Ban Cars! Says Swedish Newspaper Columnist

Eva Franchell is a Swedish newspaper columnist. In the aftermath of the recent vehicle-borne terrorist attacks in Nice, Berlin, Jerusalem, London and Stockholm (not to mention Ohio State), Ms. Franchell is calling on the government to ban vehicles from her country’s urban centers. Aftonbladet [via Google translate]:

Cars have turned into deadly weapons. They have been easy to steal and then nothing has been able to stop their advance.

If people in the future will be protected cars must simply be removed from the collection sites and city centers. It is not reasonable for a big truck can be driven right into Stockholm’s popular walking street on a Friday afternoon just before Easter. Politicians have been good at protecting themselves, but now they must also ensure citizens’ needs.

Något måste göras! Something must be done! By the government, of course.

It’s the same rallying cry issued by America’s civilian disarmament industrial complex whenever someone is shot — or shoots themselves. U.S. gun control advocates don’t call for a complete gun ban. That would be political suicide.

But anyone who thinks “common sense gun control” doesn’t mean no firearms for the common man hasn’t been paying attention. Ever tried to get a carry permit in New York City, New Jersey, San Francisco or Hawaii? Exactly.

Most things can be solved for taxi and transportation service. Deliveries to shops and restaurants can also be redirected to the times when fewer people are out walking the streets.

Stockholm’s traffic has always been about flows. Motorists should drive in a steady stream, and nothing will stop them. Now being built also fast cycle paths so that cyclists can flow through the city.

More rarely, there is talk of the need for a peaceful environment. If parks and squares friendly welcoming our visitors and where children can move without danger to their lives.

The parallel between Europe’s “war on cars” (the need for a “peaceful environment”) and American antis’ delusional “war on guns” (the need for a “peaceful environment”) is obvious — especially to this former UK resident alien.

I experienced all the joys of  Britain’s jihad against four wheels: crushing taxes on petrol (this by an oil exporting nation), onerous taxes on ownership, “congestion charging” in city centers, enormously expensive training requirements for a driver’s license, a giant networks of speed cameras (with huge fines), etc.

The UK government justified its anti-car crusade by constant caviling about pollution, global warming and health. Children and the elderly are dying from automobile pollution! Never mind the fact that cabinet ministers are ferried to and fro in Jaguars, or that the penalties did nothing to discourage the rich from driving.

In the U.S., gun control advocates constantly call attention to firearms-related homicides, especially children killed by stray rounds from negligent discharges. Never mind that government officials are protected by armed guards. Or that gun control does nothing to discourage criminals from using firearms.

See how that works? See how it doesn’t? You have been warned.

[h/t CC]

comments

  1. avatar TruthTellers says:

    If the Sweeds are this stupid and tolerant, they deserve to be thrown in ovens by Islamists.

    1. avatar Warren says:

      Pwrserge, is that you??

    2. avatar Ing says:

      You’re way off base.

      First, “deserve” has nothing to do with it. No one really deserves genocide, but it happens frequently anyway.

      Second, Islamic society is 900 years behind the times. They won’t be efficiently gassing and burning their Swedish victims, they’ll be raping and beheading them.

  2. avatar James Earl Hoffa says:

    Next they’ll ban knives forks and make everybody use safety scissors LOL. What about pools and bathtubs in 5 gallon buckets children drowned in them quite a bit we should also ban those and the beach cuz people drown all the time and undercurrent. Just ban everything that’ll fix it and make it a nice fun boring as hell world my God what are these people thinking mental midgets every one of them LOL.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Good idea on the knives and forks. They are the root cause of obesity, after all.

    2. avatar Nick says:

      IIRC some time ago the UK was indeed talking about requiring all kitchen knives be “stab proof”. Basically, they had to have a rounded point so they couldn’t be used effectively for stabbing (particularly though the UK police’s stab resistant vests)

      You joke, but the loony left just takes every inch they’re given, and before long they’ve taken a mile.

      1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

        Then move on to icepicks? 😉

  3. avatar Jack Crow says:

    Wow… this reads like satire. This should be on The Feed Ramp or The Onion.

    The world is upside down, my friends.

    1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      @..No…The Bible had it wrong…”The Morons have inherited the Earth!!!” NOT the “Meek..”

      1. avatar Bob Jones says:

        For the last 60 years. Liberal-Progressives worldwide have given lazy, stupid and ignorant folks endangered species protections. Now, we are finally overrun with them. In the old days, they would kill themselves off through their moronic behavior. The average IQ of earthlings declines by one or two points per year.

  4. avatar CLarson says:

    Maybe try banning the Muslim migrants using the guns, bombs, cars, knives, clubs, fists, etc, instead of welcoming and subsidizing them? Is it a crime if you invite and pay the assailant to come rape and kill you? Eva and the rest of the Swedes are just being conditioned to learn the safe word, “Shahada.” They will figure it out.

  5. avatar Setnakhte says:

    This better have been satire. Not like I would be able to tell, though, as I can’t speak a word of Swedish.

    1. avatar Ian in Transit says:

      I tried to use the dialectizer found at http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/ but the swedish chef translation read much the same as the original.

  6. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I am sure this proto communist would be just as happy to ban the internal combustion engine entirely, but will settle for banning today what she thinks she can get. In truth, like the anti gunners in the US, they are simply all anti freedom.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      ^This. Personally controlled means of transportation are unacceptable to would be authoritarians, just as personally controlled means of self defense. Make the little people dependent on you for food, housing, healthcare, transportation, and personal protection and you can abuse them in all kinds of ways that wouldn’t be possible otherwise.

  7. avatar Dave Marland says:

    On the positive side, you can eat all those candy fish on your walk home.

  8. avatar P-Dog says:

    How about we only ban only high capacity cars. Sounds like a good compromise.

    But in all seriousness, Sweden is seriously effed. In 30-40 years they’ll probably home to the next caliphate.

  9. Banning cars is stupid.

    Guns are designed for a bad purpose and that is to oppress and kill.

    Vehicles are designed with numerous safety features that prevent tragedies on the road.

    Guns are not.

    The use of “DGU”s are nothing but a fairy tale disguised as “fact” with no basis on reality and you or a loved one are more statistically more likely to commit suicide or murder with a gun in the home then stopping a criminal attack.

    And another study showed that owning a gun increase violent crime than lowering it.

    Another rare incident that does not compare to what happens here everyday.

    So what about the victims of the recent shooting attack in California?, don’t they need sympathy too?

    1. avatar Dan in CO says:

      Because you have intertwined your feelings and your supposed to facts so completely, they are in decipherable from one another.

      Cars were not designed to keep free men and women from being attacked and opressed. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Your feelings need not apply here.

    2. avatar The Free Insistence says:

    3. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      “Banning cars is stupid.”

      You did so well, with your first sentence! After that, downhill pretty quick.

      Better luck next time you attempt to form a logical thought.

    4. avatar NorincoJay says:

      Common sense immigration control. If it saves just one kids life it’s worth it. Punishing a whole group for the crime of one individual is perfectly reasonable. Who cares about their rights if it saves just one life. No that doesn’t sound democratic to me especially in a country founded on individual rights. It doesn’t work for gun rights or immigration. Libs are dumb s**ts. You can’t have reasonable conversations with people that have unreasonable views of you and your beliefs.

      P.S. Freedom is dangerous

      1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

        Yep.

    5. avatar Ian in Transit says:

      “Guns are designed for a bad purpose and that is to oppress and kill.”

      Another statement that is completely false at face value. Should probably go back to the 10s of 100s of mass shootings every day like you usually copy/paste everywhere so you don’t get your lies confused.

    6. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Vehicles are designed with numerous safety features that prevent tragedies on the road.”

      And they *still* slaughter tens of thousands per year, even though they are *designed* to do one thing most of all, protect occupants against injury or death.

      Your pathetic little ‘resistance’ is failing spectacularly. You couldn’t even beat a Republican running in Kansas, a race you twerp ‘resistors’ predicted you would win.

      http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article144061274.html

      *snicker*

      1. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

        And it now looks like Hillary Clinton is the only candidate on Kremlin’s payroll.

    7. avatar DaveC says:

      At least we agree on one point. A ban on cars is, as you so eloquently stated, stupid.

      To [some of] your other points:

      – “Guns are designed for a bad purpose and that is to oppress and kill.” This is akin to me stating a needle is designed for a good purpose and that is to administer medicine and save lives. I don’t think I need to delve further into this particular line of thought.

      – “Vehicles are designed with numerous safety features that prevent tragedies on the road.” These “safety features” sure didn’t prevent the “tragedies” in Stockholm, Westminster & Jerusalem (just to name a few in 2017 alone). And these “safety features” will *NEVER* prevent someone with evil intent from carrying out their intended actions.

      – “Guns are not.” […designed with numerous safety features that prevent tragedies…] I’m not even sure where to start. Ever hear of a manual safety, grip safety, firing pin block, hammer block, integrated trigger safety? Just to name a few. And just like my prior observation, which I will state again, “safety features” will *NEVER* prevent someone with evil intent from carrying out their intended actions.

      Unfortunately, I do not have the time to address the remainder of your statements individually so here’s a summary:

      You mention studies and statistics without providing sources so I shall reply in kind with my opinions, my source being therein.

      – In my line of work, I found that individuals intent on suicide or murder will most likely perform that act whether a gun is present in the home or not.

      – As for stopping a criminal attack, everyone I have spoken to wants the best opportunity to stop the imminent danger to the lives of themselves or their loved ones and not only to stop the criminal act.

      – I’ve noticed that people who have a propensity towards violence and are willing to commit a crime will continue to commit crimes. As for an increase in violent crime due to legal gun possession, please provide sources.

      – Can you please source who specifically is *NOT* giving sympathy to the victims in San Bernardino? I would opine that all legal gun owners and appalled that an individual with prior arrests for domestic violence and weapons/drug charges had a gun and are very sympathetic to the victims.

    8. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

      It is no more stupid than the call to ban guns. More Europeans have been killed with motor vehicles than Americans killed by firearms in mass shootings as defined by the FBI over the past two years.

    9. avatar I1uluz says:

      May I have your drug dealer contact info, that is some good crack you’re hitting.
      1. About 2/3 of all firearm deaths are suicides, about 21,000,
      2. There are about 11,000 firearm related homicides per year
      3. Gang/drug related firearm related homocides account for about 9,000 of the 11,000
      4. LEO/DGU involved deaths account for about 750, LEO about 500, DGU 250. If it saves just one victim isn’t it worth having private firearm ownership?
      5. About 2,000 OHCRAP, I didn’t know it was loaded discharges or pure murders.

      2016 There were more auto mishaps deaths than total firearm related deaths about 34,000, even with safer cars as you stated, Due to younger drivers NOT using seat belts and everyone mucking with their smartphone (you travel about 100 yards in 5 seconds it takes to read a text. Funny how cars are built with more safety yet humans are able to still kill themselves or others with them.

      2016 there were about 34,000 overdose deaths due to heroin type drugs.

      Unless you’re in gang/live in an large urban area, you have a 3 times higher higher chance of being killed by a moron texting while driving (including yourself if you do such a stupid thing) on a public road than being murdered by a firearm.

      Only if drugs like heroin were outlawed we could save 34,000 lives. On top of the 34,000 we would do away with all the gang related firearm deaths, so about 45,000 deaths annually.

      As for the murder/suicide in Cali she knew him for 4 years before they were married a few months ago, he was a prohibited firearm person with a history of abuse and firearm charges. Not sure if there were convictions, if not blame the court system. They owned 2 BMW’s, had a rather nice home for a public school teacher. Something does not add up in their relationship, the true victim was the young student that was murdered and rest of the class that witnessed it.

      There is nothing more fun than troll shooting. Anyone know a good taxidermist?

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    Well, if Sweden bans blue eyes and blonde hair, the ones who remain will be safe from jihad.

    Isn’t that the point?

    1. avatar TruthTellers says:

      Yes. The Sweeds are intent on committing Suigenicide, self inflicted genocide.

  11. avatar USMC says:

    They should probably start by banning the possession of hand grenades from immigrants of a certain religion……

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Sweden

  12. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

    Can we get TTAG’s senior Islamic apologist JWT’s take on this? Don’t forgot to include the Dortmund explosions and Egypt bombings, in addition to all those Isis-sponsored attacks using trucks (Sweden, Germany, France). Were there any Muslims condemning any of this? Are they doing anything to stop this behavior? Or are they quietly condoning it? I’m not even going to mention the rapes and violence against women committed by all those refugees.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      My take on the Swede’s banning automobiles? It’s idiotic, like the rest of Swedish government and society. Those people beg to be slaves.
      Again, and again, you bring up the whole “Islamic apologist” line. I do not, and have not, ever apologized for islam or any other religion, or race, or nationality. I do not apologize for you, but I would hate for anyone to think that we had much in common, as Americans.
      As far as your question of have muslims spoken out against terrorist attacks committed by muslims, I did a quick google search and got literally hundreds of links, photos, and essays of muslims speaking out against Islamic terrorism. I also got photos of muslims who have died fighting ISIS. It turns out that the religion most likely to actually push away from the keyboard and fight radical Islamic terror is…wait for it…islam. But surely you knew that already. Just more made up arguments so you can argue with yourself, your only way to win.

      1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

        I certainly hope we don’t have much in common. One of us can see the issue with Islam being a violent ideology, its subjugating nature and the tacit consent of millions of Muslims to this type of behavior. The other likes to pretend nothing is wrong, and there’s no need to worry about anything like that happening here. Apparently essays and photos (seriously??) will somehow stop this. Yeah, that’s some powerful stuff right there. No need to apologize for me, but stop being so delusional and you can thank me later.

        The funny thing is, you’re one of those people who keeps proclaiming they ‘win’ all the arguments, but you just ignore everything I bring up. You’re unable to refute any of my arguments, you’re willfully ignoring real world events, but because you know a handful of Muslims who actually have stood up to terrorists, that is somehow supposed to invalidate any argument against your position.

        I’m actually willing to listen to any good arguments coming from you, but you just don’t have any. Believe it or not, I have no issues ‘losing’ to anybody who makes sense, it just that you don’t make any. Real world events and the undeniable truth about what Islam is and what its followers are willing to do makes it clear that you have nothing to stand on.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Maybe I have your argument wrong. What I think you’ve said, which your above post seems to validate, is that every muslim is a terrorist, and they all want to kill everyone who is not a muslim. The ones that don’t want to do the killing want the rest of them to the killing. So the only good muslim is a dead muslim.
          This is what I disagree with. That they are all terrorists, that they all want us dead. I base this off my actual experience living in muslim dominated cultures, fighting with muslims who considered, and I’ll use their words, their fight against Al-Quieda and radical islam to be the “True Jihad”.
          But even without spending years in those cultures, a simple google search would, and has, proved you wrong. That is, muslims are doing at least as much as you are right now, with statements and photos. In addition, as I pointed out above but you apparently chose to ignore, muslims have, and still are, actively engaged in killing members of ISIS and other islamic terror groups. Something I have also done. Have you? If not, are you willing to admit that there are muslims doing more to stop islamic terror than you are?

          Note, none of that has anything to do with refugees. I’ve always argued that we have absolutely no responsibility to allow anyone into our country.

        2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          A perfect litmus test for a Muslim’s real intentions is to simply ask about Jews and Israel.

        3. @JWT:

          + a million

          @Pierogie:

          As JWT points out, the demographic group most heavily involved in fighting against radical Islamism is Muslims in the countries most severely blighted by that extremist ideology.

          Anyone who has lived, worked and fought in these countries can point to numerous personal experiences of Muslim men, women and in some cases children who have suffered more from Islamist terrorism, and sacrificed more in the struggle to defeat it than most of us have ever had to do. To identify Muslims as all bad, based on the actions of a radical and violent minority, is as crazy as identifying all Germans as bad based on the actions of the concentration camp guards, or all Christians as bad based on the mass killings perpetrated by Christian Serbs in Srebrenica.

          One among many examples: Egyptian police officer Imad el-Rekaibi laid down his life on Palm Sunday, preventing a suicide bomber from entering St. Mark’s Church in Alexandria, where worshippers were gathered for Mass. How exactly can you defend your position in the face of his ultimate sacrifice, made in the defence of others?

          JWT and I, and almost anyone else who has “been there and done that”, can point to numerous personal experiences of the same bravery by Muslims taking a stand against the evil actions of others.

          To deny this is just as flawed as the logic of antis who argue that you must be a bad person because some gun owners have done bad things.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      The ecological fallacy is at work here. You can’t generalize individual characteristics up to a large population, and likewise the nature of an ecosystem doesn’t dictate the nature of the individuals in it.

      We need to separate individual instances from group behavior.

      AS A GROUP, Muslim immigrants are incapable of assimilating into Western culture, and we can see the violence, destruction, and social decay that results. It makes perfect sense at the ecosystem level to heavily restrict Muslim immigration in general.

      AS INDIVIDUALS, Muslims run the whole gamut of human behavior. Some are terrorists, and some I’d trust with my children. Most are somewhere in between. When we find individuals who are tolerant, it makes sense to reciprocate. We should be willing to invite those particular people in and treat them well.

  13. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    We are watching the unfolding of another national tragedy, another socialist nation headed for the ash heap of history, as Ronald Reagan predicted.

  14. avatar Kendahl says:

    I suppose, if the next attack is someone throwing bricks off the roof of a tall building, she will have a problem. Which to ban: bricks or tall buildings.

    1. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

      She’d probably just ban Ben-Hur. Especially the 2016 version. =P

  15. avatar NorincoJay says:

    Smart cars only. This is the first step to forcing driverless cars down people’s throats.

  16. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    I am not recommending we actively do anything to people like Damen Franchell, that would be beyond impolite.

    What I AM recommending is we reduce the number of warning labels on things and let nature takes it’s course. Damen Franchell is a very good example of what happens when you have too many cavemen and not enough saber-tooth tigers.

  17. avatar Marco says:

    I’m glad the swedes have the courage of their convictions and to follow their line of thought through to the logical conclusion.

    I hope some innovative migrants help continue the culture of innovation and use oxygen and food to help point out further security flaws that lead to swedes banning those as well.

  18. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    It looks like Sweden may have reached “Peak Islamophilia”.

    All that’s needed now is for some Imam to mix the Kool-Aid.

  19. avatar CTstooge says:

    Or this woman is using a terrorist threat to drive an environmentalist wet dream. It is Sweden after all.

  20. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

    People who think that random murder has to be “reasonable” are out of touch.

  21. avatar pg2 says:

    maybe ban immigrant rapists?

  22. avatar maxi says:

    We need to ban guns.
    And we need to ban cars.
    We need to ban knifes and sharp objects. Especially those zombie knifes the UK recently banned. Extra evil these knifes!
    We should also ban all kinds of flamable materials. The biggest and deadliest attack carried out by a single attacker in the USA is still a arson attack on a nightclub.
    We need to ban all chemicals that can be used to create either explosives or poisons or chemical weapons of some sort. (Fun fact: that would for example hit the two biggest chemical products, fertilizer that is an explosive, and plastics, they are made from quite cancerous and toxic stuff, polycarbonate for example is made of carcinogen bisphenol a and phosgen .yes, that is the chemical weapon responsible for nearly all gas victims of ww1.)
    And we need to ban assault sticks and baseball bats!
    Making a fist shall be banned. God damn hands of mass destruction!

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “(Fun fact: that would for example hit the two biggest chemical products, fertilizer that is an explosive,”

      Wrong on fertilizer that can be an explosive as being among the “two biggest chemical products”.

      That honor goes to phosphate fertilizer, which is about as non-explosive as it gets. As an example as to how non-explosive it is, MAP (11-52-0 mono-ammonium phosphate) is the main ingredient in restaurant ‘Ansul’-type fire extinguishers. That’s right, the thick powder in a dry-chemical extinguisher makes a dandy crop fertilizer.

      The stuff that goes *BOOM* is a salt manufactured when nitric acid is reacted with ammonia…

  23. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    “It is not reasonable for a big truck can be driven right into Stockholm’s popular walking street on a Friday afternoon just before Easter.”

    I bet she thinks all the goods and food products that stock the shelves of her local stores just spring up from magical holes in the ground.

  24. avatar strych9 says:

    OK. Let’s talk implementation.

    You ban cars and trucks from city areas. Now what? How do you enforce that law to prevent criminals, crazies and terrorists from simply ignoring it?

    To really take a stab at this the government would have to spend billions of Kroner buying and installing bollards. Lots of bollards. Some of them would have to be movable like the ones on us embassy installations so that delivery trucks could be allowed to pass at “designated times”.

    That’s the simple solution and it’s ungodly expensive. Yet it will fail if car and truck attackers are determined. It’s not like some enterprising folks couldn’t remove a bollard by stealing a piece of construction equipment… and even if it is effective attacks will simply switch to another method.

    A perfect example of someone willing to give up everything to buy some security only to find they’ve given up their freedoms for naught.

  25. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Gonna need proper car storage.

    Need a dial-combination vault door for your garage.

    And the DMV will come around to make sure your car is not accessible to prohibited persons.

    Yeah…that’ll work……Bwaaaaahaaaahhhaaaa.

    Of course, in Europe they have already developed a working model of this very thing.

    Kinda sad in a lot of ways…Europe used to be something.

  26. avatar DefiantDeity says:

    I saw this yesterday and I thought it was a parody at first, I could not believe this was actually a real article that someone was serious about. I left this in one of the comment sections.

    What about the assault vehicles that can kill 100 people in 2 seconds with a single step on the gas pedal? No one needs a vehicle that can weigh that much or go that fast. We must also limit the size of cylinders in your engine because if you can’t get to your destination with one cylinder than you don’t deserve to own a vehicle. The Constitution was written for stage coaches, not these modern day gas guzzling killing machines. Your right to buy any vehicle you want does not supersede my right to feel safe. if banning vehicles can save just one life….

  27. avatar MarciaCrowley says:

    Makes sense, if you want to accommodate a stone-age religion, learn to live in a stone age.

  28. avatar AMP says:

    I wholeheartedly agree with Ms. Franchell.
    The creation of a peaceful environment is paramount: no safety measure, no matter how intrusive, is unwelcome if it saves but 1 life.
    Of course, banning private cars and trucks to save pedestrian is only the first step.
    We’ll rely on government for safe transports, but what about our own houses?
    The government must provide safe living environments for the good citizen of Sweden!
    There will be gated communities, thick concrete walls, and window bars. Moreover, the government will help the good citizen with thick metal doors, locked from outside by trustworthy government guards.
    This way, no bad guy (the same who want to use cars!) can get in and endanger the good citizens.
    To further increase safety, we’ll reduce to minimum the needs for the good citizens to leave their safe places.
    Communal meals (so much equanimity in Sweden) will be prepared in designated areas, and groups of good citizens will be escorted from their safe places to these areas by government guards.
    To avoid confusion between good citizens, government guards, and car drivers (the bad guys, always them), all the good citizen will wear the same orange jumpsuits.
    This will further enhance the well known equanimity of Swedish society.
    The last step to a truly safe society would be to keep the good citizen in their safe places at all times, unless proven absolutely necessary.
    After all, Sweden is cold and dark, so who needs to go outside? And there will be no more pedestrians!
    Welcome to a new safe-hEaven.

  29. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    Meanwhile, the MSM reported tonight that some Swedes are volunteering to be microchipped like dogs in the name of more rapid transit through security checkpoints, both public and private, and in the belief that the chip systems will be more difficult to hack than smart ID cards.

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      All in the name of safety. It sucks when “conspiracy theorists” turn out to be right, which h seems to be more and more.

  30. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    The white people of Sweden are acting just like the 3 L’s in America. Libertarians, Liberals and the Left. They are all suicidal. They totally support importing dark skinned rapist and murders into their country. They are proving to themselves they are not racist. They also don’t support self-defense, the second amendment or the first amendment. And they don’t support property rights.

  31. avatar M. Atkinson says:

    Ban everything except the DEATH CULT of Islam I guess, (stupid sheep)!

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