Question of the Day: Are Gun Control Advocates Racists?

Here’s a recent comment posted by our resident gun control advocate MikeB302000 that I’ve adapted for effect: “Don’t you see that your way all the people who don’t want BLACKS IN THEIR COMMUNITY have their freedom infringed upon? Even now, when you go out you have to wonder not only if some crazy BLACK PERSON is going to harm you but also if some supposedly lawful BLACK PERSON might. Some of you BLACK GUYS drop your guns in crowded restaurants, others of you take drugs and drink too much, some of you are just fucking stupid and clumsy. You may be the most responsible guy in the world, but don’t think that applies to all BLACK PEOPLE. And our problem, those of us who worry about these things, is usually you all look alike.” See where I’m coming from? [NB: The capitalized words are my own. I am not suggesting that MikeB302000 discriminates against people based on the the color of their skin. Just the firearm(s) in their possession.]

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

61 Responses to Question of the Day: Are Gun Control Advocates Racists?

  1. avatarTTAcer says:

    Yes

    • avatarChris says:

      CA’s 1967 Mulford Act, the law that banned carrying loaded weapons in CA, was written by Assemblyman Mulford (R) of Alameda County and signed into law by Governor (later, President) Ronald Reagan (R). It was written, passed, and signed into law in response to the Black Panthers in Oakland (which is in Alameda County) arming themselves as a means of protecting the rights of blacks in Oakland, specifically for protection of black communities from abuses of police power.

      So, at least in CA modern gun control began as a reaction to the race politics of the time. Once the black communities were effectively disarmed, the poverty and desperation led to drugs and gang wars, which in turn led to more and ridiculous anti-gun laws until the whole of CA became what it is today. In CA, the vast majority of anti-gun laws have always been in response to the problems of the impoverished black community.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        The original gun laws in California had rascist roots as well. Way back 8in the 41920s, the state banned the carrying of concealed weapons, including switch blades, a law designed to disarm blacks, chinese and hispanics.

  2. avatarDaniel says:

    Racism and idiocy go hand in hand. Quite often, one begets the other.

  3. avatarChrisH says:

    As you’re certainly well aware, history would suggest you are closer to the truth than imaginable.

  4. avatarjwm says:

    In this country at least there can be no argument. Gun control was started as a way ti disarm freed slaves. However the grabbers are now truly color blind, they want the guns out of the hands of anyone but the military and the police.

    I responded to Mikey’s originol comment. He basically says that because he fears what might happen if people have guns then we shouldn’t be allowed to have them. Because of mikey’s fears we should set aside our rights. I suggested he seek help for his fears instead.

    Apparently this phobia about guns has unmanned him enough to cause him to flee this country and take up residence in Italy. Imagine a grown man letting his phobia’s about safety drive him to live in the birthplace of the mafia. Go figure.

    • avatarMikinid says:

      Not sure they are color blind. Just that they are multiply prejudiced. I’m sure somewhere in Mikey#’s brain he would have liked to add in something about the Jews, as well, but a vestige of good sense stopped him. Italy can have him. Or Greece. I think they have a large New Nazi party.

      • avatarNot Too Eloquent says:

        Actually, the mikenumbers dude is basking in all of the atttention directed at him by the contributors and commentors of this fine gun blog. Playing right into his hands, again.

    • avatarAzman says:

      Imagine a grown man letting his phobias drive him to live somewhere where there aren’t earthquakes…or flood…o dust storm…
      Not disagreeing with your concept, but people will do what they want. Ain’t that what were about here too?

      • avatarjwm says:

        Azman, there are earthquakes in Italy. They just hauled a bunch of scientists into court for not predicting one.

        And i have no problem at all with people doing what they want. It’s the people that want to tell me how to live that I get the wind up about.

    • jwm says in his lying way, ” He basically says that because he fears what might happen if people have guns then we shouldn’t be allowed to have them. ”

      That’s not what I say at all and you know it. If you had such a good argument you wouldn’t have to exaggerate and distort what I say in order to argue against it.

      • avatarjwm says:

        Have i misjudged the meaning of your posts, mikeyb? Are you in fact a supporter of our uninfringed 2a rights? You have stated before that you don’t think the 2a rights are for the individual, have you changed your mind? Anybody who wants to look at the remarks Farago based this post on just has to go to “Quote of the day: candide edition on Oct. 30 to see your remarks. They sure don’t read like you support 2a rights to me.

        I think anybody who has read more than one of your posts know’s the real liar here.

        • No, jwm, you can gloss over it and call me the liar but the fact is I don’t say you “shouldn’t have guns.” That’s what you said.

          Your argument is so weak you can’t characterize my position accurately. You have to first exaggerate it and then argue against that as if I really said it that way. This is one of the many shabby pro-gun tricks.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          Click here for your own words on that subject: “The 2A should be treated as the meaningless anachronistic nonsense it is.”

        • Robert, you’re confusing the position that the 2A is meaningless with the desire to remove all civilian guns from society. They are not the same. In fact, my personal belief is we should remove the 2A from the discussion because it is meaningless and we should allow qualified and responsible people, AND ONLY THEM, to own guns if they want to.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          So let me see if I’ve got this straight . . .

          In your view citizens should no longer have a right to keep and bear arms. It would be a privilege, given only to those who qualify according to a criteria that the licensing authority (i.e. the government) establishes.

          Two questions . . .

          1. Local, state or federal? Who get to decide?

          2. What criteria do you have in mind? Exactly. And how would you make sure that the standards are both uniform and uniformly applied across the country? And if, for some strange reason, you decide to answer a direct question with a direct answer, what kind of appeals process (if any) do you imagine?

          While awaiting your response, I’d like to point out that anyone who wants the government to have a monopoly on lethal force, and the final say on same is, at the least, a proto-fascist. IMHO.

        • Obviously I don’t have details like that, Robert. That’s one of your tricks to ask me questions that you know there are no answers to and then say, see, he doesn’t respond. I should know how the appeals process would work in a hypothetical future setting?

          All I was trying to say before is your ability to own a gun does not depend on the 2A. If it were abolished, civilian gun ownership would not disappear. Same with registration and licensing, gun confiscation would not necessarily follow. This is something you guys have trumped up in order to resist every and any restriction.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          Well riddle me this Batman. If there wasn’t a Second Amendment would it be easier for the government to create gun ownership prohibition, mandate licensing and confiscate firearms?

          For example, the Heller decision struck down D.C.’s handgun ban based on . . . the Second Amendment. McDonald struck down Chicago’s handgun ban based on . . . the Second Amendment.

          If there wasn’t a Second Amendment those laws would still be in place. And there would be nothing to stop their creation and implementation anywhere else in The Land of the Free. Our Constitution protects our rights by making them independent of democratic infringement.

          How can you not see that?

          Although you’ve left your home country, there are those of us here who cherish our Constitution and consider it a living document. In fact, it would be well for you remember that Americans fought and died for the ideas and ideals of freedom embodied in that document. Including Italy.

        • Confiscation of guns in the US, nationwide, would not be made easier by the removal of the 2A. The reason is we have a long and rich tradition of gun ownership, the prospect of eradicating that would be too daunting and impracticable even to the most furious “gungrabber.” It’s not the 2A that prevents it from happening, it’s the widespread ownership of guns. As you know, I scoff at the adolescent posturing of gun-rights folks who talk about resisting such an effort from their individual homes. If the government were to do such a thing you guys would be all but powerless to prevent it. But it ain’t gonna happen.

          I suspect you know this and just hang onto this as a type of straw man argument in order to not give in an inch.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          So Americans’ “real” defense against gun confiscation is gun ownership—which you want to limit. And confiscation couldn’t be stopped even if gun owners resisted. See any problems there?

        • Yes, indeed, I see a big problem in the paranoid mind that preaches home carry. Yes. But, reasonable people don’t think Nazi Germany is coming to America any time soon.

      • avatarJake says:

        It’s all in the implication, bigot. Go take your racist filth back to the dark ages.

  5. avatarJoshinGA says:

    Yes. Notice how Mikey lumps all gun owners into the class of stupid, clumsy, drug abusers. The “you all look alike” statement doesnt help either. Directly from the mind of a gun grabber: repressed racism. Fearing and looking down upon groups of people when that group of people has done you or the community at large no harm is discrimination. Period.

  6. avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

    I can think of no truerer non-racist sentiment then to advocate for another race’s RKBA. I also believe the inverse is just as true.

  7. avatarRalph says:

    Yes, they are racists. And the race they fear the most is the human race.

  8. avatarAharon says:

    Those “people” are not having their freedoms infringed upon. What MikeB is calling personal freedoms are personal subjective fears and profiles — whether they are true or false mental/emotional assessments — in the minds of some non-black persons. An individual person’s feelings cannot dictate the laws, codes, behaviors, and rules for a society. Their feelings are their responsibility. Can you imagine if everyone’s fears had laws written to keep all others’ behavior from infringing on their feelings? WTF!

    Modern America gives far too much credence to being overly sensitive to people’s precious feelings and calls for everyone to be overly sensitive to drama-queens that would dictate social policies. Traditional western societies had civil codes of behavior that men and women, boys and girls followed. It was good. Is modern American society with its politically-correct thinking and acting dominating public life an improvement? Over the past forty-five years, American society has changed from a masculine dominated culture to one dominated by feminine values. How is all that change working out for you?

    • avatarإبليس says:

      Aharon, I love your hatred of feminism. Do you know that Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and Kim Il Jong Un are all referred to as the “great mother” in North Korea? Read a book about North Korea by B.R. Myers.

      • avatarAharon says:

        Thanks. More and more men (and even women) are seeing feminism for what it is about and how it is damaging society. I thought the Korean leaders were referred to as ‘great leader’ ‘dear leader’, etc. I’ll make a note about BR Myers yet in all openness there are more than 50 books on my ‘to read’ list.

  9. avatarGregolas says:

    Having just this morning finished Kenn Blanchard’s excellent book”Black Man With a Gun”(that’s his picture from the cover,above), MikeB’s comment can only be seen as the opinion of a pure statist :”Here, stupid person(regardless of race). You’re too stupid too handle______(fill in the blank), Just sit back, relax, and let Big Brother do it for you!”
    To paraphrase Larry the Cable Guy” I don’t care who y’are; that’s insulting!”

  10. avatarDon says:

    Weapons restrictions have always been biased by “otherness”. Race is a good source of “otherness”. Look at how billy clubs were outlawed after the influx of Irish immigrants and stilettos were outlawed after the influx of Italians. If it is the affordable, attainable, or culturally preferred weapon of a relatively disenfranchised unit of society, it gets controlled or restricted by whoever is in control. Gun control didn’t start ticking up until guns themselves became attainable and embraced by more units of society than well off white folks.

    It seems that this otherness is a much larger motivator than constitutional or political ideology too. For example, many of us today lament the gun restrictions of California. The modern era of these restrictions began in 1967 with the Mulford Act by conservative republican assemblyman Don Mulford and signed into law by then governor Ronald Reagan. WOAH, What? Why?! Because the Black Panthers were very serious about 2A and particularly open carry activism. Ah but the Panthers we’re about all kinds of other issues too! I guess in the minds of the politicians and the public at the time you weren’t allowed to express your 2A rights if first you expressed your 1A, and you were an “other”.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

    “We’re going to the Capitol. Mulford’s there, and they’re trying to pass a law against our guns, and we’re going to the Capitol steps. We’re going to take the best Panthers we got and we’re going to the Capitol steps with our guns and forces, loaded down to the gills. And we’re going to read a message to the world, because the press is always up there. They’ll listen to the message, and they’ll probably blast it all across this country. I know, I know they’ll blast it all the way across California. We’ve got to get a message over to the people.”

    said Huey in 1967. And he did. The nation’s first open carry event!

    http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG01/barillari/pantherintro.html
    http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_capitolmarch.html

    Now I’m the first to point out that context matters (contrary to absolutist or literalist philosophical views which generally don’t get much done). The Panthers had a lot of politically extreme, severely impractical, sophomoric, and utterly delusional views about the world and the way it works… but to me, so do a lot of 20something ultra-idealistic right-libertarian anarchists who coincidentally happen to share some overlap with gun activists today. Don’t mistake this statement to be an invitation to debate on the merit of a socialist society (panthers) vs an anarchist society (no-government folks). To me that debate is like deciding if I want to stick my head in boiling water or liquid nitrogen instead of… well, neither… I’m fine thank you. A little warm, a little cool at times, but fine thank you. So I see no distinction. They both are scary “others” to me. It doesn’t matter whether you share my views on this or not, that is beside the point. The point is the only way to be fair is to be fair so in my book the panthers have a right to their arms and so does today’s 20something anarchist or anyone else under the constitution.

    The illustrative dichotomy in all of this is that when a politically extreme (should that even matter with regard to 2A? no.) black guy in 1967 was pedal to the metal pro gun rights it was seen by white conservative society as deliberate posturing in attempt to intimidate, threaten, and annoy the public and to antagonize public officials like cops and politicians. A danger to be controlled! When Johnny Whitekid Right-Libertarian Anarchist does it today a lot of folks who are in or at least in the general direction of his camp perceive he is simply all about constitutional philosophy god given rights or a healthy expression of defiance. (now if he was a panther, who would be his gun rights friend?) Today’s flavor of gun controllers who aren’t anywhere near his camp see him as an “other” and therefore perceive his pro-gunness as deliberate posturing in attempt to intimidate, threaten, and annoy the public and to antagonize public officials like cops and politicians. He is a danger to be controlled! They don’t live and let live or welcome the diversity he adds to the American mix. Everyone’s a hypocrite! Yay.

    I guess it comes down to this, when a person is “like you” then you ascribe the best intentions to their actions. When they aren’t “like you” then you ascribe the worst. Race is a good source of “otherness”. Today’s bipolar political ideology is a good source of “otherness” too. History demonstrates over and over that the fear of the other is a bigger influence than whatever someone claims their fundamental philosophy is. We all really need to learn to stay out of the business of other people, even if you perceive them as scary.

  11. avatarJustAJ says:

    This is another brilliant example of how, once you swap the word “gun” for any other, the idiocy of the antis rhetoric becomes. I really loved it in the article where gun was replaced with bible.

  12. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    Mikey#’s is prejudiced against anyone who opposes his point of view basically. Although there is a hint of racism against blacks in his comments he is more racist against gun owners in general.
    That being said I am still wondering why in the Hell mikeyb is even worried about our right’s in our country when he doesn’t even live here.
    If he really believed in what he preaches and what he feels then he would move his happy little ass back to the states and stand up for what he believes in instead of hiding in Italy and whining and crying about how screwed up we are in the US!!!
    I doubt any of us want him back here but it might give his arguments a very slight bit of credibility.

  13. avatarAnonymous says:

    Beneath the debate of outlawing guns lies race. Conservatives want guns to protect themselves against blacks, but can’t say so. Liberals want to eliminate guns so as to disarm blacks, of whom they are afraid but cannot say so. If you think this is not true, tell me who people fear when they buy guns. Are liberals worried about being shot by white, forty-dive-year-old duck hunters? Do conservatives expect to find Jewish violinists crawling through their windows at night? Then whom do they fear?

    The rash of high-school shootings by white adolescents is a godsend for those opposed to the Second Amendment, since it provides plausible non-racial cover for wanting to illegalize firearms. Race, again.

    - Fred Reed
    # 352 “White Girl Bleed A Lot
    October 15, 2012

    • avatarAharon says:

      Definitely Jewish Violinists. A very scary dangerous group though I do like Itzhak Perlman http://www.itzhakperlman.com/.

      Seriously, I have my go-to defense gun for protection against an intruder from any race. My area is mostly white and most criminals turn out to be white. When I read such comments that white conservatives have guns because they fear blacks stated by a black person my impression is that the person is self-absorbed and imagines that whites think about and fear nothing but them. Sorry dude but I have other things to think about when it comes to gun ownership besides the potential for a black intruder. Gee, as if whites never owned guns before blacks were brought to America and never use guns except on black criminals (sarcasm off).

    • avatarMerits says:

      Race is a tangent factor, but I disagree with the implication. Another correlation vs causation thing. When you ask who I hope to protect myself against with a gun, I immediately answer ‘a criminal’. Now, if you ask me to predict the race of said criminal, I may then think black, and may be statistically justified in doing so, depending upon other factors. However, someones blackness isn’t why I buy a gun, as is implied here, it’s mans’ propensity towards aggressive violence.
      Everyone does not see all things through race, though some apparently would like for us to.

  14. avatarSilver says:

    Well, gun control nuts are overwhelmingly leftist, and most leftists are racist (usually openly against whites so as to overcompensate for their hidden deep-rooted fear of blacks), so yes.

  15. avatarbarnslayer says:

    Liberals brought us the KKK. Liberals are anti-gun. Socialists gave us the nazis. The nazis confiscated privately owned guns. Liberals are pursuing a socialist agenda. Add to this liberals push for affirmative action which is just another way of telling some ethnicities that they are inferior. Therefore… anti-gun advocates are racists.

  16. avatarDerryM says:

    The difference between the anti RKBA people and the pro RKBA people is that the former want to deny the Rights of EVERYONE while the latter want to preserve the Rights of EVERYONE and, most particularly, the Right to choose as individuals.

    The first position is racist against every other person who has the right to make choices within their natural and Constitutional Rights.

    The second position is not racist as it acknowledges every other person has Rights and has the freedom to make choices for themselves within their natural and Constitutional Rights.

    So, MikeB302000, and his like think it is appropriate to deny Rights to everyone else so he doesn’t have to worry that he might get hurt. BS! He doesn’t sit at home alone in the dark with no outside contact because there are thousands of ways he could get hurt that have a higher probability of happening than ever getting shot. He just wants to control other people…Sic semper cum Tyranni.

  17. avatarbontai Joe says:

    Racist? yes, but equally classist (if there is such a word) I’m thinking of the likes of several politicians, celebrities, and the very rich that are extremely anti-gun, but enjoy the protection of hired armed body guards, bullet proof cars, etc to protect them from the unwashed masses that might seek to harm them.

  18. avatarإبليس says:

    Doubt it. Ever notice how the blackest part of America has the best gun laws? It’s called the South. DC hates guns because the politicians are paranoid. NYC hates guns because Bloomboig wants his private army to have a monoply on violence. Hawaii is mainly Asian and has crappy gun laws. Half of New England hates guns. Guess what? New England was a hotbed for abolitionism.

    I see you’re trying to get a “racist gun control” meme going because racism is for our age what sex was to Victorians and what heresy was to Medieval Europe and modern Arabia. You focus too much on blacks in Chicago and ignore them in the South. Which comes off as pretty disengenous. Again, it’s your site and you’re free to craft whatever narrative you wish. But bleating about racism only tires whites who still dominate the pro-gun movement.

    If you want success, sell gun rights to market dominant minorities (MDMs) like Asians, Indians, and Europeans. There’s no money in pandering to blacks. Especially when outside of urban zones they enjoy their rights just like anyone else. We’re fighting city states like Chicago and NYC now.

    • avatarjwm says:

      Your argument holds true for the modern South in respexct to gun laws. But the origins of the gun control movement in America was the old Souths desire to control and disarm black people.

      The modern south has changed greatly in respect to gun laws. In my youth you didn’t get a concealed carry permit in Wst Virginia. Of course the South of my youth was predominately Democrat.

      • avatarإبليس says:

        It’s too focused on blacks. Where is the black $$$$? I’ll beat this point to death with a ball peen hammer. Recruit Asians to the gun cause! Waah waah black people were slaves. So what!? Recruit Asians Asians Asians! They have money and they have influence! Chinese Japanese dirty knees look at these….AR15s! Asians are the future of gun ownership. High income, high IQ, high education level, it’s all there! Get these people some rifles and watch us win with gusto. When was the last time you ever saw an Asian with a crappy gun at the range? Never! In my neck of the woods they all pack high-end M14s or M4s with tons of accessories. Money + enthusiasm = power.

        • avatarjwm says:

          Racists don’t see a difference in black or chinese or japanese or mixed race or mexicans or whatever else you have.

          In this country gun laws got their start as a racist reaction to freed blacks.

          I welcome all races,relegions and genders to the world of lawful gun owners. Us OFWG’s need all the help we can get.

      • avatarإبليس says:

        Why can’t so called racists distinguish between Asians and mestizos and America Africans? I’ve lived next to and drank beer with racists. They don’t like blacks but could care less about Asians. Very few people hate Asians. Many of these racists lusted after Japanese women. I hate to say it, but very few races like black people. So I say arm the Asians and Indians and don’t worry about the rest. They have the power we need.

  19. avatartdiinva says:

    I read an article by internet journalist Richard Fernandez at Pajamas Media over the weekend which sheds some light on what Mr. Bonomo and the anti-self defense lobby really want. It’s about the Eloi and the Morlocks.

    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2012/11/03/in-defense-of-strawberries-and-cream/

    Mr. Bonomo wants us all to be passive victims without the desire to protect ourselves from the predators sent by our masters to control us. The progressive goal is to impoverish, immobilize and disarm the general population and control them with criminal gangs. It is much cheaper to control the people with gangs than it is with a security apparatus. This mechanism has been developed over the past forty years in the ghetto and now they see it as a viable ruling strategy for the rest of society. Their social innovation is to create the passive victim culture of poverty before they make us poor. All other attempts to create the Progressive kleptocracy have failed because they made people poor before they could made to see themselves as victims. An armed citizen is someone who will never see himself as victim and therefore someone who will never rely on the state for his life, well being and prosperity.

    Mr. Bonomo always looks out for the criminal because the criminal is his ally

    • avatarKendahl says:

      Assume that progressives achieve their goal of complete domination over a helpless, compliant population. How will that benefit them? Who would want to control the ghetto? More goes into it, in direct payments and services, than comes out in the form of productive labor. Barren ground would be preferable. Unlike the ghetto, it doesn’t cost anything to maintain.

      Some progressives have a fantasy in which talented, energetic people work hard enough to earn a high income but content themselves with a very modest standard of living and donate the excess, in the form of high taxes, to less productive members of society so that the latter can enjoy a higher standard of living than they could achieve solely by their own efforts.

      Others think the average American enjoys too high a standard of living especially in comparison to the rest of the world. To “save the planet”, they want to deprive him of his big car, big house and expensive toys. I think this is just the current round in a millenia old battle between materialism and spiritualism.

      A somewhat plausible scenario is that we need to prepare for a society in which automation has replaced so many workers that there simply are not enough jobs to go around. High tech jobs are not a panacea since relatively few people have the intelligence and skills to perform them. The result would be a society in which a small number of highly skilled, productive workers support a large number of permanently unemployed who, at most, work at hobbies.

      Whatever their motivation, achievement of the progressives’ goals will begin a steady slide in prosperity. Unless working hard gains them better lives than hardly working, few people will be willing to work hard. Who then will pay the bills?

      • avatarDerryM says:

        Kendahl must have struck a nerve…eh MikeyB302000? Couldn’t stand to have someone so accurately describe the Society resulting from your agendas? Made you so apoplectic you could only respond with a Flame? LMAO!

  20. It’s like my Dad, a lifelong victim of Chicagostan, he is deathly afraid of legal citizens bearing arms and will immediately begin bleating the most Brady Bunch blather and yet, he can always find a way to excuse the carrying of guns by criminals.

    My mind always boggles when I converse with him on this subject. Reading MikeB’s comment I was reminded, for what should be obvious reasons, of this mental defect.

    • avatarKendahl says:

      The next time you get into it with your father, try this argument. “Crime, especially violent crime, forces us to choose between criminal and victim. We cannot choose both. Self defense is based on the moral value judgment that it is preferable to sacrifice the criminal to protect the victim. Opposition to self defense means sacrificing the victim to protect the criminal.”

      • I wish we could have that deep of a conversation. As soon as it turns to guns, which it always does, because I live in a civilized part of the country and now carry. He just trots out every single mind numbing anti-gun cliche. HOTHEADS! OK CORRAL! BLOOD IN THE STREETS.

        The fact that the gun that’s been hanging off my hip for the last two years has only managed to injure paper targets is not comprehensible to him.

        I do believe that he is actually giving me a peek into his soul and man, it’s kind of disappointing that your Dad could so not get it.

  21. avatartdiinva says:

    I think he may have been flaming me.

  22. avatarAndy says:

    When it comes down to it,if you are a lawful gun owner,it isn’t going to matter what color your skin is!The leftist socialists want all your guns,then the rest of your rights after that,then to mark you,and make you a slave to their dream.Then the criminals will be in charge,and chaos will ensue!Keep your powder dry.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.