“I appreciate New Yorkers cherish their guns, but we also cherish our marriages, our children, our houses, our cars, ours dogs, and yet all these things have to be registered and are subject to regulation. And we do that because it’s necessary to protect public health safety and welfare. That’s true of our marriages, and our homes, and our children, it’s true of our guns.” – Chair of the Assembly Health Committee Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan) quoted in Lawmakers pushing for further gun restrictions [via legislativegazette.com]

Recommended For You

89 Responses to Quote of the Day: Regulate Marriage, Children, Houses, Cars, Dogs and Guns Edition

  1. “And we do that because it’s necessary to protect public health safety and welfare.”

    Bugger the hell off. Why should the government have any say or do anything about marriage? Much less any of those other things? When you think it’s ok to let others tell you how you can defend yourself, what kind of pet you can own, if you can have kids, and who you can marry then you are the very definition of a slave.

    • common law marriage has largely been eliminated because of custody and other disputes when the parties separate. Too easy to say, no, we were not married. Plus, not so long ago interracial marriage was illegal.

      If you think marriage is essentially a contract between two people, and I do, then you should really not have a problem with the govt saying please sign a piece of paper registering the contract, so that you do not take up resources in the system later on in case of dispute. Verbal agreements are messy, lead to large legal problems when disputed, and courts generally disfavor them.

      • It’s true that only nine states still recognize common law marriages (scattered from Rhode Island to Texas to Colorado, so no, it’s not a “Southern” thing, before anyone chimes in with that). Keep in mind that if a couple from a non-common law marriage state, but who nonetheless regard themselves as common law married, ever do so in a common law recognizing state, then that counts. Even if the couple from, say, New York, which does not recognize common law marriage itself, merely vacations once in Texas, which does. By full faith and credit, those common law marriages would have to be recognized back in New York, even though NY doesn’t recognize common law marriage directly. There’s a mountain of case law out there, so don’t anyone fool yourself into thinking you’re not really married, just because your state isn’t a common law marriage state.

        I’m not sure that court convenience is a legitimate public purpose, though. The relevant purpose is more of safeguarding the public’s property rights because, as correctly mentioned, verbal contracts can be messy. This is why in many states, if not all, all real estate contract must be written. Although, in the case of common law marriage, at least two of the three of the elements establishing it (holding yourself out as married, cohabitation, and comingling of assets) can be readily proven with documentation, anyway. So even that isn’t necessarily a messy as most verbal contracts.

        • Thanks, good comment. I did not mean that “court convenience is a legitimate public purpose” what I meant was that the state has a legitimate interest in minimizing fraud and disputes, and therefore has a legitimate interest in forcing certain contracts to be written down. Marriage, real estate, liens, guarantees of debt, etc. Yes, there are a lot of property rights involved in marriage!

        • I agree. And you’re right, while it’s vital to have a court system to enforce property rights, it’s important to encourage people to act responsibly in the first place to help make enforcing their rights easier. You’re right, too, that it’s probably not about court convenience, but practicality. Resources are scarce, and jacking around with parties’ willfully or casually ambiguous cases tends to consume resources better spent on more challenging, legitimate disputes.

          Good exchange, my friend. This was fun.

  2. Yes and look how so many people have used the registration and act of marriage to put forward hate and inequality…. must we go on with this nonsense?

  3. see, this just shows the philosophical divide in our nation, I myself, along with many other Americans believe that NONE of these things should be regulated. To me REGULATE is one of the filthiest words in the political lexicon.

    • The word “regulate” meant something entirely different 250 years ago. The modern politician has shifted its meaning to benefit the government. You probably realize this, as it’s been covered on this website in the past, but it used to mean: to keep regular, or in good form; to keep properly functioning. I don’t hate the word, but I do despise those who use it as a device of oppression.

  4. That’s funny because “marriages, our children, our houses, our cars, ours dogs” aren’t specified in the constitution as guaranteed rights unless there’s a new amendment I’m not aware of.

    Let me check Wikipedia. Oh, here it is: “A well cuddled companion, being necessary to the adorableness of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear doggies and kitties, shall not be infringed.”

    Huh…you learn something new every day.

    • Can we please stop with this meme that only the rights enumerated in amendments 1-8 are the only rights protected by the Constitution! It’s damaging to the argument and damaging to freedom.

      The 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and one of the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights states:

      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”

      Marriage, children, property ownership (houses, cars, dogs) are all rights that We the People have.

      • I would tend to agree with you, however, it is obvious that the rights contained in amendments 1-8 were much more important to the framers of the constitution as they were specifically called out individually. The ninth amendment is just a catch-all that you have to guess at what “certain rights” they may have been talking about. Too many to list by most people’s estimation. Somewhere in that list some may argue is the right to clothe one’s self in as little as is necessary to nothing in public places since the act of someone being naked has alone never hurt anyone.

        • There is no doubt that the rights enumerated in Amendments 1-8 are the “priority” rights (for lack of a better word) and the 9th and 10th Amendments are the catch all amendments for the rest. That being said, the way our form of Government was set up with our Constitution, is that it was under the premise that the Constitution gives government a finite and very specific set of rules, rights and abilities. EVERYTHING else that is not specifically listed in the Constitution as part of the government’s power is 100% belonging to the people.

          Do we really want to perpetuate a meme that marriage and pro-creation isn’t a guaranteed right of the people? That the government can regulate it? Because if the government can regulate it, and it’s not a guaranteed right, then logically, government can legislate forced pairings for the betterment of society, public health (stop STDs, stop deformities) and social engineering. Fascist regiemes in the past have tried to do these things, arranged marriages, etc…. so these things are not out of the realm of possibility. We the people have rights well beyond the big 1-8.

  5. In the county where I live there is a five day waiting period for firearm purchases and I have to have my cat registered. I got a nasty-gram from the county advising of the “LAW” and the penalties to be inflicted upon me if I don’t renew the cat’s registration. Why does a cat have to be registered every year? Maybe I changed it’s colors? Added an extra leg or two? No, just control. I can go to the next county a buy a firearm and only wait three days. Just arbitrary nonsense…

    • How much does it cost you to re-register your cat? I suspect that is the real reason. Easy income generator.

      I agree that control is a huge part of it, but it quite often boils down to: How can we squeeze even more money from our constituents?

    • To pay for Animal Contol. Don’t want to register your cat? Have Animal Control disbanded, or push for them to be funded out of general fund.

      • allow public discharge so I can off the critters animal control has to come deal with (namely terrorist raccoons) and I wouldn’t need animal control ever. not that they ever come around to do their damn jobs anyways.

  6. Show me where it says anything about marriage or children in the constitution. Homes are mentioned but only to restrict what the government can do, not the homeowner.

    • The 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and one of the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights states:

      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”

    • Why should it have to be specifically spelled out anyway?

      Does some politician really get a say in who I chose to marry? Does that make sense to anyone?

      If there had been a law against it, I still would have married my wife. There are things higher than the law of the land. I’m sick of these politicians acting as though they have the right to do anything they want. They are supposed to be our servants. Instead they spend far too much time telling us what they think we should be doing for them.

      • It’s actually why the 9th Amendment was included, and why the Bill of Rights was ratified well after the Constitution was ratified. Founding fathers like Patrick Henry KNEW that it had to be spelled out because government would take it’s absence as a cue to say “ah ha! we can dictate how and when you can do X because it doesn’t say anything about it and you have no legal recourse”

        • I got that from your earlier comment above. I’m saying even if it wasn’t specifically called out, or isn’t, doesn’t mean we should put up with the government telling us we can’t have it.

        • No, that’s the whole consent of the governed point. Which is why we have the 9th Amendment. 🙂 It’s all cyclical.

  7. Why do I have to register my dog? Really, what purpose does it serve? That I might have ten high capacity assault dogs and that is scary? The dog hoarders and illegal breeders don’t register their dogs. I can see chipping your dog, but that is not a government registry and voluntary. A registry serves no good purpose from what I have seen. It doesn’t prevent hoarders and illegal breeding but forces me to cough up money each year for the “privilege” of having a dog in the city.

  8. Anybody that says “I support _____ but, ” you can stop reading at the but because the rest is just B S. That conflicts with the part before the but. I say we kick all their “buts” out of here.

  9. I should not have married my first wife , that should have been outlawed
    My neighbor’s kids should be outlawed
    We should all live in energy efficient apartments, houses waste energy, outlaw them
    Hummers waste gas they should be registered then outlawed
    Dogs shit on my yard, outlaw them.
    Guns? That is obvious.
    I think I’m on to something.
    Registration does not equal confiscation because “we would never take your cars or kids away”
    Wink, wink nudge, nudge

  10. Government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating any of those things and they are in no way necessary for public health and safety.

    • The enforcement of them would pose a public safety issue. cant have running around waving guns because you married the wrong girl or your dog is crapping in the wrong direction.

  11. It’s the Big City culture, live and in color.

    Yes, in big azz cities like NYC , marriage is regulated, cars are DEFINITELY regulated, and your landlord -although not a government agency- probably has a thing or two pertaining to girlfriends and un-documented guests living in your apartment.

    In short, everything one does in a city has some rule attached to it. On a practical level there’s no way millions of people could live together without an intricate system of rules .

    That breeds a cultural attitude inherently opposed to the RKBA. The idea of unregulated guns is as abhorrent as the idea of not licensing cars,or not having parking regulations. OMG, pandemonium in the streets!

    (Never mind when it comes to guns that many big cities in right to carry states seem to manage without bloodbaths in the street. )

    • Having lived in NYC for several years due to work, you are not wrong. When you have 8 million people in a small place they need many rules just to keep the peace because there is always someone pissed off about someone or something and aholes are numerous.

      You are also correct that rules and lots of them become the cultural norm and then those in cities try to impose those rules on everyone else — few people in the city could deal with real freedom or liberty.

      When I have invited some friends from NYC to my home in CT and then taken them to my brothers home which is more in country — they have often said that they have felt safer being back in the confines of their small NYC apartments and “do not know how we live” in CT.

      And thus is the problem — you have people with a city culture who believe that their norms should be by force law imposed on everyone else. Even in NY, you have Upstate vs NYC fights all the time where NYC city believes its norms should be applied to the entire state.

      • When you have 8 million people in a small place they need many rules just to keep the peace How is that working out down in the hive?

    • When you see the kind of regulation and dependance on government that is apparently required whenever people get piled on top of one another in a large city, does it ever cause you to think that maybe we humans weren’t meant to live that way to begin with?

      People in large cities rely on government agencies or government regulation for every single facet of their lives, right down to the water they drink. Is it any wonder this dependance ultimately morphs into entitlement?

  12. Where does the US CONSTITUTION talk about dogs or cars? Its VERY clear about SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Nowhere does it say you have the right to have a car or dog, but arms…YES, its VERY clear about that issue.

    • The 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and one of the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights states:

      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”

      • The 9th and 10th Amendments make it clear that there are other rights that are not enumerated, but they do not contain explicit prohibitions against action such as the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        The 2nd Amendment is an explicit prohibition against Government for taking negative action regarding firearms.

    • One could argue that a dog or horse could be protected by the second amendment, as well as potentially a vehicle.

    • It may not mention dogs, but to dyslexics it does say that you have the right to keep and arm bears.

  13. I have a few Google search suggestions for this man; Justina Peleteir, Kelo, SWAT, civil forfeiture…

  14. The linked article runs through the list for the next level of reasonable gun laws:

    – mandatory locked storage when not in owner’s possession;
    – micro-stamping;
    – ten-day waiting period for firearms;
    – one handgun a month;
    – .50-caliber rifle ban.

    • The comments below the article were good. More children by far die from falling into buckets than guns. Plus, safe storage laws are crap. I store my guns how I feel necessary. I don’t have kids so my weapons are not all locked in a safe. Most are, but the HD weapons are ready to go.

      I really don’t get their fixation on the .50. It is used in so few crimes over the past 100 years I bet you can count them on one hand. Capabilities do not construe intent to commit crimes. Just because I can punch a hole through a bear cat doesn’t mean I will be running out to do it whenever I see a bearcat. Just like our government controlling nuclear weapons doesn’t mean they are going to randomly annihilate the planet, one would hope.

      • .50 BHMG is a threat to government forces. It can punch through light armor and disable most standard vehicles in just one shot when placed correctly. No body armor can stop it. A decent rifle can place a shot from too far away for anyone to do anything to counter it. Nevermind that most people are not trained snipers and even experienced hunters are still not trained in the fine art of extreme distance shooting. The fact that it can be done is enough to scare the bejeebers out of politicos and their enforces.

        It all makes sense if you stop thinking about gun control as “crime control”.

        • + (wheres’ the infinity symbol on this keyboard?)

          Gun controls never has been about crime. You do not reduce crime or protect people by disarming the victims, which is all that gun control does- it disarms people and makes them more vulnerable. It is all that such laws can possibly accomplish, it is their goal. Make people more vulnerable. Two types want folks more vulnerable- criminals, and politicians who either conciously or sub-conciously fear the people may one day get tired of their c*** and rebel. They must be disarmed before that point. Politicians will rationalize it six ways from sunday, but that’s the driver.

          Always consider gun control from the perspective of how it makes the public more vulnerable to government control/action. 50 cal bans make perfect sense in that context.

  15. What is the penalty in New York if I fail to register my children by the statutory deadline? Will they come and confiscate them? Do they regulate when, where and how I can carry my children? Do my children need to conform to certain government specifications? What about high capacity children?

      • That was one of Bloomie’s ideas. Because high capacity children never learn bad eating habits from high capacity parents.

  16. When if ever will these people learn the difference between a right, and a privilege??
    My best guess is never.
    Or as they keep tring.
    Turn my 2nd ammendment right into a priviledge.
    Which we are failing to stop so far.
    Someone needs a kick in the behind already.

  17. Caliber restrictions, like magazine capacity, are absolutely the gateway to further erosion of our rights via the slippery slope. Completely arbitrary and fear-based, and once you ban one size of bullet or magazine, you’ve explicitly allowed the government to decide where that arbitrary line in the sand is, and guess what: It never gets bigger. The allowable mag size and caliber will creep smaller and smaller until we all have single shot .22s.

  18. Except, all his proposed regulations make us less safe. They make the government more secure, they make criminals more secure. But the public and law abiding individual or less safe and more at risk by the regulations he proposes.

    You do not protect people or make them safer by disarming them. Disarming the victim isn’t the answer. Unless, you’re a government official afraid that the people might someday get tired of your c***. You’re the only one made safer by these regulations…

  19. People forget that marriage is regulated in part because not so long ago it was illegal to marry someone of the opposite race. Yes, you could be denied a marriage license. Marriage licenses are mostly now shall-issue, even if you want to marry someone of the same sex.

    So, I guess you would say I’d like guns to be regulated like cars and marriages and dogs and cats: shall issue for licenses. I guess you could argue why have licenses in the first place, for marriages or dogs or cats. The truth is, many dog and cat owners do not have licenses, and you don’t need a license for a car if its confined to your own property. States have mostly abolished common law marriage because of custody and other disputes. Again, what happens in private stays in private, until you take your dispute public.

    So I guess you might say I’d be mostly ok if guns were regulated like marriages, dogs, and cats: what happens in private stays in private, and shall issue of public licenses, with de-minimus burden to get the licenses. In fact, right now I wish guns were only as regulated as marriages, cars, and pets. I wish it were as easy to get a gun license as a marriage license. Sure, we can talk about bring back common law marriage, or unlicensed open carry, but for now regulated guns like marriages and pet and cars would (at least in Maryland) be a strong step forward.

  20. Uh, let’s try that again:

    1) Marriage: The only thing government has to do with marriage is issue a certificate verifying that you were in fact married, so that you can be taxed accordingly and so that you gain the legal benefits of being a spouse. That’s it. The government doesn’t have a say in who (aside from gay marriage, but whatever you think about it, pretty sure government mandates aren’t the answer), where, when, or how you marry someone.

    2) Children: The government has no role in anyone having children. You have to get them an SSN for tax purposes. They don’t get to tell anyone when to have kids, how to raise them (aside from abuse or neglect), or where they can raise them.

    3) Homes: Admittedly, there are plenty of building codes. But at no time does the government have a say in what kind of home you can buy, how big it can be, when you can build or live in it, or what you do to it.

    4) Cars: Cars are only regulated so far as they go on PUBLIC roadways. I can build a V12 go-cart with 30″ wheels and lawnmower blade wheel scythes if I want, so long as I only drive it on private property.

    5) Dogs: Government does seem to want to regulate dogs like they regulate guns. Fat lot of good it’s done anyone. Now anyone who owns a pit bull is looked at like a criminal because they had the audacity to get a happy, loving dog just because some drug dealers and dog fighting rings abused them into weapons. Sounds a lot like an AWB doesn’t it?

    As Ron White might point out, you can’t fix stupid.

  21. Give me one GOOD reason why I need to register any of these things and I’ll also ask why they are subject to regulation. I don’t have children, I’m not married, and I don’t have a home. This infuriates me, why these people think I need their permission to own something or to marry somebody, or to have a child. Seems to me we were just fine a long time ago when they weren’t all up in out business.

  22. “we also cherish our marriages, our children, our houses, our cars, ours dogs, and yet all these things have to be registered and are subject to regulation. And we do that because it’s necessary to protect public health safety and welfare.” None of which are specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

    • you’re right, they’re not…. BUT

      The 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and one of the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights states:

      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”

      Marriage, children, property ownership (houses, cars, dogs) are all rights that We the People have.

  23. “Further” regulation?…
    Oh, they really have some ballls…
    AMD since when do dogs and marriages HAVE TO be regulated???

  24. The comments made to the Legislative Gazzette following the article are very revealing. The article states that two thirds of registered voters support the SAFE ACT. Where are they in comments? It’s a safe bet that the Legislative Gazette’s readership is made up of mostly registered voters. Of the first 20 or so comments I read, there were none supporting the SAFE ACT or any strengthening of it.

  25. No, actually, we “register” those things (not really the proper term for all of them) solely because the government found out they could squeeze more money out of us by requiring us to do so. Any other reasons given for doing so are merely an attempt at justification.

  26. To: Chair of the Assembly Health Committee Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan)
    Re: Regulating Marriage, Children, Houses, Cars, Dogs and Guns

    Your entire state of mind is viscerally abhorrent to me.

    Truly,
    John

  27. We, the People, consented to these regulations on marriage, children, pets and property long ago. In so doing we established precedents for:
    1) legal status – in cases of inevitable disputes
    2) protection of the rights of children
    3) Taxation and Fee Collection to pay for the licenses and and protections
    4) acceptance of Government Regulation for our personal and “public” self-interest
    5) a social/political rationale for infringing “other” rights and property
    6) tacit “permission’ (seized by Liberal Progressives like this guy) to infringe whatever this rationale can be applied to (by any stretch of the imagination)

    Your Dad, Grand Daddy, or Great Grand Daddies’ accepted this kind of stuff and let it stand. Now, we are paying the price of our ancestors’ “unintended consequences”. It is neither valid nor productive to cry out “…but THAT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!” because “Frankly, the Liberal Progressives don’t give a damn!” They are doing what the People have taught them they can do, and have a fair percentage of the People convinced this is a good thing.

    Until we, the People, teach them differently, expect ever more of the same. Oh, and keep all this in mind when you decide who to vote for in November 2014 and November 2016…those Elections might just turn-out to be a tipping point that will fundamentally change this Country for all remaining time.

  28. This is just bluster. It’s typical of what I call a “dot dot dot argument”: one where some unilateral assertion is made and some definitive conclusion is drawn, but with nothing in between. Where the facts and logical reasoning between assertion and conclusion would be, there’s nothing but a set of elipses intended to deceive the listener into believing there’s some substance there.

    In this case, the assertion is that this is for public health and safety…so we need firearms registration. Wait, let’s walk that dog back, as we say in Texas. *How*, exactly, does registration protect the public? No answer, no facts, no logic, just dot dot dot. Nice.

    Registration is intended only to make inadvertent criminals out of law abiding people, and to serve as a jumping off point for confiscation and civilian disarmament. They can take their dot dot dot lies and shove them up their …

  29. All of the other things he mentioned, marriage, children, cars, etc. were NEVER mentioned in the Constitution! I don’t see anyone being registered so they can speak freely, or having a to register to follow any particular religion. Is there a form I need to fill out so I can be protected from self-incrimination or unreasonable search or seizure? Because if so, I’d better get on it!

  30. A can of worms I will open!
    I think that we should regulate and limit child bearing, to no more than, but at least 16 children per family. That way we can end the madness, and cause the end of the earth a few years sooner than would have been anticipated, by over population, had we just settled for unlimited reproduction.
    Think “octo-mom” and, “19 and counting”

  31. In addition to all the above comments, a good argument can also be made that a reason to not regulate guns, is that they are they may well be the last resource available to prevent this guy from regulating the other areas.

    • No kidding. There is no area of our lives these tools would leave untouched. Seems like every day, you wake up and think about what tax needs to be paid today, what needs to be registered or inspected, or what license you have to apply for. Just when I was getting over the irritation of registering my car and motorcycle year after year, they slapped another one on me. Because my bike is used for off road as well as on, I have to have it registered for trail now, too. Not that I’m going to comply. Let them catch me out there in the muck.

      • And now they also force you to pay their favorite lobbyists’ funders, blood money for health “insurance”. Otherwise, they’ll just rob you point blank. While supposedly grown men sit around and seriously “debate” whether said robbery is a “tax”, or a “fine.”

        And yet, there are still people in this dump that believe them when they say ‘the terrorists” are the enemy.

  32. Nitwits like Gottfried, here, have no understanding about what citizen sovereignty once meant, or the empowerment it placed within the individual citizens. Instead, like a dutiful little nazi brownshirt, he would all too easily require everyone to offer their children up to the state through a bond (as is current practice), while slowly eroding all the cultural values that have held populations together for millennia.

    These people are a menace to society. They think they know everything, yet only see what is immediately in front of them and thereby jeopardize everyone around them through ignorance.

  33. And exactly how many of those things are called out as protected in the constitution? Right … Just the one.

    I also note that the state has a fiscal concern re children, housing, and marital status.

  34. So, we the community have a fiscal concern that if you have children, that it may cause our property taxes to increase to pay for their education. We’re not okay with that.

    Therefore, you may have only one child, with a permit of course. If you choose to have more than that, in flagrant violation of the Community Objectives Core Kindness System, act of 2015, then the state will decide the disposition of the child and you may incur a penalty of up to ten years and $10,000 fine, plus forced sterilization.

    Cuz, you know, it’s not listed in the Constitution specially that you’re allowed to have kids and things, so you have no right to it. Right?

    I think your understanding of the Constitution is a bit backwards. The bill of rights aren’t your only rights or freedoms.

    It’s not a list of what rights you have as a person so as to create a limit to your freedom as in, if it’s not on the approved list then you’re shit out of luck pal, it’s a limit on government, not you.

    It’s an enumeration of the specific powers of government delegated to it by the states and the people for the common good. And it was designed to curtail the bullshit of nut jobs like Gotfried who think they have a “right” (chuckle) to tell you how, where and when to eat, sleep, shit and procreate. With permit and application fee of course.

    Lemme introduce you to your good friend, the one and only, dusty and oft forgotten 9th Amendment! Yay! And his friend the 10th! Let’s have a round of applause for the old guys!

    9:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    10:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

    Well, holy shit! I bet they never taught you that in civics class! You’re a hell of a lot freer than you ever thought. If you can keep it. Good luck.

  35. Since when was there, in New York, a mandate to register your children or get a permit to have a child?

    Right, you need a permit to not only buy but to own a gun? So, by this analogy, you need a permit to get pregnant and then you must renew it every year until the child is 18?

    Yeah, crappy analogy

  36. Looks like, the commies are getting a foot hold, yep, over my dead ass! A special thx to C. Heston, p.s. coulda said fingers, but ass is apporiate.

  37. Wait, you have to register DOGS? I thought that was only for the Westchester Kennel Club.

    The guy gives beards a bad name. Ugh.

  38. Gots to register those assault children, you know for the children.
    I’m sorry MISTER MENTAL HEALTH MAN but frankly it’s none of your business what firearms I own.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *