“It defies logic that in a country like the United States, a firearm can be purchased with no record of the transaction, and no review of whether the purchaser is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm.” That’s how Benjamin Hayes starts his 6 biggest lies about background checks article. And things don’t improve much from there. Hayes’s position is that every firearm transaction should have a record, period. And in furtherance of that goal, he penned an article based on flawed logic and a fundamental misunderstandings of the facts to try and browbeat people into accepting the “universal background check” proposal that’s currently on the table. Let’s take a second to appreciate exactly how little salon.com actually knows about gun laws in the US . . .

“The proposed Universal Check system will create a National Firearms Registry”

Entirely false. When NICS was developed, a standard protocol to destroy the records of approved transfers of firearms within a few hours was included. The system does not retain any records of these approved transfers and is not a national registry of any kind.

Entirely false indeed. Well, their text, at least. There’s already a registry of sorts for long guns sold in states near the U.S./Mexico border, thanks to required reporting that the ATF has imposed on its own. And don’t forget the ATF form 4473, the physical record of firearms transactions that gun dealers are required to hold onto for a minimum of 20 years. It’s a paper registry and not a very efficient one, but a 20-year record of every firearm sold through a gun dealer sounds like a registry to me.

So, Benjamin is wrong. There is, indeed, a registry “of some kind.”

“The proposed Universal Background Check system will favor gun show sales, while retail dealers will have to wait”

Entirely false. But a clever twisting of facts. […]

I honestly have no idea why this is included, other than to pad Ben’s list. I haven’t heard anyone raise the idea of “favoring” gun shows as a valid complaint against the proposed system. But what I have heard, and is a valid concern, is that requiring every background check to go through NICS will effectively DoS the system.

The last time I bought something at a gun show (and needed to wait for a background check) I sat in a chair for 30 minutes while the dealer was on hold, waiting for a NICS agent to pick up. That’s the current “normal.” Now imagine what will happen when every single transaction needs to go through that same NICS system.

What we’re looking at is further overloading an already overloaded system. NICS doesn’t have the kind of infrastructure to handle that many checks every day. We’d run into a situation like those in Colorado and Maryland, where the waiting list to simply have a background check performed is days long.

How that “favors” gun shows, I have no idea. It certainly doesn’t make anyone happy, except those who think people shouldn’t own guns at all.

“Retail dealers simply don’t want it”

That not only defies logic, but also goes against what a lot of dealers say in private. The requirement to go through a licensed dealer for a background check would bring in an enormous influx of customers to retail dealers. Dealers would undoubtedly charge a fee for the checks, which would increase revenue.

Benjamin is thinking about this from the perspective that dealers make money from performing background checks, and while they may make some money, it’s by far the least profitable thing they do.

Dealers in my area have started charging ridiculous prices ($60+) if all you’re doing is using them to transfer a gun through their shop. It’s a not-very-thinly veiled effort to try to force people to buy their gun from them. It doesn’t make sense for them to give away background checks (in their minds, less than $20) if they aren’t seeing the profit from the sale coming to their shop. Instead of making $20 off that transaction (after labor and fixed costs) they could be making much more on the markup from the sale of one of their own guns.

In short, dealers hate doing background checks without an accompanying sale. And with the proposed background check legislation, it will only get worse.

At the moment, the market dictates the price of a background check. Dealers can charge whatever they want, and upstart shops try to undercut them. It keeps prices relatively reasonable, but still higher than the unit cost of a check. The proposed legislation would mandate that the U.S. Attorney General would dictate the price of a background check, and it would undoubtedly be around $20 — lower than the current market rate in my (and just about any) area.

Customers would no longer see buying locally as being the cheaper route. Internet sales would boom. Cats and dogs would live together. It would be the death knell of the smaller local gun dealer.

And that’s not even getting into the idea that paying for the exercise of a right is disgusting enough in and of itself. Do you pay for the ability to vote? Is there a tax every time you write an article or a letter to the editor?

“Having to go to a federally licensed firearms dealer places an undue hardship on lawful firearms purchasers”

Really? Is it a chore to go to the hardware store for a hammer, or to the grocery store for food?

Hammers kill more people than “assault rifles” every year, but I can still get one of those sent straight to my door thanks to amazon.com.

For the average city dweller, there’s no problem walking the block to your local bodega or going to the local grocery store. They’re everywhere, and conveniently located in accessible locations. But thanks to zoning laws and other local ordinances, gun stores aren’t as conveniently located as grocery stores or hardware stores. They’re often on the fringes of cities.

Living in San Antonio, I have to drive at least 30 minutes to get to my nearest gun dealer. What about people who live in more rural areas? What about those who don’t have a car? Should they be prevented from exercising their constitutional rights because they can’t make the journey?

Hayes claims that we shouldn’t care about those people, that their problems don’t matter. “Does it make sense to ignore public safety in favor of a very few folks who live 100 miles from town?” Here’s another approach – maybe you should focus on changing your crappy legislation to account for their needs instead of disenfranchising a sizable percentage of the population. Might that not be easier?

“Criminals steal guns, they don’t buy them”

Or more correctly, perhaps, they have been denied the ability to buy them more than a million times under the NICS system. Sure, criminals steal guns. But they do also try to buy or trade for them.

News flash: criminals are criminals, with the attendant low respect for laws on the books. And they buy guns from other criminals, who don’t follow the laws either. Recent studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes are either stolen or given to the criminal by a family member or friend. Neither of those transactions go through an FFL, and wouldn’t be stopped by new laws. And of those guns that are purchased, the study never seems to differentiate between purchases from gun dealers and purchases from other criminals.

Or does Ben seriously believe that criminals won’t sell guns to each other anymore if this law goes into effect? Does he also believe that “gun free zone” signs stop mass shooters?

“Only honest people who follow the law will be affected”


Universal Checks are not going to end violent crime, but they will make transfers of firearms to prohibited persons easier for law enforcement personnel to detect, deter, and punish.

How, exactly? How will making law abiding citizens pay a fee and submit to a registration process make illegal guns easier to detect? Do guns give off some sort of radioactive signal that police can detect? And how do they know where a gun came from without a registry, that thing that Benjamin claimed doesn’t exist in the first place?

This entire article is simply laughable, wishful thinking. Hayes wants all guns to be registered and he’s willing to ignore facts and logic to get his point across. But thankfully, the majority of Americans no longer agree with him.


  1. “We’d run into a situation like those in Colorado and Maryland, where the waiting list to simply have a background check performed is days long.”

    Days? Try MONTHS. At least here in Maryland.

    • For the three firearms purchases that I’ve made in Colorado in the last 6 months, the average wait time has been approximately 5 minutes. One wait was so short, I was asked who it was that I knew who was greasing the skids.

      For CCWs, the state statute requires the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to complete a background check within 90 days, or the individual is provisionally granted their permit (which can be revoked if the person is later found to be unqualified.

      Now it did take 5 months for my fingerprint check to be completed for my PI license, but their was no such provision to provisionally issue that, like a CCW permit.

      • At the height of the post-Sandy Hook hysteria, I had to wait almost 2 weeks for a background check in Colorado. It’s far better now, granted.

        • I had one that took 16 days in Colorado at the end of last year. Since then I’ve generally had to wait anywhere from 30-60 minutes.

    • Took 70+ for my first regulated purchase (AR stripped lower). 8 days for the second one.

      But we did win that lawsuit so 8 days should be the norm. Be sure to stock up on everything Owe’Malley and Brian Frosh don’t like before October 1st!

    • It’s ten days in California, which does not even use the federal NICS system. And because the AG Kamala Harris is finding more and more reasons to delay approvals, the re is a bill that would allow the DOJ up to 30 days in some circumstances. Add to that, there is another couple of bills pending that would require ammo purchase IDs ($50 with a background check for five years) plus reporting of sales (all required to be face to face) to the DOJ. No saying how the DOJ will be able to handle the influx without system collapse, and the legislature foolishly believes that the fees charged will be enough to offset the cost of necessary infrastructure improvements and new hiring needed to bring the system up to snuff.

      • So in anticipation of this legislation becoming law, you have been stocking up on the ammo you use, just in case, correct? If you haven’t, what’re you waiting for?

        I know it’s not the perfect or ideal solution or timing, but you know what is probably coming down the pike. This is your opportunity to work around the problem – in advance.

        I started doing so when the 1st law, the California Handgun Ammunition Registration Bill, was signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in October 2009 to take effect on Feb. 1 following. It required a face to face FFL purchase plus registration and thumbprint. This would have effectively eliminatied online purchases of handgun ammo.

        In anticipation, there was an opportunity to start stockpiling in bulk as soon as the details of the pending legislation came out. The law was subsequentially enjoined and then struck down by a Fresno County judge in Jan 2011 as being unconstitutionally vague in its description of handgun ammo.

        The grabbers are just repeating the first effort with new laws.

        Plan ahead if you can. The product is out there to be found, in some cases at reasonable prices without limitations. But you have to look around.

  2. Here are my biggest complaints against UBC:

    1. How is it within federal jurisdiction if I sell a gun to my neighbor? Interstate commerce my @ss. It’s an intrastate transaction and none of the Feds’ business.

    2. If the Feds actually want a background check and not a registry, why can’t a private seller access the NICS system? It would not be an additional burden on the system to have a seller call instead of a dealer (or better still, put NICS online). The reason is that it’s not about the check, it’s about the 4473.

    • Bingo. They want the registry, one way or another. They also want these little gun dealers shut down, so they can confiscate their books and load them into their own records.

      • That’s always been the problem with the UBC proposals originating with the takers; they readily segue into a registration platform; and with the intrusive incompetence of government at all levels and the underhanded activities of the grabbers when they are in control, it’s too easy to understand how that information might somehow remain available for later use, even if it is to be officially “destroyed” once processed.

      • DAMN STRAIT they want a registry. Arguing to the contrary is farcical, to say the least.

        You can explain why they’re wrong until you’re blue in the face; they don’t want to know.

        Best idea: train a parrot to talk the truth about the matter and give it to them. It would be a hoot, wouldn’t it?

    • I had an idea that would allow for private sale transactions where a NICS check could be run with a minimal amount of privacy being invaded: Create a NICS system online where a potential buyer can enter in standard info found on a 4473 (Name, DOB, place of birth, SSN [if you want to], etc). Once the potential buyer is run through a background check and receive a “pass” they will get a confirmation # to print out and bring to the sale. At the sale the seller requests the confirmation # and identification. The seller calls an automated 800 # which asks for them to input the confirmation #; upon entering the confirmation # the computer system will confirm the ID of the buyer as well as confirm their passing a background check. Seller hangs up and completes the sale.

      • That’s pretty much what Colburn was offering as an alternative to Manchin-Toomey, and he was summarily laughed out of the room. As others have pointed out, if all they really wanted was universal background checks, most gun owners would have few objections. But that’s not what they want. What they want is the 4473 – the record of who owns what.

  3. NICS is online, lots of dealers just don’t do it yet.

    The system will change soon and most dealers will opt to go for a computer based system rather than phone.

  4. Fact check:

    Claim: “Or more correctly, perhaps, they have been denied the ability to buy them more than a million times under the NICS system.”

    Truth: “From November 30, 1998, to December 31, 2011, the NICS Section has denied a total of 899,099 transactions.” (source http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2011-operations-report/operations-report-2011)

    899k NICS denials (thru 2011) does not necessarily mean “criminals have been denied the ability to buy them more than a million times”. I don’t remember where I read it (and don’t feel like reading the whole PDF right now) but someone will probably know – what percent of those are legitimate denials and how many eventually go through? How many are actually “criminals” per se?

  5. “…requiring every background check to go through NICS will effectively DoS the system.”

    I think that’s what they want.

    • Exactly. Overload the system then every year cut more & more of the NICS budget. Eventually it will lead to a de facto ban on all firearm sales.

  6. In general, I agree with most of what you say Nick. Why not submit it to Salon as kind of a response. I am a regular reader of Salon and find it to be great journalism
    EXCEPT when talking guns, then I think “If this is so far off, what else is?
    Kind of like how the ACLU is really a truly great organization until it talks , or more correctly doesn’t talk, about one particular Civil Right.

  7. One sure sign you’re a liberal is the refusal to accept that there are things neither you nor your government can change.

    A convicted felon intent on returning to his felonious lifestyle can obtain a weapon as easily as a stoner can score a bag of pot. Armies of men carry 70 pound bags of pot across our southern border every day and we’re powerless to stop it. They could just as easily carry 70 pound bags of guns. You could set up your own gun factory in your basement with a couple thousand dollars and who’d be the wiser? Granted disarming the entire population may disarm some petty criminals, but the cat’s out of the bag, you can’t uninvent the firearm, hard core criminals will always have them and there’s nothing you or your government can do about it.

    • That’s different though becuase pot is natural and wholesome and pure. The gov’s intervention in illegal drugs is a crime against humanity. Guns are the complete opposite though and should be regulated into extinction.

      /end trying to think like a liberal. My brain hurts.

      • A man’s right to defend his life, family and property is just as God given as any herb he placed on this earth for our enjoyment.

  8. Canada actually never had a background check system until 1977 and Turdeau’s Bill C-51. Even MACHINE GUNS were legally purchasable by civilians, though they and handguns (not ‘ordinary’ long guns) had to be registered with the RCMP. But Canada never did have a gang and gun problem, until successive Liberal and Conservative governments dumped third world criminals into our cities:






  9. The problem with UBCs is who’s doing the checking. Of course we’d all like some assurance that bad people don’t get guns but when the government gets to define “bad” it’s the fox guarding the hen house. Any background check conducted by the Federal Government is inconsistent with the reservation of powers embodied in the Second Amendment.

    It all comes back to keeping the meaning of the Second Amendment clear–it is there so we can defend ourselves from foreign invasion and domestic tyranny. Allowing the potential tyrant to decide who may kill it makes no sense.

  10. ( And don’t forget the ATF form 4473, the physical record of firearms transactions that gun dealers are required to hold onto for a minimum of 20 years)

    (Dealers in my area have started charging ridiculous prices ($60+) if all you’re doing is using them to transfer a gun through their shop. It’s a not-very-thinly veiled effort to try to force people to buy their gun from them)

    I believe you must keep them until you go out of business, or the business changes hands.

    In some states the fee a FFL can charge is set by the state.

    • IN my area, it used to be $25-$35, but with all the great deals on the internet, the dealers wised up to the fact that their sales were suffering. And now its $65-$75 per transaction, whether its an internet transfer or a person to person deal. The fee is just high enough as to take the cost savings out of buying on the internet, which sucks even more when the dealer does not have/cannot get the gun you are looking for.

  11. “Do guns give off some sort of radioactive signal that police can detect?” –Don’t give them any ideas! Geesh, now John Tierney will be adding that to his “smart gun” bill.

  12. One of the many unintended consequences would be:

    Applications for FFL’s, especially C&R FFL’s, would explode. If it t would be easier to get an FFL (at least a C&R one) then some people would go that route to obtain firearms.

    Also, and someone here can correct me if I am wrong, are not FFL holders allowed to, after a certain amount of time, to sell a firearm to someone without a check if NICS does not get back to them? With that provision, a DoS attack would/could have the opposite affect of what those desiring a UBC have in mind.

    • FFLs have to do an NICS check on anyone buying a firearm. Some states also require an additional check from the state level. Several dealers have been in the news lately for skipping the long wait state check after getting a proceed from NICS.

  13. “It defies logic that in a country like the United States, a firearm can be purchased with no record of the transaction, and no review of whether the purchaser is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm.”

    This is how criminals buy guns and when you pass a law requiring complete traceability – this above will still continue to be the means criminals use to buy guns.

    Ultimately, traceability of firearms means nothing. The seller or buyer can remove serial numbers on the weapons completely dropping that firearms into oblivion. If a firearm that is registered is used in a crime the criminal can melt it down into paperweights. Traceability means nothing to a criminal.

    • That’s assuming the criminal actually leaves the firearm to be traced. Grabbers act like having a registration would help cause everytime someone gets shot the shooter goes ” Oh I better leave my gun here so the police can help identify me thanks to gun registration.”

  14. “When NICS was developed, a standard protocol to destroy the records of approved transfers of firearms within a few hours was included. The system does not retain any records of these approved transfers and is not a national registry of any kind.”

    Let’s assume that statement is completely correct. A whistleblower recently revealed that our nation’s National Security Agency is keeping records of every phone call in the U.S. Does anyone really believe that our government would pass up the opportunity to track and keep a record of all NICS checks?

    If you believe that our government is (or will be) merrily throwing away all data on firearms transactions, I have a bridge to sell you. The only way to guarantee that our government does not keep a record of firearms transactions is if they have absolutely no way to learn of those transactions in the first place. That means background checks must go away. Paper records of sales must also go away.

    • This is the problem in dealing with many anti-gun people. They place all faith into the benevolence of the system. That in the end, the system is good and all will end well. The flaw in their logic is that the system is made of people. Some good, some bad, some with agendas that are not in line with liberty and freedom. They do not see that these “common sense” laws open up the ability to in essence, nullify the second amendment with the decree of a non-elected politician.

  15. “Having to go to a federally licensed firearms dealer places an undue hardship on lawful firearms purchasers”

    Really? Is it a chore to go to the hardware store for a hammer, or to the grocery store for food?

    I have to drive 90 miles to get a transfer on a firearm for $10 or I can drive 5 miles and get one for $60. If I am transferring a 22LR Rifle valued at $125 this is not a good deal for me. The hardware store/grocery store analogy above comes from a guy that likely doesn’t own a gun or how to buy one. Moreover, why do I have to pay to register an inanimate object. I don’t have to pay to register fungicide and toilet bowl cleaner which can kill everyone in a room when mixed together. People will make the argument that vehicles are registered why can’t you register your gun? Honestly I think registration of vehicles should be voluntary. Why do I have to register my car every single year? Where I’m from if you don’t use your car for several years and try to register it you have to pay back registration fees. Its like arguing with small children that know nothing.

  16. That bit about the protocol to destroy the records of transfers of firearms within a few hours is a favorite cited by the gun control proponents. What they don’t mention is that it was hard fought for by gun rights advocates and could be revoked in the future at some point. It has continually been attacked by gun control proponents.

    • And as my post states above, how do we know that our government is actually discarding the data?

  17. In New Jersey it’s running a week to 10 days and now the idiots in Trenton want to impose a seven-day waiting period. Given that it take six to ten weeks to get the handgun purchase permit, I envision a six month adventure coming for buyers in the state.

  18. nick, if you think ag holder would set the poll tax on firearms transfers at a mere 20 bucks I know a nigerian prince that wants to give you some money

  19. “Does anyone really believe that our government would pass up the opportunity to track and keep a record of all NICS checks?”

    Not even for 1 second, I’m an IT guy myself
    and I never took this seriously. I am
    sure they destroy these…after backing them
    up somewhere.

  20. Background checks for all transferes, hmmmm
    My sig other and I have guns in the house. To avoid the felony 7+ day outof town felony vacation transfer or other similar situations that the Universal Background Check seem to create:
    I ask how good this trickery might be.
    If unmarried partners, prior to any law being passed for transfer tracking, filled out bill of sale/transfer type docs where they give each other their guns, document it, then changed our minds and give them back, documented it. We now both have a document that says they are ours so who ever happens to have it when the house is searched, they have a transfer document that can’t be sequenced by date both have the same date. Which ever one that is needed to be the current owner would have it and the other document would be the historical paper trail.
    Might be tricky if one of you is the original 4473 buyer but for “gun show loophole” guns or the Savage you got for xmas in 1968, in your houshold both of you would be grandfathered since you can show you owned the gun before the law passed… right?

  21. “It defies logic that in a country like the United States, a firearm can be purchased with no record of the transaction, and no review of whether the purchaser is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm.”

    What part of “…shall not be infringed.” is not being addressed here? The Second Amendment lists a natural right that the government may not infringe upon, so how, exactly, can anyone be “…legally prohibited from possessing a firearm”?

    It actually defies logic that in the United States of America we even consider for a moment that the government has the right or authority to determine who may purchase a firearm, much less require anyone to make and keep a record of the transaction.

    • Well no rights are absolute. The government can take away a person’s right to an arm if the person has infringed on the rights of others in some way (such as by being a criminal). Although I wouldn’t take away the right to keep arms for minor crimes, only major ones like rape, murder, etc…

      But even free speech has certain limitations on it.

  22. That link at the end to survey results is all sorts of fascinating and deserves an article on its own, methinks. Pretty stark shift in numbers, and even in areas like the Northeast, the split between “Again” and “Move on” was far closer than I’d expect.

  23. It defies logic to worry about whether criminals on the streets are armed or how to disarm them, instead of asking first of all why they are on the streets. Why were they released from prison if they’re dangerous and… criminal? What’s the point of a background check system in a system where all the criminals are roaming free?

  24. As an employee of a gun store, the charges for background checks on transfers are often higher than if you were purchasing the gun in the store because; one, we are losing profit (albeit low, thank you interwebs for helping put the local gunsmith/gunshop under) on the sale, two depending on the day of the week (God help you on a payday Friday) the transfer is tying up an employee at the least for 30 minutes, at most an hour plus. That is time the employee could be assisting other customers with accessories, or firearm purchases.

    On a personal note, not that I have ever, or plan to ever sell any of my firearms, but IF I ever did, whether it was a pistol or a long gun, I, an dthe purchaser would be doing a background check and a transfer through a licensed FFL Holder. I don’t support expanded anything when it comes to my 2nd amendment rights, however, the way the political climate is now, if I sell to somebody that commits any kind of crime in the future, I have a copy of the transfer blessed by the NICS.

  25. The doublethink of liberal progressives is quite entertaining. For a good laugh, ask a liberal progressive to tell you to why voter ID laws are bad. After he or she gives his or her impassioned answer, ask him or her why showing an ID and passing a background check to buy a gun is different than voter ID laws. Watching them bob and weave their way through a convoluted explanation that their two mutually contradictory beliefs are justifiable is an interesting sight to see.

    A reasonable person who is capable of critical thought would see the contradiction in their beliefs and change their worldview accordingly.

  26. Slippery slope:
    The US is in the position the UK was in the post Great War period, only Communism rather than crime was the bogeyman used to push firearms licensing & registration.
    Look at the state the UK is in now because that’s where the gun grabbers want the US to be.
    Take note that it was Conservative governments that introduced virtually ALL the restrictive legislation here, so watch your backs too….

  27. You guys wouldnt know tyranny if it bit you in the arse. 

    This government invaded a country based on BS. Took one week after the invasion to prove the hippies were right. There were no WMDs and Bin Laden was in Pakistan.  No objections there about tyranny. 

    Not a word either, when this same government decided it could imprision anyone without due process and without charges, and torture them. Some of you I know even cheered that. But those were some of your constitutional rights you were cheering away. 

    The government’s NSA has been snooping on your phone calls and emails for years. Not just foreigners. Millions of ordinary citizens. Thats been exposed since 2006. Made front and center again with this Snowden hacker. Went right down the memory hole, didn’t it? Not a peep about tyranny outta you. Other than Snowen’s a traitor. Which he probably is. But if he’s a traitor, then he’s also right that the government’s been spying on you. How is that not tyranny?

    How many amendment is that that got trampled on? Fourth through eighth, at least. 

    Ah yes. Free speech zones. Any of you fellas hear about that? Of course you have. Didnt have that a dozen years ago.  1st amendment getting whittled away.  None of you got up about it, never posted anything in any blog denouncing it. Well, not like it was about guns.  

    But boy,  how shrill yall get about that same government keeping ‘a registry’ of your guns, something that could be argued its within the scope of the 2nd amendment, as long as you bother to include the first part of it, the qualifying condition of ‘well regulated’. Sure you disagree with that interpretation. But it does have some legs to stand on. That’s why the government regulates automatic weapons and short barreled shotguns. Regulation is in their constitutional power.  

    These other abuses, it’s not. There are no modifying clauses they can argue. It is blatant abuse of power.  That’s what tyranny looks like.

    Remind me again why you insist you need those quasi-military guns? Something about defending against tyranny, if I recall.

    You folks are wetting your pants over tyranny TRYANNY! that firearms are going to be regulated. Because you think the government’s gonna come and take them, and guns are how you’re going to keep this government in line. 

    Never a more buch a clueless numbwits I ever did read.  Well, first yall act like regulating is in fact the same as an armed house-to-house search for confiscation. But mainly, Why ever would they take your guns away? Your guns are not how you’re going to keep tyranny from happening. They’ve trampled on all your other rights, and yall didnt say boo. Why would they bother? 

    You’ve been all hissy-pissy about 30 round magazines for years, and they must just be laughing at you. Here, have your hi-cap mags. They got everything else.

    I’m a gun owner. But when other gun owners tell me that their guns are what protects us from tyranny, I just gotta laugh. 

    What I think yall really care about is owning guns. Nothing else. Not the 1st, not the 4th,  not any of the other numbers. Just the 2nd. 

Comments are closed.