Previous Post
Next Post


“If I lived in Venezuela, I’d find out where the guardsmen lived, and shoot them when they walked out the door in the morning. That is, of course, the proper response to dictators and their minions of every stripe, even Hollywood-backed socialists.” – Glenn Reynolds at

Previous Post
Next Post


      • PS for those not up to speed on what’s going on in Venezuela:

        (Washington) – Venezuelan security forces have used unlawful force in response to antigovernment demonstrations, severely beating unarmed protesters and shooting them at point blank range, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Security forces also subjected detainees to severe physical and psychological abuse, including in some cases torture, and justice officials failed to safeguard detainees’ due process rights. […]

  1. That’s crazy talk. The modern response to tyrants is as follows: create a Twitter hashtag, stand around in the streets, ask the UN to send your tyrant a strongly worded, yet polite, letter.

    Wait until it’s too late and half your comrades are jailed or dead.

    Take up arms.
    Ask other nations to support you.
    Other nations waste more time floudering about the support.
    More of your comrades die.

    Fail, because you waited too long or, less likely, potentially succeed at enormous cost because you waited too long.

    • And once you succeed, commence to rule more corruptly than those you just defeated.

      • That brings us to the proper steps once in power.
        1)block access to twitter. Dont want anyone using hashtags against you.
        2)kill everyone who helped you get there because they threaten your status
        3)denounce the UN and mock any letters they send you
        4)kill or imprison anyone standing in the streets protesting you
        5)demonize imperialistic nations who seek to destabilize your regime by supplying the terrorists and rebels with arms
        Chances of success or failure are roughly the same as they were trying to overthrow the old tyrant I imagine and have a lot to do with timing.

        • You have neglected the theft of public funds and appropriation of armored vehicles and heavy weapons.

        • 0: Drag former leaders through the streets by the foot, letting the newly-liberated peasants spit on, kick, swat, hit with sticks, and otherwise abuse and terrorize the still-wriggling, screaming, bleeding, peeing, pooping deposed tyrant.

          Geez! Better put me in a f’n rubber room!

          (Actually, I saw a pic in Time magazine in the mid-1960’s of some guy that they had done that to in some Southeast Asian revolution.)

    • Funny – This same thing happened in the Colonies back in the 18th century. Even the Day it All Began (April 19, 1775), there were many good Patriots not yet ready to fight (like John Adams or Timothy Pickering).

      You look back through history and look at the world today, and all you’ll ever see is the same play – again and again – but with the actors wearing different costumes.

    • Don’t miss his point.

      The reason these atrocities continue to happen is because they are allowed to happen. No matter how much it hurts people’s sensibilities, online protests and twitter hashtags do not change brutal regimes.

      I know it makes people feel like they “support a cause” by posting things on Facebook and changing their profile picture. That might work in countries that are already relatively peaceful, like America, but too often the people who say “America doesn’t understand the rest of the world” behave in a manner that simply doesn’t work on another culture.

      If there are any questions about how effective regular citizens can be defending themselves against government or government backed thugs they have no further to look than Mexico.

    • And how brave they say they WOULD be… if they weren’t behind a keyboard.

      When is the last time the good professor risked anything but a nasty blog comment?

      • Easy for you to say. Post something that is personally identifying that proves your presumed prowess, and I wont be yawning next time I see your anonymous poster name here.

  2. I guess violence dies solve some problems. Cue the statist drones changing this into support for always resorting to violence first.

      • Paul McCain literally thinks advocating regular Venezuelans killing the thugs oppressing them is irresponsible.

      • Yep Paul; you say some of the right buzz words and phrases; but in the end; you come across as more of a statist. elitist, government paid employee.

        • If all you guys can do when you respond to my comments is resort to goofy tin-hat conspiracy theories, than I will just put another notch in the “my comment wins” column.

          Seriously…you guys need to recognize that resorting to such silly responses only makes you look foolish.

      • What “goofy tin-hat conspiracies” are you referring to Paul? The only one I think you might be referring to is that you are a paid government plant to sow dissension among different web sites that aren’t government lap dogs. Why would you think I was talking about that? Is it because other people have suggested that? Hmm, interesting.

        Myself, I was just making the comment that you have consistently showed yourself to be of an elitist, statist in your comments. For you to say that to shoot the minions of a brutal dictator is “irresponsible” would probably come from a government employee that is sympathetic to the plight of other government employees getting shot.

      • Your superiority complex is showing again, Paul.

        If you are so much better than everyone else,
        why do you bother posting here, anyway?

      • Paul, our situation in the US is one thing, and certainly open to redress from within but at the point they shoot and beat you in the street it’s time for revolution. It would appear that Venezuela is at the point where revolution may be the answer. Do you have anything at all to back your position other than it’s your position? Could you offer any facts regarding why Venezuelans should not fight back? Is it always your position that regular citizens should submit to government in all circumstances (Note, it’s a legitimate question, not an attack)? I disagree with most of what you say in your comments but generally don’t find them easy to respond to, usually because there is too little meat on the bones to make much of a response. This, however seems to have a bit of meat. At what point do you advocate revolution, if ever? Should the citizens of Cambodia have revolted against Pol Pot? Was the uprising against Gaddafi reasonable? Should we have supported the Afghans against the Soviets when their lawful government requested Soviet aid? Was the American revolution justified? Are the Auto-defensas in Mexico legitimate? I’d really like to see your answers so that I can understand your thinking.

  3. I used knew this old Russian guy that that would say “Use knife to get pistol, use pistol to get rifle, use rifle to get machine gun, use machine gun to get rpg, use rpg to get tank….”

  4. Glenn, expect the secret service to “invite” you to inspect a NDAA death camp soon.

    • Perhaps not. The professor is physically fit, intelligent, competent in survivalism, and very good with guns [I’m not sure about edged weapons, though]. And demonstrably good at anticipating the excrement striking the rotary air circulator well in advance.

      • If you looked at Reynold’s biography without knowing his politics you would assume he is some looney leftwing academic. Just becuase I agree with a lot things he says, doesn’t mean I think he is hot stuff. He is just your typical professor running his mouth. I give him no more credence than I do any other academic BS artist.

    • He said “Hollywood-backed socialists” not Hollywood people themselves.

      He is talking about actors like Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, Harry Belafonte and many others who publically supported Hugo Chavez and the following regime even while atrocities where happening in the Venezuela. His point is we should have shot Chavez. IMHO, if Hollywood supports a politician from any country, its probably a person who should be targeted. They have a long history of supporting dictators many who are communist.

      The same group of Hollywood people who ignored at the Academy Awards protestors (most of who originally born in Venezuela) asking them to renounce their support of Venezuela of which Hollywood ignored. In typical liberal script, now that there is violence they will ignore it.

      • So, let me make sure I understand:

        You *are* advocating simply going out and killing “actors like Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, Harry Belafonte and many others who publically supported Hugo Chavez.”


        • Reynolds is referring to the Venezuelan secret police who are beating up the regime’s enemies, and more broadly to the entire chain of command. Hollywood-backed socialists would mean e.g. Maduro and members of his regime. It’s pretty clear if you are literate and read the linked news piece.

        • If that’s what you got from that you really are failing reading or else you’re being intentionally obtuse, which I think is more likely.

    • Your reading comprehension Paul is seriously dysfunctional. The author was clearly referring to the fact that Hollywood elitists; usually socialist in their beliefs; have consistently held up brutal dictators as figures to be admired; as long as those brutal dictators pronounced themselves as believing in communism/socialism.

      For you to infer that the author was also promoting shooting those same Hollywood elitists here in this country is truly bizarre.

  5. I’d keep an eye on the news. The current Maduro regime has many enemies and the people are getting tired of not having access to toilet paper, food, and other commodities.

    It’s important to know that the government either directly or indirectly controls 90% of the countries media from news papers to T.V. The people have been brain washed into believing that the State will save them and loves them and cares for them. Only now that the truth about these corruption cases are coming to light are people finally starting to wake up to the fact that the State is just a collection of men who can do good or great evil.

    Furthermore VZ does not enjoy our 2A rights as their government has severely limited possession to all, but the wealthy elite. Given VZ’s past places, like Columbia aren’t exactly lining up to give them guns or armed support. I can’t say anything more than this for now, but watch the news because within 60 days sh!t is gonna get real over there.

  6. Well, I guess that settles the question of “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, if only it were so simple.

      • Not literally, but I think almost anyone familiar with the concept would find that violence may be one of the implications. Granted you, Paul, will read into it and fabricate for yourself whatever you decide it should mean. We can find examples of that strewn throughout the comments on this blog.

        As a veteran, I have a keen understanding that glaring disapprovingly at someone willing to prosecute violent action against you is ineffective. How many folks should the citizens of Venezuela allow to be brutalized by their government before they’re allowed to fight back?

      • Paul, you seem to get your panties in a bunch daily. Perhaps you should refrain from trying to win the internet as you say and go back to licking the windows on the bus.

    • first you complain about constant MDA/MAIG posts. now you complain about other posts!?!? 🙂

      (I don’t mean the ‘you’ in the literal sense btw. think the collective ‘you’)

    • Go to TTAG main page, click on “About”. If you are new here you might not appreciate the conversation here is wide ranging.

      “Robert Farago founded The Truth About Guns in February of 2010 to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.”

      A lot of discussion here lately about over-militarization of police, federal government abuse of power, etc. This is a relevant example of fast breaking news, high-lighted with a comment from a very widely followed blog that is pointing to what is apparently being ignored by the US StateRunMedia, about the same thing, in Venezuela, following a pretty typical historical pattern.

      In other words, validation of same sort of early pattern analysis and smart thinking at TTAG.

      There is another meme, which is less important, but also interesting from a political and historical perspective- Remember how much support Obama personally gave to Chavez in the beginning, and the fanboy hype by Chavez and some of his fellow travelers going the other way, at first. And the utter “silence” about that, and State Dept support to Venezuela, that is another gigantic example of the FAIL that has Hillary Clinton written all over it, especially when it applies to south of our borders….

  7. It never ceases to amaze me that there are people here who are so in love with the idea of government power they’ll defend even the most heinous dictators and their minions.

    • It never ceases to amaze me that there are people here who are so daft they can’t understand the important distinction between strategy and tactics and who actually cheer on a guy who flat-out is advocating the murder of people with whom they disagree.

      Reading: it’s what’ for thinking clearly.

      • I’ll proudly advocate for Castro and any other Central or South American dictator’s murder all day long, troll.

        • I’m sure if he tried, your foreign brothers in blue (or green) would do their damnedest to try to preserve the dictator’s tyrannical rule.

      • In the only countries I am aware of where people did manage to get rid of their oppressors, they did so by killing them. Nothing wrong at all with killing people, as long as you kill the right people at the right time. And oppressive governments and their lackeys and sycophants are all prime candidates for a good killing. Whether in Venezuela or elsewhere.

        Until people wake the heck up from their well indoctrinated nightmares and realize this, they’ll remain forever oppressed. As were the Somalis until they finally recognized how useful having a government really is.

      • Seems to me that the suggestion here is that those who violently enforce the policies of Chavez are the only people marked for death and I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. Would you be opposed to killing those who supported the rise to power of Stalin or Hitler or Pot?

  8. I must be having a bad morning. I got out of where he said, “That is, of course, the proper response to dictators and their minions of every stripe, even Hollywood-backed socialists.” a broader reference beyond Venezuela…perhaps “even Hollywood-backed socialists.” in power here in the U.S.. I find that conclusion to his remarks objectionable.

    Hopefully, I misunderstood him. I checked the web page link and did not find anything there to change my impression. Even though the current “hate-speak” campaign being conducted by the Democratic Socialists, who think they “own” this country today, is equally as objectionable, I cannot support the idea of shooting your political foes outside their homes to silence them. I do acknowledge that there’s no changing their minds because they basically hate the Constitutional Republic of the United States and seem determined to destroy it. Don’t know what the answer is, but the kind of violence Glen Reynolds is suggesting isn’t it.

      • At least the bendover section of it. While I’m one of the ones winning the coward section, for realizing how misguided the two of you are, yet being waaaay too much of a chicken to do anything about it.

        Anyway, A killing B for not doing what he and C decided he should do, is not somehow any less bad than B just killing one or both of them for not leaving him in peace. As long as “your political foes” abstain from using violence against you, I can sort of agree to keep things symmetrical, but in every state I am aware of, the prohibition on killing over disagreements are rather one sided.

        • How about if A, B, and C, don’t kill each other over political differences at all and behave in a civilized, rational manner, practicing tolerance and compromise (where possible), because they recognize that in such a hugely diverse population as the U.S. there will likely never be homogeneity of political points of view?
          Frankly, Stuki, you sort of lost me at the conclusion of your argument, so if you’d care to elaborate a bit further, I would like to hear it.

          I don’t have any concern about “winning” anything in these comments. I just express my reactions or opinions. The discussion and debate is what it is all about for me because I recognize that in such a hugely diverse population as the U.S. there will likely never be homogeneity of political points of view.

          I am puzzled that you characterize yourself as a “coward”, since you did in fact “do something about it” by expressing your disagreement with me and Mr. McCain. What counts is that you say what you believe or opine.

        • Noone killing each other over political/opinion differences is, at least as a first approximation, perhaps ideal. But it’s not, nor ever has been, reality anywhere. What is reality in our dystopian age, is that the practice of not killing over political differences, indeed not even contemplate killing over political differences, is only to apply to those who happen not to be in power. Which makes the idea itself little more than just another tool to be used by powerful oppressors.

          Just look at Randy Weaver. He had some political differences with people more powerful than him. Fine and dandy, if neither side ever resorted to violence/killing over it. But that wasn’t how things went down. Ditto for the Freemen, Branch Davidians nor Me or You, if we should decide to freely live out our political differences as to appropriate venues in which to carry firearms. In fact, that is never how things go down, unless even the weakest party of the two with differences, can reasonably be expected to deliver enough payback to the strongest, to make “winning” the altercation not worth the strongest’ while. Kind of like what kept the cold war cold.

          Or, look at black slavery in the pre civil war South. Another political difference between seemingly most whites, and, I presume, most blacks. The fact that the black side of the debate were told to not kill over such a political difference may have “kept the peace”, but it’s hardly what I would call the ideal outcome. Much better if they were all armed to the teeth, and about as conciliatory and governable as a Pushtun tribesman on reverse anger management meds.

          More formally, if you look at power relationships from a systems design perspective, you want the system to exhibit positive damping. Such that, the more power someone has, the harder it becomes to gain an additional unit of it. Well armed societies of highly skeptical people exhibit this trait. The more power someone wields, the more people he has coerced/convinced to stray from what they considered optimal (a good working definition of power wielding.) Hence, the greater the probability that at least one of them will mutiny and shoot the bastard. This dynamic puts a real hard limit on how much coercive power anyone can get away with wielding. “Stick your neck out and get your head chopped off,” so to speak.

          The opposite of this, and the end result of the idea that only those in power get to use effective tools of power such as violence, leads to a society where power begets more power. Where someone like Bloomberg can run rampant over others rights and desires, because noone can reliably fight back. Naively,a “democracy” may provide some brakes on this, but as the election of Chavez, the Nazis and others, as well as the current West is a good example of, in practice it doesn’t work. And neither can it work, as long as a small enough to be random “victory” in an election, allows the winner to modify the rules of the game, such that the likelihood of him winning again increases the next time. And so on, and so on. Negative damping, so to speak.

          As an egregious example from our time and place, look at the national debt and current monetary policy. The Fed artificially lowering rates, so that retirees can no longer live off returns, but are forced to burn their nest egg. When that is empty, they’ll be fairly pliable voters for government spending to keep them from outright starvation. But this spending will of course have to be funded by a bunch of young people who never had any say on the matter on what led to their supposed indebtedness. What should happen here, is that the young people should simply say, “not my signature on that loan document, not my debt….” and let the chips fall as they may. But, in reality, “democracy” will inevitably resort to violence against those who do so. Something it would be much less likely to do if the targets of their exploitation was better armed and conditioned to say a forceful NO.

          • “Or, look at black slavery in the pre civil war South. Another political difference between seemingly most whites, and, I presume, most blacks. The fact that the black side of the debate were told to not kill over such a political difference may have “kept the peace”, but it’s hardly what I would call the ideal outcome. Much better if they were all armed to the teeth, and about as conciliatory and governable as a Pushtun tribesman on reverse anger management meds.”

            Yabbut, how about if they had armed themselves while they were still in Africa, so that they wouldn’t have gotten rounded up by their black African cousins who first enslaved them and sold them to the Dutch slave traders?

        • @ Stuki, Thanks for the very lucid and detailed elaboration of your point. It is way more than I had hoped for, or dared expect.
          I see what you are saying, and I think your analysis correctly describes the real-world mechanics of power acquisition and wielding. I do not disagree with you.
          My reaction to Glen Reynold’s statement had to do with interpreting from them a reference to our situation in the U.S. and an inference we might need to forcefully rid ourselves of a “Hollywood-backed socialist” of our own. I wanted to express my disapproval for anyone else who might too eagerly embrace it. Maybe it was a “bridge too far”, but I said it and I willingly own what I said.

          I do think we have to evolve to the point where A, B and C do not place violence near the top of the list of possible reactions to each others’ different points of view, and I am not sure citing past examples of what happened in “reality” justifies accepting that “reality” as just the way it always turns-out and always will turn-out. Neither do I think it likely we will get to a better outcome if no one advocates for it.

      • Thanks, Paul…it seems like some people here give you a lot of flak, but you don’t seem to be put-off by their venom. I respect that. I learn a lot from the wide variety of ideas and opinions expressed here. The key is to take none of it personally (for the rest of you hint…hint…nudge…nudge).

    • Based on the context of the article, he’s not refering to simple differences of political opinion… although I agree with your interpretation that it applies to tyrants not solely in Venezuela.

      “Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill ’em right back.”

      • Yeah, he is talking about the most egregious situations of physical brutality. After the initial violent response to the physical brutality is when the blood-letting over political ideas starts. I conceptually “skipped over” the first phase right to the second. Overreaction to my horror of Americans starting down the road of blood-letting over politics. I fear we would be too good at it…way too good at it.

    • In Venezuela’s situation, that kind of violence may be the only answer.

      However, considering how many conservatives and gun owners have spent the last 6 years calling President Obama exactly that, Reynolds’ reference to “Hollywood-backed socialists” is unfortunate. At the very least it calls his exact meaning into question; and although I don’t believe he meant it that way, at worst it does sound like a call for Americans to start killing each other.

      There are plenty of progressive collectivists and Hollywood idiots who already think that shooting people is what we (gun owners) want to do. The last thing we need is a high-profile pundit handing them that brush to tar us with.

      • No Ing; it is the “Hollywood idiots” and the “progressive collectivists” that have shown by the people they worship; like Stalin, Mao, Castro and Chavez; that they support the mass murder of people they disagree with; they are just projecting what they want to do to us( commit mass murder) and think we want to do the same to them.

    • Interesting DerryM; I read the exact same post and I got a completely different read from it. I read it as when a brutal dictator and his brutal minions are breaking heads and silencing dissent through violent means including murder; the proper response is violence back; in other words; revolution, and all that means. Which means killing your oppressors.

      What I am seeing is that in what he wrote, in it being short and sweet; is like a Rorschach Test. Each person reads into what they subconsciously would do in the scenario being presented. If you think that murdering some one for simply disagreeing with you is appropriate; then you think that is what he is promoting.

      I would suggest that what you think he is saying is more about what is really in your soul, mind and spirit; it really isn’t about the writer at all.

      • Thanks for the psychological analysis. I was actually agreeing with Reynolds in his assessment of what the Venezuelans might be needing to do, considering the egregious cruelty they are suffering, right up to the point Reynolds made the all-inclusive reference the “Hollywood-backed socialists”. Reading that, my mind said, “…like Obama…”. So, the inference was alarming and I commented as such.
        I don’t mind that you suggested it was “projection” on my part, but I think I know myself better than you can speculate in an Internet Comment, so suffice it to say I politely reject your analysis.

    • Lets write it off to a bad morning but Reynolds clearly limits the targets of his aggression to the actual people actually murdering, brutalizing and torturing people in Venezuela. He actually says “if I lived in Venezuela” and speaks of targeting agents of the government actively involved in violence. Unless you read something far different from what I’ve read your comment makes no sense at all.

      • I saw an inference in his remarks that I did not like and commented as such. If no one else took the same inference, so be it. I still see that inference, and it still concerns me. The “hate-speak” in this Country is getting more vile daily. Eventually, harsh words will not be enough, and I am guessing neither will the Ballot Box. To paraphrase Issac Asimov – The last refuge of the incompetent is violence.

        Given the deep polarization we Americans are now experiencing, do you see any faction likely to back down?

  9. Hmmm…weren’t the present thugs( including the late Chavez) somewhat democratically elected by the poor oppressed peasants. Who coveted the rich & middle class lives? The glorious peoples republic of Venezuela. I don’t agree about killing leftwing a##holes. Until…

  10. The great owl says that when cutting down a useless tree:

    First, cut off the outer lighter leaves and twigs.
    Second, cut off the inner heavier thicker branches.
    Third, begun cutting down the tree trunk.
    Fourth, plant a new tree. Water and cultivate it.

  11. If you follow politics, it’s pretty obvious that he’s referring to e.g. the Castro regime, or the Maduro crew in Caracas, and that those regimes richly deserve to be overthrown, with violence if there’s no other way.

    But I agree that if you’re a low-information voter, or a lefty, it can certainly be read as advocating domestic political violence in the US.

    • Yup.

      The TTAG PC outrage machine led by Triple Chin wants something to whine about just to be different.

      • Unlike Michael B. I actually enjoy thinking for myself and not being a mindless cheerleader whose only rhetorical device when challenged is resorting to ten year old name calling.

    • Yup, leftist claim to be highly educated yet they couldn’t find Venezuela on a map if challenged, let alone explain its political history. They just like to yell emotionally and invoke names of people they don’t truly know anything about, they just know the names, “Che Guevara! Castro! Chavez!” But they couldn’t for the life of them tell you who Simon Bolivar is.

    • I would argue that it requires either an intentional effort to mislead or deliberate obtuseness not to grok the basic meaning of what Reynolds says. If he’d have instead said that had he been a German in ’39 that he’d have been gunning for Hitler would we be drawing parallels to threats against FDR? If so the concept is absurd and not supported by the comments he made.

  12. Lotta hate going on here, today.

    I’ve been reading Instapundit since almost the beginning, pre-9/11. I’m not defending Reynolds politics, only his right to express an opinion, and IMHO theres a bit of snark behind that comment, which you would not get if you weren’t familiar with the tone and content of Instapundit.

    Reynolds is rare in the blogosphere in that he:
    1. Is a prolific thinker, with many articles in constitutional law, which is what he teaches at U T, and many books- check out Amazon.
    2. Is a particularly thoughtful linker- and has essentially mentored other young bloggers, indirectly thru his links which thanks to the huge following of Instapundit, create “Instalanches” of views on newer bloggers.
    3. Helped found PJMedia, which is emerging as one of the key conservative/independent outlets for very good writing- if you havent been there, you should.
    4. Most important for me- having been a voracious news reader interested in foreign policy since school in 70s, with some military and economic research background, I know how hard it is to get good open source info that is relatively untainted by ideology. Read enough and you start to see patterns and trends.

    Reyolds has been ahead of the curve consistently for some time, partly for his own scary smart ability to take in information and digest it, and I imagine also due to the network of wise readers from all walks of life who send him tips, emails, etc.

    Am I a fanboy- sure, if you call being well-prepared as I can be, on things that matter to me, like where is the culture going in the US, what are trends overseas and in media, that impact us, and me and my family. Sort of the same reason I read TTAG, which is a small slice of all that, and the canary in the coal mine of freedom, that 2A rights represent.

    I do NOT pretend to know more than anyone else- I simply observe and learn. And where I can, use it to my benefit. OODA, if you will.

    PS: I do expect that Instapundit, just as TTAG is showing early signs, will be trolled by those who fear the influence of free thought and opinion.

    • PS: one last point- RF is a sly fox, and you careful readers will note he likes to stir things up, IMHO, with “racy” ledes to articles- that dont necessarily always accurately reflect the context of the piece, which was about the rapid descent into totalitarian state police abuse of its citizens. And the historical comparisons, to past trends, and current affairs is what is relevant to discussions here at TTAG.

      And its interesting to read how comments by readers evolve, and become their own value-added attraction, or not, to the parent site. I get a LOT out of TTAG from the gun-smart and street-smart posters here, for example, and some insight from those further along the road, in life experience or intrinsic savvy, so thanks again, you know who you are.

      One of my favorite comments at Instapundit is this:

  13. Shoot them! In Venezuela? Probably with your gun. Since they don’t believe in ’em.

Comments are closed.