“All St. Louisans have a right to live in a community free of gun violence. Law enforcement in the City of St. Louis struggles every day to use the few tools Missouri law provides to reduce gun violence and to keep guns out of the hands of those most likely to commit violent acts in the future. Their job is a tough one as they are forced to fight crime in an environment with too many guns, too few strong laws, and sometimes not enough support from other branches of government. It should be common sense that our communities are safer when weapons are kept out of the hands of convicted felons.” – St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay in Groups argue to keep Missouri’s law barring felons from having guns [at stltoday.com]
“Too few strong laws”?
WTF?
I didn’t know there were laws that are so “strong” that criminals will abide by them.
Those are the ones with underlined and bolded words. It lets potential criminals know lawmakers are serious.
“I’ll shoot the first one comes out the door, so’s to let ’em know our intentions is serious…” – Rooster Cogburn
(John Wayne in True Grit)
Their side says something this ignorant and our side shot a TV. #Winning!
Not enough traps to ensnare law abiding citizens in a tangled web that makes them felons, taking away their rights to defend themselves and vote. Those working middle class are the real enemies of politicians, what with their morals and such.
“The drug war is un-winable”
= legalize marijuana
“Gun laws don’t work” = be an f-ng worthless POS DICTATOR CAUSE I KNOW BETTER.
News Flash:
NOBODY gives a flying turd if the gateway city makes it now. Going full-on retard gun-grab is just gonna make people defect to the other side. You can rule St. Louis if upu wsnt to then, but you’ll have to do it from a spider hole in Iraq, or some new renovated property in Abattabad
I lol’ed. Just the tip, I guess.
If you can’t be trusted with a gun then you shouldn’t be among the population, period. The absurdity of laws restricting gun ownership for felons is beyond comprehension. Like all laws, they rely on voluntary compliance. ANYONE who wants to get a gun will. But, of course, we don’t even try to restrict felons from accessing say, kitchen knives, or baseball bats, or, what the heck, pressure cookers. Window dressing for the sheeple.
“If you can’t be trusted with a gun then you shouldn’t be among the population, period.”
When I hear that I think, any violent crime beyond murder (Assault, rape, etc) should result in life in prison without the possibility of parole. The reason I think that is because you can never know for sure if a criminal convicted of any serious crime is no longer dangerous.
Same thing regarding mental health issues, you can never know about someone that is committed and then claim to be better. Therefore they would have to be in a facility for life also.
If you believe that, that is your prerogative. I think that type of thinking goes against the 8th amendment, but hey that is just me thinking.
I don’t think as a society we want to go down that road. Therefore, we are where we are now with potentially dangerous individuals out on prisons and mental facilities.
Can’t lock of everybody forever so how do you manage from a societal standpoint keeping these people from acquiring weapons.
I think the point is, not lock them up forever, but more a recognition that the current rehabilitation system is incredibly flawed and is really what needs addressed.
Basically the public is the quality control system for the rehabilitation program. The state incarcerates them, “fixes them”, and release them in the public again, with the hope they are fixed.
I think that is the point. How do you ever trust someone who has been convicted of a violent crime and served their entire sentence and release? The criminal sentences for any crime is arbitrary and is not related to any rehabilitation of the convict.
I could make the same argument for certain mental illness. How can you ever truly know their mind and whether they have been rehabilitated (heck someone could have been rehabilitated and the mental illness to reoccur). Therefore, the only thing you can do is prevent them from having firearms.
The other point you make DKW of keeping felonss from getting guns is the point.
You can’t keep anyone from getting a gun
Let”s repeat that. You can’t keep anyone that is determined in getting one, from getting a gun.
For you to even suggest such a “solution” , is indicative of a complete denial of history, experience, and facts.
The “War on Drugs”? Nope, drugs everywhere, even in prison. Because who watches the watchers?
Chicago’s decade long, until recently, prohibition on private gun ownership. The result, one of the highest murder rates, by gun, any where in the world.
Prohibiting by law, an inanimate object, especially so easily made with hand tools, as the weapon shops of Pakistan shows, to stop criminals from being out laws, (those that break laws) is the height of delusion.
The point DKW, is being made that simply having a law that says all felons can’t own a gun, and then releasing them out into the public sphere is that we are trusting a felon to be law abiding enough to not carry a gun, but we are denying them the right to carry a weapon to defend their life from other human predators.
So the felons that have changed and no longer want to be criminals, are denied the ability to practice the right of a free person, and are treated as a sub-human class of peasants, peons and slaves and the true enrepentant felon will simply ignore the law and get a gun and continue being a predator.
So the point is being made, either give back thier rights after being punished for their misdeeds, including their gun rights, or keep them in jail, because this half-assed in between of being treated as a kind of sorta half human being and half slave is just wrong.
cry me a river. i really have no sympathy for an armed robber or rapist, and you have to be a total moron living in a purely philosophical world to think violent felons should get their rights restored. they tend to have a long history of violent and anti-social behavior and they rarely change.
on the other hand, i think we criminalize too much non-violent behavior, so i would favore a judicious program to restore rights to some non-violent felons.
“…so how do you manage from a societal standpoint keeping these people from acquiring weapons.”
You don’t, because you can’t.
You’re saying that you can never really trust someone who has been violent in the past to not be violent again. Then you’re saying we should trust that they won’t break the law that says they can’t have a gun. See the problem there? If someone wants a weapon badly enough, they very likely can acquire it, no matter what the law says.
that’s not a complete argument. sure criminals will get guns illegally, but the benefit in having a law forbidden violent felons from owning guns is that it makes it much easier to put away recidivist violent felons.
Agree with everything everyone states about a criminal will find a was to get a weapon.
I am only arguing against the people who state that if you can’t be trusted (i.e. criminals and mentally insane) to own a gun you need to be locked away. That is absolutely not realistic and only exists in a utopian society these people would set up that argue for this.
Recidivism typically happens in less than 3 years. If a convicted felon is released and makes it 3 years without violating his probation in any way, he’ll generally be ok.
So I see little wrong with restoring rights after this probationary period.
It’s not like the real killers care about what they are or aren’t allowed to do legally anyway.
DKW: I think you have your finger on the pulse of American society. We already lead the world in the percentage of the population we keep behind bars. What’s our next step?
We could double or triple the percentage of the population we keep being bars. We could make life-without-hope the standard sentence for any violent crime. But, we WILL NOT. As Americans, as our culture has long existed, we simply WILL NOT keep every dangerously violent criminal and crazy locked-up until he is mobile only with a walker.
The classes of citizens producing the criminals of our society will not tolerate an incarceration rate for their friends and relatives much higher than the present. The Progressives will not tolerate a higher incarceration rate. Those with a Judeo-Christian religious background will not give-up on the notion of forgiveness and second-chance. Accordingly, notwithstanding that keeping violent people in jail may be the CORRECT solution it can not be implemented.
We have to admit that there are going to be a large number of dangerously violent people walking among us. This is the Progressive agenda that is forced upon us. We must adapt; and, our adaptation is to defend ourselves by keeping and carrying an effective means to self-defense. This is the tactical argument. The Progressive agenda leaves the rational law-abiding citizen no viable alternative but to avail herself of her right guaranteed by the 2A.
We can – and do – prohibit dangerously violent people from keeping and bearing arms. However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to PREVENT them from violating the felon-in-posession laws. The only viable means of gun-control is to vigorously enforce the felon-in-posession laws. You may be an ex-con or crazy at liberty to walk among us; but you go armed only at peril to your liberty. This much the general public can be expected to understand.
Gun-control SHOULD mean felon-in-posession control. Gun-control at point-of-sale is futile. If the criminal/crazy can’t buy a gun himself he will have it straw-bought, or steal it, or get it on the black market. Guns will be smuggled or manufactured by cottage industry if they don’t leak from the legitimate market. All the gun control aimed at the legitimate market is a waste of effort; searching parolees, people on probation and ex-cons is the only potentially effective means of raising the price of illegal possession.
bullsh1t. Convicted violent felons may serve their time, but they never “repay their debt to society”. And THEY COMMIT FELONIES AT A MUCH HIGHER RATE THAN THE GENERAL POPULATION.
Since we aren’t willing to incarcerate most of them for life, they should be restricted from owning guns. They have proven that they cannot be trusted.
“Moron” ? Arron, hate to tell you buddy, but when you start throwing around the adhominems, you are the one that looks like what you accuse the other of being.
You know, the old saying of you have three fingers pointed back at yourself as you accuse the other of some failing.
Is your position “moronic”? Well, you are the one accusing yourself of such, but me, I would say as it being more of one of dehumanizing another human being. Also that if a predator lives past the prime criminal age of the late twenties and early thirties, they generally give up the criminal life and goes straight.
This is why the idea of having a probational period after getting out of jail. Show for five years that they have given up the criminal life, then they get back their rights. After all, It gives them a reason to want to be law abiding.
If I was young and had grown up surrounded by the thug life, not knowing anything different, if somewhere down the line, I hadn’t been killed, I might come to my senses and realize the law abiding isn’t so bad after all.
But as it is now, there is two lives for a felon; a life time as a subhuman subclass looked at with contempt by the law abiding and the criminal alike, or stay a criminal, feared and respected by fellow criminals, and feared by the general public.
And if they end up in jail, no big deal, all the criminals are on an equal footing with only improvised weapons avaliable and if you’re part of a gang, not too dangerous a time.
I believe this is one reason for the high recidivism rate. Why would a criminal pick a life of being a sub- human subclass forever treated as a non-entity, treated with contempt by everyone?
So yeah Arron, continue dehumanizing the criminals and those you disagree with, and continue getting what you are helping to create, a bunch of subhuman animals that have no reason to change.
As an addendum. Even a probational period, once the felon is out of jail in denying them their right to KABA is one day too much, but if more people can accept this denial of a human right for self-defense until they can regain all of their rights, so be it.
Unfortunately, the convicted individual in Ohio cannot refuse probation. If the convicted could refuse probation then it wouldn’t, IMHO, be as bad of a bargain. They can choose to be disarmed during probation or they can complete the full sentence and be able to exercise their RKBA upon release. This is not how it currently works in Ohio. I’m still not to keen on any bargain but if it is a voluntary one, the pill is easier for me to swallow.
Another problem is that OR (own recognizance) bonds in Ohio often contain a weapons prohibition. This is before the person is convicted of anything. I assume other bail/bonds have the same condition. Even though acceptance of a bond or bail is voluntary, people still need to take care of their families so the bargain is almost not really a free choice. I found myself on the receiving end of an unsubstantiated charge. The OR bond included a weapons prohibition and reporting probation. This was from arraignment. I wasn’t convicted of anything at that point. I didn’t really want to bond out but my wife and children needed me for financial support and protection. I was under credible threat of death for about a year before the false charges and my family was in real danger. Of course, the charge was false and the case was eventually dismissed. In the meantime, I was faced the choice of leaving my family at the mercy of economics and a group that wanted to hurt them to get at me or violate an unreasonable OR bond. This shouldn’t be in a free society.
Yep. Nothing like being mugged by the government to see the personal damage caused by these types of laws to “help” people.
I had the personal experience as a child of one of my sisters acting out and breaking things and being rebellious as she became a teenager. The court stepped in and decided they could do a better job in raising her than our family, so while in the system, she was drugged up, physically abused and she states she was raped. We were in the court system the entire time, we won, finally, but she came out of that nightmare absolutely crazy, hearing voices and on psych meds, so any accusations of this abuse was dismissed because she was considered an “unreliable” witness.
Would she have gone over the edge if she hadn’t been in that hell hole? We’ll never know. It might have just been a phase many teenagers goes through.
But I have a deep abiding distrust of everything that government touches in it’s attempt to supposedly “help” us.
Apparently laws against robbery, assault, and murder aren’t enough.
Nothing stops a bullet like a job, Mayor so how many jobs have you created?
It is delusional to think that poverty causes crime. It’s actually the other way around.
When you decide to be part of the culture of crime rather than getting decent grades and earning a high school diploma, you’ll be unemployable for several reasons. If you choose to make your neighborhood violent and dangerous, businesses won’t locate there and there won’t be anyone to work for.
There is an undeniable connection between crime and poverty, but the connection is not what liberals think it is.
i agree, mostly. culture causes violence and poverty.
Wait! Are you saying that a person is not a victim? That they are responsible for their own condition in life?
Hmm, a rather old fashioned concept, but one that our Founding Fathers and the early American Frontiers man and his family, carving a new life in a savage wilderness, would probably agree with.
See what I have to put up with? Just kidding, I live in the county…Just more political theater for the know-nothings. That somehow there is a law that will stop felons from getting a gun, forever, so that murder “can never happen again”. Guns are here to stay and will always be easy to get, some refuse to deal with that.
Do these people really not understand that laws are powerless to prevent? There is no such thing as law enforcement only punishment after a law has been broken if you should happen to be caught.
Either they are attributing to the law magical powers that do not exist within the confines of reality or they are maliciously attacking a free society by intentionally making everything illegal thereby opening up ever greater numbers to justifiable punishment at the hands of the state.
Moron or tyrant. Which is it? Either way they should be barred from public office.
You’re still an idiot, Frances. Criminals don’t obey laws.
And there is no such thing as a right to be free “from” anything.
I remember back in the 80s when my 10th grade history teacher taught about the two kinds of freedom: “freedom from”, and “freedom to”. He was very clear that “freedom from” was what communist governments brought, and that “freedom to” was what American individual liberty represented. I guess there are a bunch of people who never learned that. Either that, or they’re commies.
I’d vote for commies.
McCarthy was actually correct. When the commie from Russia was pounding his shoe on the table in the the US Congress in the sixties, he said that Russia would bury America as we became more communist. I believe he said that because he knew how prevalent the communist belief was rampant in the school system.
And see what has happened since the sixties. Liberal/progressive statism cancer in all facets of our culture, with it’s roots in communism.
He forgot to say “if it saves one life…think of the children…” Actually, since just about everyone in this country commits several felonies a day without even realizing it, maybe the gov should just lock everybody up. The streets would be safe and quiet then. Hey, it worked for Barney Fife.
It seems to work for North Korea in their “show cities”.
Restoration of rights should be automatic at twenty months following release, especially for non-violent felonies.
Yes, including convicted pedophiles and their right to work. Are there any openings at your kid’s school? Does your district participate in ex-con job fairs? After all, once someone has “paid their debt to society”, it’s time to restore all rights.
“…Yes, including convicted pedophiles and their right to work.”
If they are so dangerous to society, and in your example children, why are they being released from Prison?
Goes back to my comments above.
With recidivism rates of pedophilia, I think a proven pedophile should’n’t be released from prison. A life time sentence.
But one can always come up with exceptions to a “rule” when it comes to human beings.
But the premise is not ruled out by your example of pedophiles. In this case, a reasonable restriction would be not working directly with children. It leaves thousands of possibilities to find work for,a pedophile.
But when there a blanket denial of all felons, for life, even non-violent felons, there is no respite, there is no reprieve from a life time sentence , of being legally designated as a sub-human class, forever denied the ability to effectively defend ones life from predatory felons that decide they want to stay bad.
So no, your example is not valid, not even in the same class of what would be considered reasonable.
Pedos are a tough group, there is both a criminal act against the state and mental problem. In their case, I have limited problem with a convicted pedo working at my daughters school.
A convicted pedo should be incarcerated. On release, there needs to be further mental health commitment to determine the possibility of further harm – the threat isn’t random, but targeted. We know the targeted group and work to prevent harm to that group. If I target a a specific group for harm, yes, ensure I will not harm that group before placing me in governmental charge of members of that group. If the risk of harm is determined to be no greater than the average person, what’s the problem?
Seems to me that keeping guns out of the hands of felons convicted of certain violent crimes is a good goal. But so is keeping knives, rope, bats and anything else out of their hands, which is not practical unless they are in a very controlled environment, like a prison. Other felons, like Bernie Madoff, for example, (if he ever got out of prison) who cares if he has a gun or not ? He has no history of violence so why restrict his rights in that area ? On another note, nobody has a “right” to live in a community without gun, or any other kind, of violence. Reduced violence is a worthy goal but we should not let these politicians get away saying that a community without violence is a “right” because it is NOT. The Bill of Rights lists them and what he said is not one of those. Trying to make that kind of thing a “right” is a slippery slope to government control that can easily lead to control of every aspect of our lives by the government if we are not vigilant. Look at history for examples as they are all too common.
Regardless of the validity of that statement, St. Louisans have an unalienable right to defend themselves from violent attackers and any “measures” to reduce violent crime must NOT interfere with that right.
Of course a person cannot defend themselves with a pillow from a violent attacker which is why St. Louisan’s right to defend themselves includes the right to keep and bear arms.
It’s the carpenter, not the hammer. It’s the people, not the weapons. Again. Always. Safe, solid schools, good mentors and positive guidance, a sense of community, fighting poverty through education and training and job creation… all very difficult, all-consuming tasks. Passing a new gun law is easy, but solves nothing. Unless you count it as evidence you did “something” to help. In a flood do we pass laws against water? Do we take a stand against property damage? Does local media start an initiative to end water damage? Do we host water buy backs? Find the SOURCE and DEAL WITH IT in a meaningful way. All I can do us sandbag with situational awareness, lights, locks, alarms, and the means to defend myself. Also, I’m just bright enough to avoid real estate in a flood plain and just motivated enough to work to help my community as a father, teacher, BSA leader, and gun nerd.
Totally agree… So, please enact more common-sense laws that affect the criminals instead of the law-abiding citizens. Should be common-sense no-brainer for you educated government officials.
“All St. Louisans have a right to live in a community free of gun violence.”
No one has ever had such a right, not since the day Cain killed his brother Abel. What we do have is a right to attempt to protect ourselves from violence and to possess the tools to do that. And that right is what Mayor Slay has steadfastly campaigned to negate for his entire political career. Rather than advocating the violation of a real right in furtherance of a nonexistent right he should concentrate on laws punishing those actually committing the violence and allow the citizens to protect themselves.
My question for the mayor is very simple: show through empirical evidence hiw any proposed gun rule or law would actually make a positive difference.
i agree felons should be banned from owning guns. but they already are. that doesn’t prevent much crime, it only provides for a means to get them off the street when caught.
instead of new gun control, we need to control criminals.
“It should be common sense that our communities are safer when weapons are kept out of the hands of convicted felons.”
O RLY? “Convicted felons,” huh? From the Department of Redundant Redundancy comes this dotard mayor. It should also be common sense that a gun is the ordinary citizen’s best means of protecting himself against criminals, but let’s not set the bar too high, boss.
Too bad we don’t have a right to live free of free-flowing bovine excrement from pandering politicians.
+1
BULL****!!! Sorry I can’t say what I think.
This is all political theater designed to blame law abiding gun owners for the acts of the criminals.
What drives me to distraction is that these Utopian clowns actually believe that infringing the rights of the law abiding citizens so how regulates the law breaking of the criminal persons; or d they have another motive?
Violent felons who should never see the light of day are released from prison all the time, and then they repeat their crimes. We read the stories about their murders and cry “how did this guy get out of prison?” Then some morons want the same felons to be able to arm up easily so that they can do more damage. Unbelievable.
It’s understood that denying violent felons the right to have a gun can’t prevent them from obtaining weaponry, but it’s better than facilitating the acquisition — and it also allows for easier prosecution.
Nonviolent felons who serve their sentences, go through their probationary period AND MAKE FULL RESTITUTION TO THEIR VICTIMS should have all their rights restored.
If they aren’t in legitimate, lawful custody then the right to keep and bear arms ought not be infringed. When one is in legitimate, lawful custody then the proper guardian is responsible for that individual’s reasonable safety. It’s a simple concept, disarm someone and you become responsible for their defense as they would have been if they weren’t disarmed. In a properly armed society with few laws interfering with legitimate self defense and juries that understand jury nullification, first time and repeat violent offenders would be culled from the herd, probably in the first generation.
ETA: A truly free people must be individually responsible for their own safety. What we’re doing now is attempting to outsource that responsibility to government. It won’t work. Government gains in power, violent people still commit violence, and law abiding people are left in servitude; less free and vulnerable. We’re trying to pull off the safety for liberty trade and the result is that the typical law abiding individual ends up with neither.
A free and moral society needs very few laws because they are armed and, by and large, know right from wrong whilst possessing an innate desire to do that which is right.
It is interesting so few see the “obviousness of the truth”.
But there is a reason tyranny is the norm in history, so many have so many reasons to want to control others.
Sadly true. My words aren’t meant to insult anyone or demean their position. However, I am stunned at how so many people fail to see the connection. We can’t be free if we are turning to government for something so basic as the individual duty to protect themselves. Our government was implemented, in part, to augment self defense (military to protect the nation, court systems, etc) and not to replace that individual duty.
Francis Slay IS himself a tool that has failed to reduce violence.
“Their job is a tough one as they are forced to fight crime in an environment with too many guns, too few strong laws, and sometimes not enough support from other branches of government.”
Their job is a tough one as they are forced to fight crime in an environment with too many CRIMINALS, too few strong laws ENFORCED, and sometimes not enough support from other branches of government. IT’S YOUR WORLD FIX IT.
When Francis gives up his armed police officer driver, we can have a discussion. Otherwise, F**k OFF
Interesting that Missouri lets felons vote – see http://felonvoting.procon.org/sourcefiles/missouri-code-felon-voting-2012.pdf
Remember that all felons are NOT equal. A blood alcohol level above .08 is a felony in some states. Should someone convicted of a say cybercrime be prohibited from firearm ownership? Note: people have been convicted of cybercrimes under very flimsy circumstances. Or a plea deal in a weak case?
Note that Congress “overwhelmingly” voted to restore gun rights to felons last month – see http://controversialtimes.com/politics/congress-votes-to-restore-gun-rights-for-non-violent-felons/
Haven’t read the lawsuit – maybe it includes some statistics that makes a convincing argument against restoring rights. But prohibiting all gun ownership for all felons serves no useful purpose that I see.
+1
Most “Child Porn” charges are a result of guv not being able to ‘get’ someone they want to shut-up on other charges. Computer seized as part of the “investigation.” When it turns out that no charges will be filed, you get a letter to go pick up your computer. You have to sign for it, and the thing you sign contains a waiver/disclaimer saying that you’re receiving it in the condition it was taken.
Anything planted on it, you just owned it. Doesn’t matter if you can prove the timestamps, etc… You just bought yourself a felony conviction for Child Porn.
This BS was all the rage when computers were still expensive. Lots of Felons who are nothing but a victim of a government scam to discredit someone who is outspoken against a government agenda.
Thanks, Dustin – wasn’t aware of that. What I was thinking of were cases like http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/computer-hacker-andrew-auernheimers-conviction-is-overturned-by-appeals-court/2014/04/11/0744a3bc-c1bc-11e3-b195-dd0c1174052c_story.html , the governments’s case against Aaron Swartz (committed suicide over relentless prosecution even though the “victim” (MIT) declined to press charges, and numerous other instances of government overreaching / outright abuse of power.
So, if we make a law that says murder is bad and you better not do it; is that a strong law or a weak law? WTF does that even mean? Do these people have brains at all? the fact that some idiot politician with a microphone in his face would say something this profoundly stupid does not surprise or even bother me. The fact that there are so many people who listen to it and don’t catch on to what a load of crap it is, that’s what bothers me.
There’s a reason government wants to control the educational system; to keep people dumb enough to fall for this tripe…
Exactly how “strong” does a ban on gravity have to be before gravity finally stops? We all deserve to live in a world free of gravity holding us all down! Those damned Republicans and their gravity conspiracy, forcing us to buy cars and oil to get around when we could just flap our arms and fly…
I downloaded and am slogging through the citations in the City of St. Louis amicus brief at http://www.stltoday.com/amicus-brief-on-amendment/pdf_30f3bf50-fc6a-5292-b2d8-07dfd2a9aa3f.html (I don’t have a life). Am trying to find some nugget that might persuade me that STL has a valid point.
But I keep encountering things like “A 1998 study concluded that even “[h]andgun purchasers with prior misdemeanor convictions are at an increased risk for future criminal activity, including violent
and firearm-related crimes.” Wintemute, at 2083. That study further found that
“even handgun purchasers with only 1 prior misdemeanor conviction and no
convictions for offenses involving firearms or violence were nearly 5 times as
likely as those with no prior criminal history to be charged with new offenses
involving firearms or violence.”
Dear God – please save me from junk science and illogical reasoning.
I’m more of a tortoise than a hare, but now see how the game is played. Fund junk science, publish results, then use it as an authority to make an [invalid] point supported by a false premise.
Off to the range to unleash my frustrations.
My Bullshit Bingo card is full; I’m a winner.
When I hear/read that many gun control buzzwords and catch phrases in one paragraph, I know we have a lying gun grabber.
– gun violence (twice)
– keep guns out of the hands of
– common sense
– too many guns
– too few … laws
– our communities are safer when
– weapons are kept out of the hands of
We have all heard those lies from dozens of other gun grabbers before, and we “aint buyin’ it anymore”. Either get some new lies, or just shut up.
“All St. Louisans have a right to live in a community free of gun violence.”
Um, from where does that right originate?
And, perhaps, guns could be taught to be less violent. 8>)