the Bush administration. Violent crime fell sharply during the Bush years, even when compared with the already falling crime numbers under President Clinton.

    But at the end of the Bush years, the focus shifted from gun prosecutions to new regulations. That was probably the result of Republicans losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterms and the Bush domestic agenda was gutted.

    President Obama has sadly continued this trend. Thankfully, violent crime has mostly remained at historic lows. But prosecutions of gun-using criminals has decidedly gone down. Federal prosecutors brought a total of 5,082 gun violation cases in 2013 recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, compared with a record 8,752 prosecutions of ATF cases brought by the Justice Department in 2004 under President Bush according to the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.

    There may be ideological reasons for this decline, as many of President Obama's critics insist the White House is more interested in scoring political points by harassing law abiding gun owners. But there's no denying that maintaining the high number of gun arrests and prosecutions is expensive, and the money available for that kind of law enforcement has indeed become scarcer because of budgetary constraints brought on by the Republican Congress. The White House may be blaming the GOP a little too much for the gun prosecution decline, but it does have a solid point. Both the Clinton crime initiatives and the Bush crackdown on illegal guns cost money, big money. And Republicans haven't been so forthcoming with budgetary cash lately.

    That leaves us with a unique double "put your money where your mouth is moment" when it comes to guns in America. The Democrats, if they really want to slow gun violence in this country, need to put their money where their mouths are and support renewed efforts to enforce existing gun laws like Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush did in the recent past. Republicans, if they really want to prove they believe enforcing the existing gun laws is all we need to do, need to put their money where their mouths are and get proactive about offering money funding for that enforcement up front.

    So far, both sides just aren't stepping up to the plate. So we're stuck with stunts like sit-ins and scare tactics. I remain convinced that the presidential candidate who refocuses the gun debate towards a push for more funding would enjoy a significant boost in the polls. The question is: which candidate is smart enough to simply promote what we already know works?

    I've concluded that the dems are more interested in creating a show for their constituents than actually reducing gun violence. Make good TV and get good votes. I liked and agree with your article and statements. Why is prosecution of gun crimes at an all time low? I bet a little research into the political correctness initiatives being practiced by the current administration would answer that question...but I'm going to leave that alone for now.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    Yes
    PJPOWER said:

    2-feign-reluctance said:

    All guns should be banned.

    Thirty...^^^ page 4 of this thread. That was easier to find than I thought.
    I would suggest pulling up the "Coalition to stop Gun Violence" Facebook page and reading through comments if you want to find more examples of people wanting to ban all guns. They are out there.
    Fair enough. One person. However, you implied there were more.

    I've been doing this dance on this forum for a few years now and I can tell you that's the first person I've seen call for such a thing.

    Kooky Facebook pages don't count- especially within the context of 'on this board'.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited June 2016
    other
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    PJPOWER said:

    2-feign-reluctance said:

    All guns should be banned.

    Thirty...^^^ page 4 of this thread. That was easier to find than I thought.
    I would suggest pulling up the "Coalition to stop Gun Violence" Facebook page and reading through comments if you want to find more examples of people wanting to ban all guns. They are out there.
    Fair enough. One person. However, you implied there were more.

    I've been doing this dance on this forum for a few years now and I can tell you that's the first person I've seen call for such a thing.

    Kooky Facebook pages don't count- especially within the context of 'on this board'.
    Oh, I've seen it mentioned a couple of times. You asked for one example and I gave you one. Here is one more for you by "Norm"- "Ban all guns" found about half way down here: http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/74857/gun-laws-in-america/p6
    I'm not going to dig through the thousands of posts to find more direct quotes. Whether they would state it in this forum or not, I'm willing to bet plenty here would sign a petition to ban any and every gun from private ownership if given the opportunity. I guess we could start a poll...
    Anyways, we got derailed. My original argument was that prohibition in general has been proven not to work. Can we agree to back up a bit to that comment before the derailment related to this article:
    https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    No

    there will never be a America without guns, the people will never allow it.

    Godfather.

Categories