Home » Blogs » Former Supreme Court Justice: Amend the Second Amendment

Former Supreme Court Justice: Amend the Second Amendment

Robert Farago - comments No comments

 Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (courtesy wikipedia.org)

“The liveliest (and oldest) former member of the U.S. Supreme Court is at it again. John Paul Stevens, 93, served on the highest court in the land for an impressive 35 years, from 1975 until his retirement in June 2010,” Paul Barrett writes at BloombergBusinessweek. “Known for his bow ties, brilliant legal mind, and striking transformation from Midwest Republican conservative to hero of the political left, Stevens remains an intellectual force to reckon with.” God, I hope not. Stevens utterly rejects the Heller ruling establishing an individual right to keep and bear arms. In fact, this is how he’d amend the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.” His justification for the change is predictably short-sighted . . .

“Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.”

Emotional claims? Someone hasn’t been reading his history books . . . “James Madison made clear that, although the proposed Constitution offered sufficient guarantees against despotism by its checks and balances, the real deterrent to governmental abuse was the armed population,” David E. Vandercoy writes in The History of the Second Amendment. Vadercoy quotes Madison:

To these [the standing army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from amongst themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by government possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops …. Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Anyway, Stevens’ inability to see that “the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands” is nothing compared to the slaughter caused by governments ruling over a disarmed populace goes to show the fragility of our rights in the hands of the judiciary. Which is why the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment: to put firearms in our hands. He who has the guns makes the rules? Something like that. [h/t JR]

Photo of author

Robert Farago

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

0 thoughts on “Former Supreme Court Justice: Amend the Second Amendment”

    • And it will really torque him if someone ever points out that per the letter of the Constitution the only “legal” military branch right now is the U.S. Navy.

      Reply
    • As a lawyer, I find his argument to border on the idiotic. The unorganized militia consists of EVERY able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia. Still leaves plenty of room for adult men to own firearms. But what about the ladies? His “well-reasoned” amendment would face a solid challenge from women under the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. Lawyers who become politicians consistently underestimate their fellow man’s game theory skills. They are always one step behind.

      Reply
  1. Even if they change it, it won’t really change it, not for me and not for most of us. In for a penny, in for a pound. Once you start making my actions criminal, I lose a whole lot of incentive to toe/tow? the line.

    Reply
    • You are very correct. Once you turn law abiding citizens into criminals we have no choice but to recognize our forefathers knew exactly why it was written. We then must comply with what has to happen next.

      Reply
    • Toe. One guy scratches a line in the sand and dares the other guy to step over it. Step over it, and you step into a fight. If you toe the line (but don’t cross it) you’re giving in to the other guy’s ultimatum.

      The people who are so intent on drawing these arbitrary lines had best be very careful. Most of us don’t want to step across the line and into a fight if there’s any way around it. But if you give a guy no palatable alternative, he’s going to come out swinging.

      Reply
      • I always heard it had to do with sailors having to line up on the deck of wooden ships with their toes all on the same board. Old sailors would sometimes say Toe the Plank!

        In any event it is still toe and not tow.

        Reply
      • Ok, that makes sense. And yes, I don’t wanna be a pain in anybody’s ass, but you give me no other alternative an I will burn this mother down, figuratively speaking.

        Reply
  2. Good grief. Taking seriously these fussy, befuddled old men with their fancy degrees and high stations is one of those childish things, right up there with my own speaking, thinking and reasoning as a child, that I put away when I became a man.

    Reply
      • Hmmm…..average age of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was 44, not exactly ancient even for the times. At least a dozen of the 56 signers were under 35, including its primary author, 33 year old Thomas Jefferson!

        As for lawyers, 24 of the signers had “read law” under a lawyer, which was the process at the time, as opposed to formal law schools and bar exams. That’s well under half. Not nothing, but not dominating as you mistakenly suggest.

        And that’s all well after all the young, nonlawyer firebrands spent many years fomenting revolt and many nights at the Green Dragon Tavern drinking and plotting. Committee of Correspondence, Boston Caucus, Sons of Liberty? Any of these ring a bell? There’s more to a nation’s founding than just the bigwigs in powdered wigs, kind sir.

        As for this aged statist being a lawyer, so what? It’s only a lawyer trick to suggest that being a lawyer is synonimous with the rule of law, or that criticism of a given lawyer is a rejection of the rule of law. After all, Lenin was a lawyer, too. The most lawless President in U.S. history is also a lawyer. Try again.

        Reply
  3. Here’s my legitimate question: If the 2A is truly intended to relate only to actual service in a military force (assuming antis don’t acknowledge “The People” as the militia), why on earth is that something that would need to be listed in the Bill of Rights in the first place? That’s like saying, “I’m going to hire you as an employee, and lookie here, I’m going to protect your right to actually work while you’re in the office.” If it truly means what they think it means, it’s the most unnecessary and meaningless sentence ever written.

    Reply
    • This.
      Every other country has organized militias, police and armed forces. They don’t need a constitutional provision (like our 2nd amendment) to legitimize them.

      Reply
    • Absolutely correct.

      And you have to take that incorrect line of thinking one step further. According to the collective right proponents, the Second Amendment is necessary to protect fellow citizens would government send them into battle unarmed. Who in their right mind thinks a government would ever send unarmed citizens into battle? They would be totally and completely ineffective.

      And now we have to look at logical flaw in that incorrect line of thinking. If government somehow has the authority to disarm everyone, then they also have the authority to arm everyone. And government would, indeed, do just that as they always have and always will do. Since government would, in their vision have the authority to arm citizens for battle, their reason for the Second Amendment is totally unnecessary.

      But gun grabbers really don’t care if they make sense. They are hysterical and simply throw words out hoping that something sticks.

      Reply
      • I’m reminded of that scene in Enemy at the gates.

        ” the man in front of you carries the rifle, when he dies you pick up the rifle,” or however it went.

        Reply
  4. The Union Leader is published in Manchester, the state’s largest city. It’s owner is unabashedly Republican and regularly takes Democrats to task in the editorial pages. I don’t know much about the Seacoast paper, but given that area of the state is full of rich, entitlement snobs, I would not be surprised that it takes more of a pro-Dem slant. From what I understand, the anti-gun bill was advanced by Democrats who originally moved up from Massachusetts and New York and apparently wanted to bring their vision of a gun free paradise north with them. The native Dems understand the passion with firearms in NH and likely were just as happy to see this one go down in flames.

    Reply
    • Jim, you are correct about the Seacoast paper being liberal. They spout all the liberal talking points including palm trees growing in Portsmouth due to globull warming. The surrounding towns of Rye, North Hampton, and New Castle are ranked 2nd, 3rd and 4th in wealth.

      Reply
  5. Associate Justice Stevens possessed a brilliant legal mind in his day. That day ended many years ago. All one has to do is read his analysis of U. S. v. Miller in his Heller dissent, in order to appreciate how sad it is when someone as bright as he was has succumbed to dementia.

    Reply
    • I agree with this completely. I thought the same of the late years of William O. Douglas. I’ll never forget when Douglas pulled the permission to edit his papers from Dennis Hutchinson, an excellent constitutional scholar and twice a SCOTUS clerk, and handed it to a cute young blond non-scholar that he eventually married. How, though, can we state a rule that would avoid the problem in the future? Not a simple problem.

      Reply
  6. Suppose the Second Amendment said “A well educated electorate being necessary for self governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read? — Robert Levy, Georgetown University Professor

    Reply
  7. Right, because nations are utterly powerless to supply weapons to their armed forces unless their charter or constitution explicitly spells out that they have the right to.

    With all due respect to a former Supreme Court Justice, I think the crazy old fart needs to start wearing a second diaper over his mouth.

    Reply
  8. I’m sure Justice Stevens lives in a nice gated community or bucolic country mansion far away from any crime and suffering. It is no doubt easy for him to sit up in his ivory tower and proclaim the need to disarm the peasantry.

    Reply
    • I expect to see this newspaper story someday:

      EX-SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OVERCOMES BURGLAR WITH BON MOTS, NOT BULLETS (AP) Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens was roused from his slumber at 3:00 AM this morning when the sound of breaking glass assailed the sonic tranquility of the gated Beauregard C. Cleghorn Retirement Community for Federal Panjandrums in rural Maryland. Stevens descended the main staircase of his palazzo and confronted meth addict BoDean Scruggins in his kitchen. The mullet coifed Scruggins pointed what was later identified as a .25 caliber Lorcin pistol at the distinguished jurist and demanded cash and Fritos. Instead of panicking at this threat to his life, loot, and larder, Stevens seated himself on a Louis XIV kitchen stool and replied: “Son, let’s talk about this.” Within half an hour, Mr. Scruggins was asleep on the Carrara marble floor. When later questioned by reporters at the Barney Frank County Correctional Center, the alleged burglar stated: “I reckon that Mister Justice Stevens’ brilliant legal mind just flat poleaxed me.”

      Reply
  9. If the right to keep and bear arms is rigged to apply only to the armed forces, to whom will the privilege of free speech go? Monkey with one, the others will soon follow. His Honor should retreat to a sunny spot on the porch and learn to whittle.

    Reply
  10. Stevens was never the type of judge to acknowledge his own fallibility nor the primacy of the law as written. On the contrary, he was the first person to acknowledge his own brilliance. He was the perfect Warren Court-style justice, always willing to make things up to conform to his own dictates and sensibilities at the time, relying on “emanations and penumbras” when the law would not suit his purposes.

    Stevens always treated the Constitution as an unfortunate relic of a bygone era. Little does Stevens know that the real relic of a bygone era is him.

    Reply
    • I’m no constitutional scholar, but it really did appear that he went from conservative to liberal taking his penumbras with him. Another way to put it is that his views shifted with the changing biases of the Chicago oligarchs, rather than with a deeper study of the constitution.

      Reply
  11. He wears bow ties and he certainly “transformed,” but the needle on his brilliance tank points to “E.” His great brain apparently has no available space to remember the oath he took to protect and defend the document he now seeks to destroy.

    Reply
  12. I’ve got a better Amendment. Activist judges that re-interpret
    Constitutional law rather than use it as the sole basis for
    legal decisions shall not only be stripped of their position
    but be barred from the judiciary (local through federal) and
    have every single previous decision instantly null and voided
    pending review.

    Furthermore, any judges that use international law in their
    decisions (excepting those specifically dealing with
    international legalities i.e. treaties, tariffs etc…) shall not only
    be canned and have every decision annulled, but be given
    the choice between renouncing their citizenship and leaving
    or be tried for treason.

    Reply
  13. Who decides what a well regulated militia actually is? A local gun club is certainly well regulated and probably more organized than most government agencies. Suppose the amendment was changed, does this fool really think that the existing militia groups wouldn’t see their membership skyrocket, in addition to new groups pop up everywhere?

    Reply
  14. I bet the antis are kicking themselves about now. I’ve read that Kagan, while liberal, may not be the anti-2A zealot this Stevens fool that she replaced is.
    Then there is Kennedy who sided with the conservatives on Heller. Kennedy, who was nominated after Bork was rejected by the Senate, isn’t perfect, but he is better than Bork (March 1, 1927 – December 19, 2012) in that Kennedy is breathing. Kennedy is not the anti that BO would have sent to stink up the court after the Senate rubber stamped nominee Bloomberg.

    Reply
    • I’ve read that Kagan, while liberal, may not be the anti-2A zealot

      We’re all guessing on this question, but we will get some kind of answer soon. One thing that we all know for sure — if the gungrabbers lose Kagan, they are lost. Period. So the pressure on her from the left, her ideological home, will be extraordinary.

      Reply
  15. It bothers me that one day I may have to make the choice between seeking treatment for my depression and suicidal leanings, or keeping the ability to protect myself.

    On a side note, I would fight to the death to defend my right to kill myself.

    Reply
  16. Usually I respect my elders. Not this time.

    The words “Militia” and “people” are clearly separate in that brilliant simple sentence from 1791.

    Perhaps the honorable Stevens is the one who should be respecting HIS elders.

    Reply
  17. From the article:

    “Since Stevens believes that the authors of the Second Amendment were primarily concerned about the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states—as opposed to homeowners’ anxiety about violent felons …” [snip]

    Perhaps the founders felt it unnecessary to explicitly state that people have a right to personal self-defense, because anyone expressing a contrary opinion would have been laughed out of the room and deemed a buffoon.

    Reply
  18. Well all I can say is thank goodness Stevens is retired.

    Thanks for the tip- seems like an even-handed take on Justice Stevens, and I like the second to last paragraph-

    “As a practical matter, the Stevens amendment of the Second Amendment is DOA in any discussion of gun policy in the foreseeable future. He must know that. He also must know that just as constitutional interpretations evolve, so do political and cultural ideas. For better or worse, guns have acquired a symbolic meaning in modern American society to which Stevens, for all his erudition, gives short shrift.”

    But I have to say, I am wary of Bloomberg News, given complaints in past that Bloomberg has tarnished its reputation for factual reporting, with smears that border on hit pieces:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/bloomberg-legitimate-news-story-or-liberal-smear.php

    and now, the outright anti-gun agenda, that its founder has promised his vast wealth to advance.

    I note Mr Barnett is the author of “Glock, The Rise of America’s Gun” which is acknowledged as a fine book, research-wise, but which some criticize for evidence of Mr Barnetts own pro-gun-control views. I cant comment as I havent read the book, but have bot it on Kindle, and am going to give Mr Barnett the same benefit of the doubt we have given Dan Baum here, in past.

    I do see a continuous theme in the MSM, “the Constitution is outdated” advanced by the typical left wing Talking Points Memo message spreaders on what the cool kids all should think, and the faux news bias analysis, or should I simply say, disinformation from places like Media Matters, that keeps popping up, and getting knocked down by the adults in the sandbox of rational thinking on the innertubz, like Whack a Mole. But keeps popping up in new Evolve -lutions, and sadly stupid repeats of discredited facts, aimed at the low info voters, like MDAs, and others, that keep being spread, like weeds, that need constant tending, to keep the garden of freedom growing strong.

    Reply
  19. He is full of shit and he knows it.

    If the Second Amendment was to protect States from tyranny of a standing Federal Army, and the Second Amendment was supposed to protect the States, then Article I Section 10 of the US Constitution would have to be modified at the same time, since it explicitly disallows States from keeping troops without the consent of Congress.

    “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

    All the Congress would need to do is remove consent to keep troops, and the Second Amendment as interpreted and proposed by Stevens would be meaningless.

    A right of protection cannot require the consent of the body from which the protection is supposed to be provided.

    Since the Second Amendment makes no attempt at modifying Article I Section 10, it cannot apply to State troops.

    Reply
  20. Never mind that whole Bill of Rights thing… Stevens’ proposal exposes what he really thinks — individual people don’t have rights, the government does. The Bill of Rights is really only a list of conditional privileges.

    Reply
  21. Change the 2nd amendment? Sure! Here’s my suggestion:
    “A well-disciplined and armed populace, being necessary to a free and secure state of being, the Right of all persons to keep and carry arms shall not be restricted in any way.”

    Reply
  22. I don’t see how his wording would change a thing. I am the militia, and as such I must own my own firearms, in case i am ever called to defend myself or my homeland.

    Reply
  23. I don’t think Mr. Justice Stevens changed as much as the world around him has changed. He has been remarkably consistent throughout his distinguished career. A truly brilliant jurist and completely honorable man. The chances of amending the constitution on this issue are extremely remote.

    Reply
    • Brilliant and honorable? First he votes against affirmative action in Bakke, then he votes for it (and against his own precedent) in Grutter v. Bollinger. First he’s against obscenity and thinks the First Amendment doesn’t protect it, then he reverses himself and thinks that 1A does protect it. He spent his entire career enlarging the Commerce Clause so that everything is now commerce (and subject to federal control). And he opposed Strict Scrutiny for anything.

      He was neither brilliant nor honorable. He was and remains an opportunistic and unprincipled worm and the self-styled Chief Justice of the Liberal Supreme Court.

      Reply
  24. You are not God Stevens, good luck getting 3/4 of the states behind your little fairy tale without starting another civil war in the process.

    Reply
  25. I have to ask: how relevant is this advanced testing to the Average Man?

    Do not get me wrong, I like a gun test from a hobby perspective, but in a lot of ways this reminds me of people who blueprint motors for high performance use. You don’t need a forged bottom end on a car motor to drive to work in expressway traffic.

    So it would seem to be for firearms. To convince a thug to not shoot you at two yards at a gas station , one need not have a bullet comparable to Thors Hammer . If most bad guys beat it at the sight of an armed ‘victim’ and said person carried a .380 instead of nothing at all, mission accomplished.

    Reply
    • If the thug leaves then I would have to agree, mission accomplished, aside from seeing to it that the incident is reported. But I find the argument of display in the hope that said thug leaves is a dangerous one for the displayer and adds that glint of hesitation that might turn disastrous. At the same time that argument is reminiscent of the one by those who use .357 snub nose revolvers for personal protection over .38s in the hope that the loud noise and flash will unsettle the thug. My opinion is that both thug and victim would be unsettled by the loud noise and flash thereby making it more dangerous for the victim. I think it would be much safer for all concerned if they were to give much less emphasis to scaring off a thug during a violent encounter and much more to quickly reducing its blood pressure to as close to zero as possible by using the most effective projectile.

      Reply
    • I think the idea of the bad guy beating feet at the mere site of a gun is overstated.

      Or, at least William Aprill has commented on this topic in a way that’s thought provoking. He points out that violent criminals, those with experience, see guns all the time. Why would it intimidate them all that much?

      Hope for the best, prepare for the worst and all that…

      Reply
  26. Nice expansion… how’d that feel in terms of recoil? Cause I’ve been hearing that the fact that it’s a soft-shooter is what has everyone happy about the glock.

    Reply
  27. Besides which, the very idea that the clauses providing for the establishment, training, and discipline of a militia does not also allow that militia to be armed flies in the face of common sense and the understood meaning of the word “militia”.

    It’s akin to arguing that, while the Constitution authorizes Congress to keep a navy, and to raise an army, it does not have the authority to arm either one.

    Reply
  28. This is one of the reasons I like velocity information. JHPs – and all expanding bullets – have an operating range. The lower velocity through the TCP barrel failed to propel the 90 grain round with sufficient speed to ensure expansion. While the longer Glock barrel achieved sufficient velocity to expand pretty well for a .380 it didn’t have sufficient penetration.

    Shooting the Bull and I also agree on one of the fundamental weaknesses of the .380 caliber – that it finicky in pushing typical 80-105 JHPs with sufficient speed to satisfactorily expand and penetrate 12-18″. The 9mm / .40 / .45 class is much more forgiving in ammo selection.

    I appreciate this testing, and will directly apply it in load selection if I buy a Glock 42.

    I’m also curious what, if any, reliability issues STB has had with his Glock 42, and I he trusts it enough for everyday CCW.

    Reply
  29. This kind of testing makes me wonder why we don’t see more ammunition designed for specific guns, or at least specific barrel lengths.

    Seems like designing the ammo for a specific barrel length would allow you to design your bullet to penetrate and optimally expand as it takes velocity variables out of the equation.

    Reply
  30. Sarge needs to step into the modern world and get a semi. The only Cops you see nowadays rocking wheelguns are the dinosaurs with 25+ years on.

    Reply
  31. Anyone making a longer (threaded?) aftermarket barrel? Such a beast should not affect IWB concealability much, while providing better performance..

    Reply
  32. Note to the keeper of the realm, the upper right corner ad autoplays with no apparent means to turning it off. First instance the advertisement was for “Kayak”, the next was Verizon.

    Reply
  33. To be accurate, a judge can request a vote to rehear en banc and the active judges vote whether or not to rehear en banc. If a majority so vote, a 10 member panel plus the Chief Judge who is favorable to the Second Amendment would be enpaneled.

    Reply
  34. This irrevocably proves that a sniper, given ideal conditions and allotment of time can conceal himself in such a fashion that the point man is a goner. What he can’t do is conceal himself from those who saw the first shot or necessarily exfiltration from that position before he is engaged, outflanked and destroyed.

    The concept of recon by fire applies here. After a concealed sniper shot protocol is to hose the assumed location of the sniper with fire and see if anything moves then continue the suppressive fire while a maneuver element begins to flank the snipers position in defilade from his fire.

    Lacking a serious back up force that can hold the surrounding positions, snipers attempt a suicide mission when they fire on even platoon sized elements without a concealed/defiladed exfiltration route.

    Having said all that, my own inability to spot any snipers while knowing I’m looking for a sniper makes me shiver about being the point man.

    Reply
  35. Oh my God!

    How did I miss the first installment in this series?!

    I’m gonna have this written up on parchment by monks and distributed as the gospel.

    The only thing that will make it better is if Part 3 consists of the sentence:

    “And lo, it shall be fired from a Springfield Armory XDm, thus sayeth the Lord.”

    And nothing else.

    Seriously, though. Nice post.

    Reply
    • I let a lightly used one with night sights full size slip away from me. Still kicking myself over that. That magazine and ergonomic value…amazing. Flat out.

      Thanks for the compliment.

      Reply
  36. So much hot air over the years trying to prove why this round is better.

    I have seen it said many times about a .45 or .40 round that killed someone….”would a 9mm placed in the same spot as the 45/40 that killed someone, not have done the same job?” The answer has always been “NO”.

    Pistols poke holes. Rifles tear shit up.

    I carry a 9mm, always have, always will. If I have to use it some day, I don’t plan on pulling the trigger only once.

    Reply
  37. This issue can (and will) be debated until (if) another “ideal” caliber comes along. As things stand presently, this issue will never be resolved, because there is no resolution to an argument based on personal preference.

    I mean, really. What is the point of going over this one more time?

    Reply
  38. A friend of mine has 40 acres of almonds in Sanger, near Fresno. They have had problems mostly with guys coming and stealing gas out of their 500 gallon tank. He is usually riding around the farm on a Gator with a Mossberg 20 gauge and a .22 pistol. Best damn shot I know, I would hate to be the thief caught by him. Also dogs.

    Reply
  39. The key to reducing, not eliminating, the possibility of surprise is to know your environment and learning to spot things that are out of place. That is much easier on the brain than trying to evaluate each and every possible threat in the environment. Spotting the two hoodied gents punking around late at night in your neighborhood where such behavior is an aberration is much easier than maintaining a constant high alert level. Train your mind to trigger a higher mental alert level when you see something that doesn’t belong. Will that eliminate the possibility of surprise? — No, but it will make it less likely. A friend of mine and his buddies got mugged in Rio in the early 90’s. They were trained case officers who just let their guard down. You would think that three people trained in countersurveillance would have spotted the threat. It shows that you can’t be on orange or red alert all the time.

    Reply
    • I’m afraid the system you are referring to is known as profiling. Even though it has been used successfully for going on ten millennia now it has been discredited by our current administration and is no longer authorized for use by non-professionals. Please cease and desist immediately.

      Reply
    • Agree. The .40 cal hardly has to be defended. It has virtues. It was good to lay out what those particular virtues are.

      We are very lucky to have such a robust firearms and ammunition market in the US, and the liberty to make use of these, so that people can fulfill their own perceived needs according to their own lights.

      Reply
  40. I think this test confirms that the 380 is not a good self defense round. It is better than nothing but there are many easily concealable 9s on the market.

    Reply
  41. “If you like your current GUN, you can keep your GUN. Period.”
    Once you’ve conveniently registered yourself and your GUN at the GUNHEALTH.gov website; submitted fees, a recent passport-quality photo, fingerprints, DNA, urine and stool samples;
    completed a training course;
    been psychologically evaluated and approved by an approved .gov examiner;
    had your registered GUN retrofitted and activated at a .gov agency with the new GUN SAFETY / unAFFORDABLE GUNHEALTH / REDISTRIBUTION of GUNRIGHTS / CONFISCATORY TAXATION / INSURANCE chip; and
    made your first monthly installment payment;- you can keep your GUN. Period.
    Some additional restrictions may apply.
    See your local GUNHEALTH Navelgrater for further assistance.

    Reply
  42. I worked for a daily newspaper for over 15 years. Sometimes I just marveled at how some of the reporters and editors managed to get dressed in the morning and find their way to work.

    Reply
  43. I think it’s very interesting and kind of intriguing to wonder why the Liberal media in CT is pushing so hard for the police to start doing something.

    Do they want to create a confrontation? Seems like it.

    Reply

Leave a Comment