DC City Council Wants to Name and Ostracize Legal Gun Owners

I talked yesterday about the recently passed emergency concealed carry law that has been enacted in Washington, DC. As you can tell from the video, the council members certainly don’t like it. One member went as far as to state that they flat-out don’t want carry and don’t even want guns, but are being forced to change by both the courts and Congress. Frankly, if this extremely divided and partisan Congress can make up their mind that you’re in the wrong, you know you’re really in the wrong. What really astounded me though was one council member’s statements about whether gun owners should have a right to privacy. His opinion: that right doesn’t exist. Because he wants to ostracize them . . .

From the video:

“We should at least give our neighbors and residents a chance to know who has the gun. Put it up there! Let people be proud if they want to carry a concealed weapon! But at least we’ll all know who it is, and we can treat them differently […]”

The implication is pretty clear. Just like the Nazis and their hatred of the Jews, the gun control crowd thinks that legal gun owners are vile and despicable subhumans that need to be eliminated from their communities. And, similar to the German approach, they feel they need to identify these evil individuals so that good folk know not to interact with them.

I might be going a little overboard with that analogy, but only just a little. The same basic concept is at work in both situations. By singling out a population — gun owners and concealed carry holders, in this case — you identify them for the purpose of isolating them from the community. The explicit stated purpose of the identification is so that “we can treat them differently,” according to the DC city council member being interviewed.

What if this wasn’t a list of gun owners, but instead of HIV positive individuals? Or perhaps homosexuals? Both of those groups at one time were believed to pose a deadly threat to the community, and I’m pretty sure that same council member wouldn’t think twice of voicing his opposition to a public list of HIV+ individuals in his community.

But because these are gun owners we’re talking about — the only group of people who it is OK in the minds of Democrats to persecute for their beliefs — it’s open season and their rights don’t matter. The DC city council has already balled up and thrown away the Second Amendment, why not throw out the rest of those protections as well? After all, these are just evil gun owners that we’re talking about here.

The fact that seems to be lost on this city council is that legal gun owners aren’t the problem. Washington D.C. has been one of the deadliest cities in terms of gang violence in the United States, and the nightly reports of shootings on the TV news makes it easy to believe that guns are the problem. But what isn’t stated in those news reports is the fact that all of those guns being used are illegally present in the district, and the crimes committed by legal gun owners can be safely rounded down to zero.

Washington, D.C. and its city council wants to use legal gun owners as the scapegoat for all the ills of “gun violence.” They want to blame average law-abiding citizens for the violence taking place in their city instead of looking at the actual causes of crime. They would rather ostracize an entire group of people simply because it “feels right” and is the easy solution instead of examining the deeper and more important root causes. It’s evidence of a lazy mind and a lack of analytical abilities, something common to gun control activists. And KKK members. And Nazis, for that matter. All of whom want to identify and ostracize a certain group of people within their communities, rights be damned.

comments

  1. avatar Brendan says:

    The Journal News in NY did this, and they had an interactive map as well. A nice big red dot on your house along with your name, thank god for the opt out form, that came a little too late.

    1. avatar Frank says:

      Once again we are faced with elected nit-wits who in their infinite wisdom, think that they know what is best for everyone. After all, they were elected, so like Hollywood stars, they become experts at things of which they know nothing at all.

    2. Records of government actions should be public information. Especially when it’s something like a permit that “may” be issued at some official’s discretion. That’s the only way to guard against corruption.

      CCW permits are terribly prone to abuse here in California’s ‘may issue’ environment. There have been at least two cases of straight up corruption by county sheriffs using their power to issue CCW permits. There are likely more cases that haven’t come to light because California’s public records law is weak compared to other states’.

      It’s stupid and irresponsible for news organizations to publish lists of permit holders. But people doing stupid and irresponsible things is not a reason to curtail everyone’s rights, and there is no more fundamental right than to know the actions being carried out by your government in your name.

      That said, the easy solution to this is to allow constitutional carry. I don’t think I should have to beseech some government official in order to exercise my rights.

      But the answer to a problem is never to allow less accountability and more secrecy by government.

  2. avatar Phil L says:

    Recall that this did happen when Ohio enacted concealed carry reform: The Cleveland Plain Dealer obtained and printed a list of concealer carry permit holders.

    1. avatar Peter says:

      Yes, that was the first year of Conceal Carry in Ohio. Access to that information has since been restricted.

  3. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    A politician pushing for invasion of privacy? In DC no less? I am shocked I tell you!

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Your winnings, monsieur…

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      The only privacy granted by Leftists now days is the privacy to have your unborn child sucked out through your va-jay-jay.

  4. avatar Jay G says:

    Exercise your 2nd amendment rights? Lose your 4th!

    What about CONCEALED CARRY doesn’t this bozo understand? It’s hidden so people DON’T treat you differently.

  5. God love ’em, they make the average gun owner look so…sensible.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      After decades of firsthand direct observation, I can safely state that they make a steaming pile of poop look like a genius.

      Marion Barry is STILL ON THE CITY COUNCIL! There are just no words to explain DC.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Marion’s greatest quote EVER – “Bitch set me up.”

        Concise and utterly lacking in class.

  6. avatar pod says:

    The local alt-weekly in Miami did an article listing the CWFL holders in South Florida about 8 or 9 years ago. It actually spurred the privacy protections CWFL holders in Florida have today. You used to be able to just make an inquiry online, but now, not so much.

    And it’s not just about what Foghorn mentions in terms of ostracizing gun owners. At a base level it’s a security issue. Guns are valuable commodities, which means (duh!) thieves want to steal them, either to use for themselves, or sell to others. If you have a list of CWFL holders in an area, you could make a fair go at picking one who may leave his guns unsecured at home while he’s away. Criminals have computers too and can use the web. On that basis alone it’s wrong. “This guy here has a CWFL so that means he probably has a few guns in the house – let’s wait til he goes to work and then break in and steal his guns…”

  7. avatar Shire-man says:

    Permit open carry then. That way everyone can see. Look, I just bridged the causes of two “extremists” and came to a win-win compromise!

    1. avatar RT says:

      ***slow clap****

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Since I missed my opportunity to have my picture taken with my 1911 against the background of the Lincoln Memorial when it was legal for a few hours I support your proposal.

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      Yup, I’ve always thought that people like Shannon and Fearful Mary should welcome OC if they are so worried about people with guns. That way, they would know which Starbucks to avoid and such. But of course that is logical, and logic plays no part in the thinking of folks like Mary.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        They think???? When did that start?

  8. avatar Rokurota says:

    I guess those “emanations” of the right to privacy stops after the right to birth control and abortion. Very selective penumbra that.

    1. avatar Chris Hall says:

      Well crap I missed that list…where is it?

      1. avatar Rokurota says:

        “Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal “liberty” embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras…” (Roe v Wade, Blackmun)

        Before that, Griswold v Connecticut (making contraception a “Constitutional right”). Look it up and find the words “penumbra” and “emanations”.

        1. avatar Spectre_USA says:

          Politically correct only works if you are on the Lib side of the equation.

          Anything they don’t like can be voiced ad nauseum.

          I mean, it only effects OFWG’s clutching our guns and Bibles, so no big dealio, yeah?

  9. avatar AB2010 says:

    David Grosso and his left hand Jabba the hutt lady are just like children. They lose the fight now it’s an I will try to hurt you any way I can retaliation.

    1. avatar Hyle says:

      That would be Yvette Alexander.

      1. avatar Delaware says:

        Can we put her on a “Fat Person” registry so restaurant owners can treat her differently.

      2. avatar rlc2 says:

        a direct quote from the video…

        “Who cares about the confidentiality of the gun owners!”
        ~ DC Councilwoman Yvette Alexander, Sept 24, 2014

        1. avatar Spectre_USA says:

          Hitlery was there?

          LOL!

  10. avatar Robert C says:

    A downloadable list of Arkansas Concealed Weapon Permit holders was published by the newspaper in Arkansas too. The legislature had to modify the law to make the info private. A list of Tennessee CWP holders was also published by a Memphis newspaper.

  11. avatar tdiinva says:

    The DC Council knows very well that legal gun owners aren’t a problem. They know what the gun laws are across the river in suburban Northern Virginia which may have the lowest crime rate in North America. You have to remember that in every big city controlled by the Democrats the gangs are in bed with the machine. They are the agents of social control. Letting honest DC citizens exercise their Second Amendment rights would undermine their control as the gangs lost power.

    1. avatar rlc2 says:

      +1. Ding ding ding. tdiinva nails it. Here’s an example.
      http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/

      Anyone surprised at all by Chicago Thugz politics in DC Council, when its run that way, top-down, in this Administration, with Dem/progtard control of the Senate?

      NSA spying on all US citizens via phone metadata. DOJ suppression of journolists via AP investigation and other threats. IRS targeting conservative get out the vote groups, before the 2012 election, then covering it up, and now we find out it extended to groups that educate kids on the Constitution? Dems change Senate rules to allow simple majority vote (the ” nuke option”) to confirm appointments to Federal Courts..(follwed by rapid court packing of DC Court for Halbig challenge to Obamacare).

      http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/04/oh-well-d-c-circuit-to-rehear-halbig-case-on-obamacare-subsidies-en-banc/

      POTG and other freedom loving Peeps, who might be reading here, lets just think back, to 8 years ago, to Hope And Change. Remember the faux greek columns, the tingles for the new imperial President?

      You couldn’t make this stuff up for a conspiracy novel, as people would call you a tinfoil hat loony.
      Yet here we are, and thats just a few of the highlights of the DOCUMENTED facts.

      And this is only what we KNOW about, from the “most transparent administration ever” (that is irony, btw, using an Obama election campaign promise).

      2A rights are the canary in the coal mine of individual freedom from an over powerful State. The Founders knew this from their own history. And you only have to look at history since to see the same pattern, read the ‘articles’ section here, for more.

      http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/commentary.htm

      Whats that saying about ‘history repeats itself’?

      1. Please. Enough conspiracy theories. Big money clearly is in control which means that the threat, which doesn’t exist, would come from the right not the left. Politics is far different from a conspiracy.

        1. avatar rlc2 says:

          OK. I’ll play, Mike.

          The theme was tdiinva’s point about corruption of local pols, like the DC Council, by gang related money.
          I provided a link to an excellent investigation showing same, in Chicago.

          Now, you have missed my point about fact patterns, and how some would dismiss those facts, by a casual ad hominem for “conspiracy theories”.

          I didnt detect irony, but do you see, how you became an example of exactly that tactic? (ironically…)

          Lets make this easy. Go read the Chicago Mag article. Then, resond, to tdiinvas point, about the possibility of big money corruption, at the DC council. I think you will find, that ironically, we all have a lot in common, to agree upon, in re corruption.

          And in this particular examplex it gun rights, that has unhinged the progtards enough, for them “to show their hand”, unconsciously.

          We can go OT later on the larger theme about Chicago Progressive Thugz politics, imported by POTUS and his handlers, elsewhere, to avoid potential for thread hijack. Sorry, RF, I got a bit carried away in my enthusiasm.

        2. avatar juliesa says:

          You are touchingly naive if you think big money mainly comes into play from the right. The ultra wealthy skew left now, and they are using their billions to get Democrats elected and promote gun control, as well protect bailouts for Wall Street and big corporations.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          You live in a leftwing fantasy world: Here is a list of the top donors by affiliation. None are rightwing. The only one that is close is the NRA but they would donate money to Bernie Sanders if he was a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

          We have Charles and David Koch who made their money the old fashion way by making things and you have George Soros who made his money by raping third world countries. You also have eco-nut and Obama crony Tom Steyer who has taken millions of dollars from the taxpayers for his wind and solar shell companies.and is spending $100 million dollars on this years elections.

          Here is a list: Note the heavy presence of Labor Unions:

          http://freebeacon.com/politics/none-of-the-top-10-biggest-political-donors-are-republican/

        4. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Folks, if you think Big Money is the most immediate power broker in town, you live in the Central Plains states. MS-13 has been here for a decade. What good is a few grand if you get a drive by for an election gift?

  12. avatar Bob72 says:

    The Democrat Party is the poster child for the reason the founders created the 2nd amendment. The Democrat Party has become the domestic enemy of We The People, and God help us if we do not retake the country in November.

    1. avatar rlc2 says:

      Yep. Sad that its come to thiis, that what you say is probably close to the truth. When you have Dems like Vice President Biden, casually refer to fellow US citizens like the blue haired grannies of the Tea Party, speaking as principled opponents of big government spending in the last budget “crisis”, calling them terrorists”:

      http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html

      and former Speaker of the House, Assywmn Pelosi, calling citizens doingg grassroots oposition to Dem politics “arsonists”,

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/20/liberal-bully-week-nancy-pelosi/

      then you do have to make up your mind about who is the opposition, and just how seriously scary they are in the positions of power they abuse regularly.

      And this years elections for the Senare are by do means a given. If we dont get GOP control, imperfect as the Stupid Party can be, in DC, we can expect even more dangerous over reach by the Left-progtards. There is no way they will give up the 40yr campaign for power, without doubling down, and getting even dirtier.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “Conspiracy Theory! Republicans are really at fault! It’s the ‘right’s’ fault! Bush. Bush. Bush. Cheney. Cheney. CHEEEEYYYYYYYNNNNNNEEEEEEYYYYY!”

        Oft used leftist logic: Nothing more substantive than blame the right. Sadly, it works on a lot of people.

  13. avatar NY Steve says:

    Anyone notice that the outspoken councilman didn’t blink while he was being interviewed. I tend to write-off someone that doesn’t blink as a bug-eyed crazy person. Something I have noticed with many rabid anti-gunners.

    1. avatar Allen says:

      Maybe he watched Michael caines video?

    2. avatar The Trouble with Timbo says:

      But doesn’t Nancy blink A LOT?? Or is that a result of her meds?

  14. avatar Hannibal says:

    We all know that there is no such thing as a legal right to privacy when it comes to life or death decisions of a controversial nature.

    …right?

  15. avatar whatever says:

    “When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns,” and the DC council apparently has some vicious, cowardly outlaws. It is a very good reason for Congress to assess the district’s funding priorities.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Maybe eliminate their bodyguard line items in the next budget cycle? THAT would be fun to watch.

  16. avatar Roll says:

    Maybe to counter this, they should propose a list all the people that dont have guns? Maybe a big sign in their yard that says “Unarmed, no weapons here”

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      Yep. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

    2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Not all non-gun owners, but some vocal media types were asked to do just that:

  17. avatar Fred says:

    Does he not know the meaning of the word “concealed”?

  18. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    Sounds like the councilman is advocating for open carry no? I would be cool with that.

    Or he lacks the simple mental faculty to understand that someone conceal carry to give themselves the tactical advantage of the criminal not knowing “who has the gun”.

    I don’t know what makes me more disappointed in America, that ignorant trolls like this somehow manage to exist in society or that >50% of the people in their area trusted them enough to vote them in to public office.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      “…or that >50% of the people in their area trusted them enough to vote them in to public office.”

      Actually it was >50% of the people who bothered to vote. There is a huge difference.

      Just about any election, at any level, in the US held in the last half century or so could have gone the other way had all eligible voters voted. Probably longer than that, actually.

      If you didn’t vote, you don’t get to complain about the person warming the seat.

  19. avatar DD says:

    Yet when the Po Po comes to find out who shot who and why with an illegal gun the community shuts up or lies intentionally simply because the officers are sometimes white. You can’t have it both ways.

  20. avatar The Trouble with Timbo says:

    “What if this wasn’t a list of gun owners, but instead of HIV positive individuals? Or perhaps homosexuals? ”

    Or Jews. Would this be acceptable??

    Your analogy is right on.

  21. avatar Jon says:

    Someone please post David Grosso’s home address so we know where to go protest his abhorrent Un-American hatred of the Constitution.

    1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      Two can play that game. It’s pretty easy to ruin someones life these days. And once again they threaten folks with guns.

  22. avatar Mediocrates says:

    can’t they just ask the NSA for a list?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      The NSA doesn’t want to get dirty.

  23. avatar James says:

    The councilman is the perfect example of why we should be armed. His uncontrolled emotion, rage and hatred for someone different than him is a powder keg waiting to blow. He and those like him prefer and arbitrary rule of law where the law is selectively applied depending on who you are, and hence there is no rule of law, just totalitarian rule or mob rule. They are trying to push the envelope everywhere (John Doe – WI, Perry indictment – TX, IRS) degrading to destroy the rule of law. The demonization and vilification is their means to an end, and unfortunately, given the lack of emotion control driving them, the solutions for us are whittled down to mostly undesirable choices. The one solution is to have all 2A supporters win hearts and minds on the ground level because the media is not going to be honest, and in fact, is going to be dishonest and unethical in their attempts to defraud the public. Doing the ground work is the best way around the media, bit it’s a slow process.

  24. avatar Taylor TX says:

    :”What if this wasn’t a list of gun owners, but instead of HIV positive individuals? Or perhaps homosexuals? Both of those groups at one time were believed to pose a deadly threat to the community, and I’m pretty sure that same council member wouldn’t think twice of voicing his opposition to a public list of HIV+ individuals in his community.”

    Liberal heads within 50 miles might simultaneously expode/implode (which Im not sure, you can never tell with “those people”), kind of like that Chapelle Show episode where hes a black white supremacist named Clayton Bigsb.

  25. avatar Sammy says:

    They did something similar with those rejected for CCP in Philadelphia. How did that work out? I should receive a check from the City of Brotherly Love some time in October, barring an appeal by the city brain trust. So it worked out OK. I had got my permit back and a check.

  26. avatar LongPurple says:

    They want to inform the public about who might have a gun in their possession so that they can “treat them differently”.
    Here’s an idea for you — treat EVERYBODY as if they were armed. That way you don’t have to worry about who is or isn’t carrying. That should make all social interaction in Washington, DC more pleasant.

    “An armed society is a polite society”.

  27. avatar rlc2 says:

    If you left it up to the discretion and judgement of the DC Council, the permit would come with a yellow star, that you have to pin on your chest while carrying. Thats pretty much the thought process behind making gun owner identities public knowledge, in this age of the innertubz.

    “At least we will all know who they are (gun owners), and we can treat them differently…”
    ~ DC Councilman David Grosso, Sept 24, 2014.

  28. avatar geoffb says:

    With this as part of the law:

    Under the legislation, guns are not allowed near Congress. Guns are outlawed within 1,000 feet of any foreign dignitary or high-ranking federal official. They are also banned near the White House in Northwest Washington, in an area bound by Constitution Avenue, H Street and 15th and 17th streets, and on most federal property, including the Capitol grounds. The law puts into place many other requirements and restrictions.

    There won’t be any names to list.

    1. avatar geoffb says:

      There was supposed to be this link but the editor function won’t let me edit my own comment for some reason.

      http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/norton-to-congress-hands-off-d-c-s-new-gun-law/?dcz=

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Good old Elanor, DC’s pretend Congresscritter. Someday she’ll stumble over a clue.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      DC is such a small city the banned areas would leave only the Potomac River as a carry location.
      Close to the VA side of course.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Under federal law the areas controlled by the Park Service would be exempt from DC restrictions. As long as you stayed on the Mall and Rock Creek Park there is nothing DC could do to you.

  29. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Homosexuals, the HIV infected, yes, let’s add more! How about those taking Viagra or Cialis? Your neighbors need to know who the real men are, right? Public lists of abortion patients, you know, so it’s clear who the slutbag whores are, right? We can play this disgusting game all day, but I’ve already made myself throw up a little in my mouth. How dare you, D.C.?!

    Private means private. Nobody is entitled to this information. If people want to make bigoted comments and form filthy, ignorant opinions of others, then let them do so in complete ignorance, without the complicity of official recordkeepers. It is not the government’s prerogative to divulge citizens’ private data for the prurient and prejudicial pleasures of nosy, hateful neighbors. Good day, sir.

  30. avatar Jake in AL says:

    The DC council won’t ever pass a law making all CC permit holders public. If they did, they’d have to answer to the fact that only the council, politicians (D) and their donors have permits.

  31. avatar Sian says:

    Sure, let’s publish voting choices, income, whether or not someone is on welfare, and religious choices of each resident, too.

    If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing with your entire ass instead of just half.

    Does he not realize that publishing such a list will also create a list of those households without guns? Criminals will have a reliable map for which houses to hit while empty, for a good chance to acquire weapons, and which houses to hit when occupied for defenseless robbery/kidnapping/rape/thrillkill victims. Brilliant.

  32. avatar tdgrafton says:

    Ok, I’ll bite. If the purpose of concealed carry is so people don’t know you are carrying….and the challenged is that people should know who has a gun…wouldn’t it be simpler to allow open carry?

  33. avatar rlc2 says:

    Y’know, some one should archive this clip, before it gets pulled from YouTube, for ‘copyright violation’ by NBC.
    Its an incredible snapshot of the totalitarian mindset of Progressive politicians, left unchecked, in a petri dish of dem corruption, as DC has been, for years.

    Its at 1100 views, right now, and commentary is 100% outrage, it appears.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      DC is the Dems’ test tube for the rest of America. Beware.

  34. avatar Shane in Chandler says:

    Here is this vile trash’s web page: http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/council/david-grosso

    And his email address: dgrosso@dccouncil.us

  35. avatar Greg says:

    How disgusting

  36. avatar Frank says:

    Hahaha finally a disarmament proponent announces his true intent. “We would like to have much stricter no carry rules, preferably no guns at all..” Kudos to allowing carry anyway, but you lose points for being ideologues and hypocrites.

  37. avatar Tom says:

    Someone should hand him a “Red Coat”….

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Or a brown shirt.

  38. avatar Grindstone says:

    “But at least we’ll all know who it is, and we can treat them differently”

    What a lovely thing for a public servant to say about his fellow citizens….

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      He’s a DC City Council Member. That’s as far from a public servant as you can get and still be in North America.

  39. avatar Greg C. says:

    Proposing a more appropriate analogy would be to register all those accepting psychiatric help. The logic can go along the lines of ….

    “We’ve seen in almost all violent situations a psychological imbalance. Many have received some form of counseling that didn’t prevent this tragedy. We should know where all of the possibly mentally unsafe people are in the neighborhood. It’s for the greater good.”

    This type of action where those seeking help become a public pariah would think twice about getting help that they could (if not would) benefit from. Then, we would have more ‘unregistered’ and definitely unhelped troubled souls on the street, counter to the intent of action.

    Or maybe we can register alcoholic. They are a constant danger to peoples lives through their random acts. Or maybe those who are prone to pontificate in public such as politicians and preachers, because they could cause a riot among the masses. Or those of extreme weight because they are a strain on the societal infrastructure both physical and economical… I could go on with a bunch of these absurd reasonings.

    “I have ten finger. You have ten fingers. Let’s go find someone with nine fingers and beat them up.” – Georgia Lass

  40. avatar GS650G says:

    Damn right they will treat CCW people differently. Starting with not robbing them.
    As for the fake blonde Yvette, who cares about you?

    Grosso is a real piece of work that openly shows his disdain for those above him while pandering to those who voted him in.

  41. avatar michael3ov says:

    Stopped reading after Godwin’s law came into play.

  42. avatar Ralph says:

    Washington, DC is a lunatic asylum, from the local government right up to the White House. And the lowest-IQ inmates are the ones who are running it.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      The fences around public buildings are not there to keep the criminals out…

  43. avatar johnb says:

    “treat them differently”….I believe there’s and equal protection “right”….though designed around racial implications, its been contorted to mean equal in other ways lately. And a right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”….a$$hat..

  44. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    If I can’t obtain the information about who owned my two classic cars all the way back to the original owner due to privacy laws, you sure as hell shouldn’t be able to out gun owners potentially putting them at risk. That is idiotic and irresoonsible.

  45. avatar Parnell says:

    Rightly or wrongly, Roe v wade established a right to privacy. You would think these Democrat morons would remember that since they hold Roe dear to their hearts.

  46. avatar Emiya Shirou says:

    “We should at least give our neighbors and residents a chance to know who has the Koran. Put it up there! Let people be proud if they want to be a Muslim! But at least we’ll all know who it is, and we can treat them differently […]“

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email