George Takei Promotes Pittsburgh Gun Control, Nets…$200

George Takei Pittsburgh Gun Control Gaydos

AP image courtesy NY Post.

A Squirrel Hill, Pennsylvania man running a fundraiser for gun control learned a valuable lesson this week.  Ron Gaydos thought celeb George Takei’s promotion to 10 million followers would result in a flood of donations for gun control. In the end, Takei’s post netted next to nothing: a mere $200.

It all started when Gaydos started his gun control fundraiser Monday. Seeing gun rights supporters rallying in Pittsburgh to protest the mayor’s feeble attempt to defy Pennsylvania’s preemption law proved too much for Mr. Gaydos, who called them “out-of-town pro-semi-automatic rifle protestors”.

Ignoring experience and reality, Gaydos believes laws, not good guys with guns, stop bad people from committing evil. So he put up a fundraiser on Facebook to raise money for gun control.

He also talked his local newspaper into writing a story about it.

That story caught the eye of former ‘Star Trek’ actor and anti-gun progressive activist George Takei. The former Mr. Sulu has about 10 million followers on Facebook. Allegedly.

George Takei Promotes Gun Control Fundraiser To His 10 Million Followers, Netting $200

courtesy facebook.com

Gaydos, excited to have the washed-up, has-been actor’s blessing and kind words, contacted his local newspaper again. And treating it like Russian collusion breaking news, the Tribune-Review published another piece, this time touting Takei’s Facebook post:

‘Star Trek’ star George Takei supports Pittsburgh anti-gun effort

A Squirrel Hill man’s Facebook fundraiser for anti-gun groups received some star-studded recognition Wednesday from one of social media’s most prolific users.

George Takei, best known for his role as Hikaru Sulu on the original “Star Trek” TV show, on Wednesday posted a Tribune-Review story about Ron Gaydos on his Facebook page. Takei, an outspoken activist in support of social justice, has 9.5 million Facebook followers.

“Here’s something just about anyone can do…,” Takei wrote on the page. “After a recent rally in Pittsburgh, in which hundreds of armed pro-gun activists descended on city hall, a local business owner got so disgusted he raised more than $3,000 for gun control groups (including Ceasefire PA) on Facebook!”

However, the last paragraph of the piece told the true story of the pathetic results of Takei’s plug. When asked about the donations received after the Facebook post, Gaydos mumbled,

“I think a couple more hundred came in after yesterday’s post, but I haven’t had all the crazy increase happen,” Gaydos said.

A couple hundred bucks. That’s some crazy increase. Divided by 10 million followers and using public school math…that works out to two one-thousandths of a penny from each. Oh my!

The optimistic Mr. Gaydos tried to spin the truth hard enough to leave anyone still reading dizzy.

“Sometimes it’s something that takes a couple days for the notice and the momentum to build up.”

Uh huh. You keep waiting, Mr. Gaydos. In the meantime, the rest of us see clearly just how seriously we should endorsements from influencers like has-been, B-list celebrities. Takei and his alleged followers are truly a farce to be reckoned with – at least when it comes to taking meaningful action to support gun control.

 

comments

  1. avatar Stateisevil says:

    And yet, the controllers are dominating, slowly and steadily, state by state, inch by inch.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “And yet, the controllers are dominating, slowly and steadily, state by state, inch by inch.”

      “T’is a puzzlement”. (allegedly spoken by the King of Siam)

      1. avatar Adam says:

        They aren’t winning on gun control. They are winning because people are enamored with free stuff. Free college, Medicare for all, free housing, minimum wage increases, etc. Even the TEA party ran on the platform of “Keep government out of MY Medicare”.

        When our “small government” organizations don’t even understand that government spending (not taxation) is the problem than we are doomed from the start because we have a population of people whom are completely economically illiterate. If they can’t even get that, then can you really expect them to defend rights such as self defense which by and large, the majority do not have to even worry about on a daily basis?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “They aren’t winning on gun control. They are winning because people are enamored with free stuff. ”

          Watching leftists and free-loaders for quite some time, I remain convinced they would gladly forego the free stuff it in return they were guaranteed the riskless freedom to confiscate all guns from non-criminal types (and terrorists). Once the possibility of armed resistance is removed, “they” can get all the free stuff at leisure.

          It’s an easy sell: “Hey, we are going to make it so you do not have to fear guns in the hands of everyday people, and in addition, you get all this free stuff.”

    2. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      Because they cheat. The lefts agenda wins because they rig elections. Once they have a foothold the disease spreads.

      1. avatar Rocketman says:

        That’s the only way that the left ever does win, that and lie about their real positions and goals. If they ever start telling the truth they know they have no chance of getting elected.

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      In general, the exercise of an unalienable individual right cannot be restored incrementally. Infringement works incrementally. This “long game” and “eating elephants” mentality of many POTG will beget more tyranny for later generations. Real, lasting restoration will only happen when enough people get fed up and fight; through large scale, stone stubborn open disobedience and/or physically resisting en masse with force. They must refuse to comply and gain back all ground in short order; one generation at the absolute longest. Each subsequent generation will lose a little so the generation that stands firm has to make up for past and future losses.

      As the courts say, only belligerents have rights. To some extent, that is true. One only has exercise of those rights one is willing to jealously guard and vigorously defend.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “One only has exercise of those rights one is willing to jealously guard and vigorously defend.”

        Bingo !

        Glad to have you along.

  2. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

    I dare not ask what he was planning to accomplish with the big bucks he was anticipating.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “We will END GUN VIOLENCE, *NOW*!!” Any other questions?

  3. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    …Take back OUR country! Stop Globalism now !

  4. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Another elitest that’s smarter than the rest of us, even our founding fathers.

  5. avatar former water walker says:

    GAYdos?!? Seriously? 😄

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      Yeah- with Takei? You can’t even make this stuff up. Of course, after the Pulse Nightclub thing the rainbow crowd has been arming up, too.

  6. avatar NORDNEG says:

    May the force be with you., Oh wait, wrong one, May you live long & prosper… that’s more like it…!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “May the force be with you., Oh wait, wrong one, May you live long & prosper… that’s more like it…!”

      “Don’t call me Tiny”. (Sulu, Star Trek 3)

  7. avatar IN Dave says:

    Problem is pro gunners are doing the same thing. Everybody is mad at the NRA right now, as am I however many will drop the NRA and not pick up a different pro gun group. Hell, I know many people who did a lifetime membership just so they didn’t have to pay $35 a year anymore; really think about that for a moment-didn’t want to spend $35 dollars a year to (try to) protect their gun rights.

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      “Everybody is mad at the NRA right now…”

      No, that’s only the perception one gets from reading the quips around this site and others that are trolled by mouths and not brains. In the “alternate” world, where one actually has to come up with strategies and ideas rather than random criticism it’s a lot different.

      Anyone who’s been in this fight long-term knows there are battles won and lost with ground that can be regained over time. The critics on this site generally have no plan other than “the Constitution says…” Definitely no ambition or ability to try to influence the people who, at the time, are more spectators than actors in this drama. Act tough, talk big, do nothing except scare the hell out of people we should be trying to partner with. Do what you can to bring more people on board instead of playing into our opponents hands. You will have to think, though, but that’d be a good exercise.

    2. avatar JW says:

      Some of us got a lifetime membership so we can vote in a board more to our liking. I urge those who want to change the NRA to do the same.

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        One only needs to be a 5 consecutive-year or longer member to vote in NRA elections. Of course, a lot of the worthies around here would rather not pay the $30 per year, never get any first-hand information from NRA and then piss and moan about them.

    3. avatar CC says:

      WTF does it mean that you take for meaningful a few scattered nuts and invert the actual trend of NRA favorable among both the general public and among gun owners (it is up not down)

      NRA’s Gallup favorables among all three relevant groups: gun owners (93%), political conservatives (94%) and Republicans (88%) have all never been higher in history of surveys concerning views of the NRA, ALL running at record highs:
      https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/5aw1ganaheaobzlatk0wfa.png

      A few nuts going on forums whining about how they are crying because the NRA took too hard a line or soft a line on a particular issue are just that: a few nuts.

      NRA favorable in 1995- 2000 among all Americans had a five year average 44% of the country approving of the NRA. AS of end of 2018 its five year running average 2013-2018 approvals 55%. 25% MORE Americans approve of the NRA than 20 years ago. . And the further right you are the MORE you support the NRA:

  8. avatar BB Eyes says:

    Can someone advise Mr. Sulu that the percentage of crime committed by legal gun owners is minuscule?

    Perhaps punishing gun carrying criminals would have a positive impact on crime and safety.

    Ban alcohol and end drunk driving homicide. Silly, right. But it does carry over to the gun grabbing politicians.
    A most special group with very special privileges who have no problems obtaining CCW permits for their protection?

    TERM LIMITS.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “TERM LIMITS.”

      Term limits already exist for every elected office in the country. Otherwise known as “elections”. Calling for “term limits” is simply an attempt to set into law that which we cannot do through the existing process: win elections.

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        Agreed. It might be good for some of the big “proponents” around here to get out there and run for political office- see how it really is. Don’t like what the others are doing? Sell your story to the voters. Start with school board, that usually only takes about 35 votes to win in most locales. Or go for County Supervisor or City Council. But if you use the same amount of tact in your race you’ll probably be the only one who votes for you.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I don’t agree with that. As illustrated by our last President, if you are corrupt enough you can weaponize the government agencies which you are supposed to maintain as neutral, Like, maybe, IRS and FBI, and use taxpayer money to assist you in defeating honest challengers. Term limits eliminate this abuse, and you can add that anyone who thinks that someone of the magnificent intellect of Nancy Pelosi or Upchuck Schumer is simply irreplaceable in a nation of 330 million is simply deluded. Why NOT have term limits?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Term limits eliminate this abuse,..”

          Presume “term limits” are in place, and completely to your liking.

          How does that do anything to reduce, much less eliminate, “corruption” at agencies? People on government agencies do not need “corrupt” politicians in place; agencies are a government unto themselves…it is called the “swamp”. Politicians come and go, the deep state is forever.

          One assumption so many supporters of “term limits” vainly make is that somehow, the replacement(s) will not be from the same pool of politicians that brought forth the politician “term-limited”. People like to believe that once a person is barred from holding office again, somehow righteousness will reign with the replacement. That upstart from NY defeated (term-limited) a politician from the same party. The result was “worse” than what existed. How’s that for term limits?

          If the voters cannot vote for the same elected official after a date certain, they will vote for one just like the one being replaced. If the voter pool is insufficient to overturn party influence, term limits have no real meaning. Only in a political situation that allows no political parties is there a remote chance that term limits would replace “bad” politicians with “good” politicians.

        2. avatar Craig in IA says:

          The vast majority of those within the government that are in opposition to what stands for common sense among mainstream Americans, especially in “fly-over” like myself are not voted into office- they have been appointed and will continue in their places long after the next election cycle, becoming career bureaucrats of the worst nature. It’s incredibly difficult for a freshman lawmaker or even President who was not an entrenched pol or DC “insider” to even hire aides who have not been completely tainted by the “inside the beltway” diseases. These very influential workers will not be affected by term limits, often being the results of losing an election and never going back home in the first place. They’d need to be removed, one at a time, and it’d take years. When one would leave another would enter.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “These very influential workers will not be affected by term limits, ”

          They could be, it just takes “eternal vigilance”, a majority of voters, and changes to laws and regulations that make government service a temp position for everyone.

          We can’t get all the gun owners interested enough to engage the system and change it. Not holding my breath, waiting for an enlightened (enraged?) populace to do the work to change the system.

        4. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “We can’t get all the gun owners interested enough to engage the system and change it.” Sure, but that doesn’t mean I’ll stop trying. 🙂 I’ve never been one to give up on anything without a real effort, perhaps that can be contagious.

          Actually, it isn’t just firearms owners who are betrayed by these career gov’t workers, we all are. There seems to be a “fun factor” associated with it- guns, boats, jet skis, motorcycles, etc. If it becomes fun, independent and popular, it must be taxed, regulated and otherwise controlled by the established central government for our own good.

      3. avatar joefoam says:

        Term limits don’t affect entrenched bureaucrats and judges on the bench. A good example is the hell Trump is being subjected to.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Term limits don’t affect entrenched bureaucrats and judges on the bench.”

          Term limits apply to elective office, and sometimes appointed positions. Entrenched bureaucrats are the result of elections. If you like your elected/appointed officials, term limits will come back to haunt you. Term limits might remove a person from government altogether, but term limits do nothing to ensure someone worse is not put in place afterward.

          In the end, it always comes down to the voters, doesn’t it?

  9. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Gun control is the will of the people, er some people, er a person, maybe two.

    There’s gotta be a name for when one person’s will gets imposed on everyone else. Wait, it’ll come to me.

  10. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

    “That story caught the eye of former ‘Star Trek’ actor and anti-gun progressive activist George Takei.”

  11. avatar Arandom Dude says:

    It has always struck me as ironic that a man who was, as a child, hauled off to a concentration camp by government goons because of his race, then spent much of his life watching his fellow homosexuals be abused and assaulted (again, often by the government) would spend his later years promoting the idea that only the government should have guns.

    1. avatar VieteranGunsmith says:

      Arandom Dude –

      It is ironic that he would be all for government being in charge of every single solitary part of the people’s lives. You would have thought that he would have had enough of that when FDR did it to him during his childhood. There needs to be more public awareness of FDR’s tenure in the White House. He trusted Stalin, and had disdain for Churchill. He had Alger Hiss on his staff, the same Alger Hiss who turned out to be a Soviet spy. The Democrats have lots of explaining to do. WE should also be more history aware when it comes to the first world war President Woodrow Wilson – the father of modern progressivism. The nation was unaware of his true condition after a stroke – many of the things he supposedly signed during that period at the end of his term in office were actually signed by his wife and this was kept secret from the people of the US for decades. He should have been removed from office under the Constitution for being unable to perform the duties of the office, but Mrs. Wilson and the staff kept the secret of his inability from the public.

      The common denominator is – The Democrat Party. To paraphrase Joe Wilson, ” you (they) LIE!”.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      He wants the government to have all the guns and control everything because he believes the government is and always will be controlled by people like him, for people like him.

      Maybe he’s right. If he is, then all the more reason why people like you and me NEED to have guns.

  12. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    why would a hungarian even think about being a anti-gun person? the hungarians of which gaydos is a family name in hungary,be anti gun ? his mother is probably a victim of hit and run pregnancy. no family father’s history…

  13. avatar racer88 says:

    “out-of-town pro-semi-automatic rifle protestors”.

    That’s like saying, “pro-power-steering cars protestors”…. considering that the semi-auto feature on firearms is over 100 years old.

  14. avatar Tim Toroian says:

    It is amazing how the left keeps running into constitutions and pre-emption laws. Pittsburgh’s mayor apparently hasn’t read the Pennsylvania Constitution, section 21 which reads; “The right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” That was written prior to the U.S. Constitution and is still in place as of the last revision in 1968. It doesn’t include the words “to keep” but doesn’t need them because you can’t bear arms to defend yourself if you can’t keep them.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “It doesn’t include the words “to keep” but doesn’t need them because you can’t bear arms to defend yourself if you can’t keep them.”

      Actually, it does make a difference.

      To start, American english language is a sloppy language, a lazy language. So, we can easily conflate two distinct conditions as being the same (just as we use the f-word to mean whatever it is we want it to mean, whenever we want it).

      “Bearing Arms” is the direct equivalent of “carrying arms”; so far so good. However, “keep” is not a synonym for “bear”. “Keep” has to do with storage, whether at home or in the town arsenal. One can “bear” arms that one does not own, and does not keep anywhere nearby (a common arsenal between two towns can “keep” arms for the citizens of the two towns). And arms that are communally owned can be “borne” when in need to defend the locations.

      Reading the text of the Pennsylvania constitution, the colony, then State, put in its constitution the right of the people to carry arms – a necessary condition in the early days. However, the Pennsylvania constitution leaves open the question regarding the “keeping” of arms. This may either be a supposition as to a condition necessary to “bearing” arms, or the intent to have firearms “kept” in a central location (not being read on Pennsylvania history, I cannot determine which is intended from direct and simple reading of the text of the Pennsylvania constitution.

      “Keep” and “Bear” arms are distinct conditions that should hot be dismissed as unimportant.

      1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        ““Keep” and “Bear” arms are distinct conditions that should hot be dismissed as unimportant.”

        Hopefully, if cert. is granted in the NY Pistol Club petition, SCOTUS can clarify for the nation that bearing arms in and out of NYC is constitutionally protected everywhere in this country.

        Or is that wishful thinking SCOTUS could broaden their ruling from just inside to outside NYC to apply everywhere nationally?

        https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Or is that wishful thinking SCOTUS could broaden their ruling from just inside to outside NYC to apply everywhere nationally?”

          Based on the rampant disregard of “Heller”, I would say that reluctant SCOTUS decision was wishful thinking. Might be prudent to adjust your expectations accordingly.

        2. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          “Based on the rampant disregard of “Heller”, I would say that reluctant SCOTUS decision was wishful thinking. Might be prudent to adjust your expectations accordingly.”

          Possibly.

          Then again, it was justice Thomas who clearly communicated in a dissent (Peruta?) that the 2A “was a second-class right that wasn’t getting the respect it deserved.”

          …and maybe intends to rectify that situation. He’s getting up in years. I hope he intends to do as much as he can with the time he has left and the balance of the court as it current is.

          Who the fuck knows?

          *mutter*…

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…it was justice Thomas who clearly communicated in a dissent (Peruta?) that the 2A was a second-class right”

          Not convinced that a 9-0 decision that 2A is absolute and that all gun laws are unconstitutional would be any more effective. The lower courts are just ignoring the SC on guns, as are so many state-level courts and politicians. Essentially, judicial nullification of SC rulings. This is why I noted that “Heller” might itself be wishful thinking.

      2. avatar m. says:

        sloppy & lazy english is the default language of air traffic control on this planet, a**hole. sloppy & useless legislation enables judges/lie-whores/politicians to live a life of luxury, so FU.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “sloppy & lazy english is the default language of air traffic control”

          Then things have really changed since I was flying for a living. ATC radio discipline was quite precise, with an enforced vocabulary.

        2. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          “Then things have really changed since I was flying for a living. ATC radio discipline was quite precise, with an enforced vocabulary.”

          Today, unfortunately, it really depends on where you are in the world.

          I have heard me some horror stories from ferry pilots (the really small stuff, like single-engine piston) in the third world that English comprehension is very hit-or-miss by the local ATC, causing them great concern for their airborne safety…

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I have heard me some horror stories from ferry pilots (the really small stuff, like single-engine piston) in the third world that English comprehension is very hit-or-miss by the local ATC, ”

          Back in the day, the controllers in many of those primitive places seemed to all have trained in places where they developed a flat, mid-western accent. Of course, the French were a problem because they insist that instructions be given in both French and English (applies to French Canada as well). Dual language radio transmission slow things down considerably, and one always wonders what the French speakers are really saying to their language kin.

  15. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I’ve said it before on TTAG and I’ll say it again.
    Homosexuals are socialist progressive in their political orientation. They believe government control over people’s (straight) lives, is best for the civilian population.

    Unfortunately less than 1% of gay people are willing to take the advice of Harvey Milk the the assassinated San Francisco city councilman from 1978, when he said “I have a gun and everyone else should have a gun too”.

    He was murdered in a “gun free” zone partly created by his SF city co-council woman, Dianne Feinstein.

  16. avatar Jim Hambleton says:

    Takei should emulate the character he played. In the Star Trek episode “Shore Leave” he states that he’s a gun collector.
    https://66.media.tumblr.com/79bc10ff0e7849f2d25f1389144b8664/tumblr_nm0dkbZ2qe1rsyqf9o1_500.png

    1. avatar MLee says:

      It was a beauty!

    2. avatar Ing says:

      He could actually be a gun collector right now, for all we know. The important thing to people like him is that the unenlightened (i.e., you and me) aren’t allowed to collect any.

      1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

        Bingo. Just like Steven Spielberg, a man with a huge gun collection including Class 3 weapons, and then pushes gun grabbing on the common people.

  17. avatar VIeteranGunsmith says:

    The biggest problem facing us isn’t the people like Gaydos. Bloomberg, or Takei – it is their allies in the propaganda ministry known as the press today. They promote and amplify the efforts of anti gun rights advocates and that is what spreads their influence over the more gullible factions of society. They know their target audience and play to the crowd accordingly. The fact they lie, cheat and basically steal their way to successfully dominating public opinion (and then present a very skewed perspective on the facts) is an ugly reality but it is being spoon fed to them by these activists. There is a word that deserves a new definition with a meaning that reflects the negative methods they employ. They are dishonest and when confronted on that they distract with a tangential argument on another subject. The NRA is being demonized by these people on a daily basis and now we have a general public who don’t know what the mission of the NRA truly is. The antis have been working to confuse public opinion on this and they have accomplished their mission for the most part. The NRA upper level management is at best ineffective at combatting this onslaught of defamation and demonization – they have yet to come up with a positive accomplishment in persuading the public that the left’s lies are not a reflection of reality and their bans and other measures are ineffective against gun crime.

    Until that changes, and the anti gun crowd is depicted honestly as the liars and propagandists they are there will be nothing positive accomplished in the area of gun control, or gun crime punishments.

  18. avatar barnbwt says:

    Takai…Gaydos…this can’t be a real story.

  19. avatar pieslapper says:

    $200? Oh my!

  20. avatar Truckman says:

    that wash up never been has better stay from progun people or he might have something in his mouth harder than he normally has there

  21. avatar Hugo says:

    Set phasers to shut the hell up!

  22. avatar Chapsx says:

    Uh, think there was a decimal point mistake
    George has 10 followers, that means all of them sent $20 each !

  23. avatar james says:

    So Mr. Sulu only wants Phasers for the Federation?

  24. avatar Nanashi says:

    Takei: The government put me in a horrible concentraction camp as a child
    Also Takei: Only the government should have guns.

  25. avatar MLee says:

    The $200 is probably from his husband

  26. avatar GS650G says:

    Never saw Mr. Sulu work a phaser in Star Trek. Now we know why.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Didn’t catch that episode. George wet his pants when she tried to touch him.

    1. avatar Frank in VA says:

      He preferred prancing around shirtless with a fencing foil.

  27. avatar HuntingtonGuy says:

    Anyone know the body count from that rally? Wounded but survived? Children’s minds inexorably damaged?
    Really? I thought guns were the problem and we were the Uber’s (no, not Goobers) that brought devastation and ruin wherever we went.

    Oh well, I guess the anti’s were wrong AGAIN

  28. avatar Snuffy Smiff says:

    It would appear the sodomites are no longer a big draw these days. What a shame-LMAO!

  29. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I alone sent 1/8th of that amount to Firearm Owners Against Crime to oppose Ceasefire PA on this illegal act. I’ll take that as a good sign.

  30. avatar Alan says:

    Re Gun Control, once upon a time, Pennsylvania has a law on the statute books, that if enforced, it wasn’t, would have actually removed arms criminals from underfoot, at least for a while. The law, which judges didn’t like, and prosecutors failed to charge under would have added a mandatory additional 5 year penalty upon conviction. The courts eventually found this legislation wanting, but prior to that, the problem was lack of enforcement. Interestingly, this law, had it been enforced, would have impacted only those convicted of armed crime. It would have zero impact on the law abiding. Funny thing isn’t it, a sensible piece of legislation laid fallow, and was ultimately found wanting by the courts, who knows why, yet constitutionally questionable, putting it politely, proposals continue to be offered. The ways of government are truly strange.

  31. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    George Who.

  32. avatar Charlie says:

    ” … a farce to be reckoned with.”

    That’s good! I’m going to use it!

    Charlie

  33. avatar possum says:

    I thought GeorgeT liked Gocks?

  34. avatar Chadwick says:

    Wasn’t this clown in one of the democrat’s internment camps back during ww2? For any half-brained person that might make them want less government control. Oh yeah, this guy is literally a clown. Carry on.

  35. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Gee George, you’d think that somebody who’s spent time in a RACIAL CONCENTRATION CAMP would think twice about giving government an absolute monopoly on the means of armed force.

  36. avatar D-FENS says:

    Yeah, but that $200 is equal to $17,500,000 in Zalkonian space credits.

  37. avatar DaveP says:

    Off in the distance, Shatner laughs.

  38. avatar Andre Dubotnick says:

    Thirsty Georgie just wants another Sperm Gun in his mouth…

    1. I suspect that he has a bad case of peter breath.

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