trump department of justice gun supreme couert
(AP Photo/Eric Jamison)
Previous Post
Next Post

Trump Administration Throws its Hat into Supreme Court Gun Case

By now we all know about New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. City of New York, and Wednesday was the due date for amicus briefs in that case. The plaintiffs got a lot of support from amici, “friends of the court,” who write to help guide courts to a fully informed decision in the case.

This time, though, the Trump Administration joined the fray, filing a brief in support of New York’s Rifle and Pistol Association. Their arguments didn’t break any new ground, but it’s nice to see the administration supporting gun rights given its troubled history with the subject.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the gun law world . . .

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (AP Photo/Vincent Thian)

New Zealand Doesn’t Get Us

It’s getting tiring writing about this tiny Pacific island country, but bringing you the news is my cross to bear. In an interview with CNN, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she doesn’t understand why the United States has “failed” to change its gun laws in the wake of mass shootings.

The interview made headlines on Wednesday, as the kiwis have tended to do whenever they talk about guns as of late. As I’ve said before, New Zealand’s confusion makes sense. Their legal infrastructure has no entrenched framework of rights beyond the reach of parliament, unlike ours. Gridlock is a gift from our founding generation.

U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Kamala Wants to Ban AR-15 Imports

In a particularly daft display of a lust for executive power, 2020 presidential hopeful Kamala Harris vowed to ban the importation “of AR-15-style assault weapons” if she were to be elected president. If this comes to pass, it will be a crippling blow to both foreign AR-15 manufacturers. Whoever they are.

The joke is twofold: one, almost all AR’s are made in-country. Obviously. Two: George Bush Sr. already did what Harris vows to do decades ago. This is why you’re hard pressed to find a new AK or otherwise with a foreign made receiver. The American gun market is boring enough. Let’s not bodge it up with still more executive decisions to drive up the price of neato foreign made guns.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (AP Photo/James Nord, File)

South Dakota Sets Municipalities Straight

Earlier this year, Governor Kristi Noem signed a package of bills into law, lifting restrictions on firearm possession. The laws aim to make state gun law more uniform, preventing cities from restricting gun possession, as well as relaxing carry restrictions. City governments met this week to get ahead of the reform and relax local gun restrictions.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Forget legal battles and international gun-grabbing schemes. I want to know why the prime minister of New Zealand seems to be holding a press conference in front of a wall of a/c plywood.

    • Screw the plywood, the majority of her audience are women. Mad Moms maybe? Always a go to starting point for an anti-gun agenda.

    • She looks *exactly* like a Hollywood villainess. Bony features, permanent scowl, superior attitude of a college lecturer, and just a touch of the too-intense “crazy eyes.” How the hell were NZers taken in by this ambitious scold? Was the opposition even sketchier?

    • Laughing my ass off on that comment. That was good. Most of the New Zealanders are keeping their semi’s. The news won’t tell you that.

    • Take a good, long look at the prime minister. That’s a man in drag and, no, I’m not kidding. “She” is as male as Michelle (Michael) Obama.

    • I would be happy to give the good New Zealander a tour deep into the woods of Appalachia… and leave her there alone. If she’s able to navigate herself out then maybe she will emerge with a new respect for America’s “failure.”
      Perhaps others among us can give her a tour of south Chicago.

    • Here is a very serious question? United Nations or not, what does New Zealand or any other country have to do with Laws or voting in America?
      New Zealans has it’s own laws and we are not involved same as any other country. Seems like we are already SOCIALIST!!! Get to out of Americas business and stay out where it concerns our Constitutiinal Rights!

  2. Trump is a mixed bag. But he just keeps appointing justices. Which, in the long term, is going to help us.

    hillary or bernie, on the other hand, were not mixed bags. Straight up ‘turn them in America’. And could you imagine those idiots appointing federal justices?

    • Very balanced post.

      Thank you.

      Even foul smelling farts give a form of relief.

    • Yup, good points. Trump may not have gun rights as constitutional and conservative as we do, but he’s still repairing those cracks in the damn holding the Democrat floodwaters back. Those judges will be a blessing when the Democrats are back in control. I think we should never allow another Demonrat an office position again, but Americans we tender todder left again, and we’ll be praising Trump for his diligence on so many levels. MAGA 2020!!

      • Damn, so glad you caught that. I missed it. If you had not pointed it out I would have gone on thinking that jwm made some good points. Changes the whole meaning of his post. Or maybe he meant ‘justices’. I’m so confused now.

      • Not so…. a judge ruled…. Judge Jones ruled, The Book of Judges is found in the Bible.
        Internet Free Dictionary
        plural noun: judges
        a public official appointed to decide cases in a court of law.
        synonyms: justice, magistrate, His/Her/Your Honor; More
        3rd person present: judges
        form an opinion or conclusion about.
        “it is hard to judge whether such opposition is justified”
        synonyms: form the opinion, come to the conclusion, conclude, decide, determine;
        Oxford English Dictionary
        judge NOUN
        1A public officer appointed to decide cases in a law court.

        ‘he is due to appear before a judge and jury on Monday’
        ‘a High Court Judge’
        More example sentences Synonyms
        1.1 A person who decides the results of a competition.
        ‘a distinguished panel of judges select the winning design’
        More example sentences Synonyms
        1.2 A person able or qualified to give an opinion on something.
        ‘she was a good judge of character’
        More example sentencesSynonyms
        2A leader having temporary authority in ancient Israel in the period between Joshua and the kings.

        See also Judges

      • Nine Justices make up the current Supreme Court: one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.
        ( Justices was the correct term.)

    • Trump is only “straight up turn ’em in” for a couple hundred thousand folks, so I guess you do have a point.

      So looking ahead, beyond Trump; do you think we deserve better? Or will you settle for ‘better than annihilation at the hands of an historically inept & disliked opponent’ again?

      • I’m not looking beyond Trump, right now. We need to ensure that the GOP keeps the senate and the whitehouse for 2020. I’ve never liked Trump but I like that he’s picking the judges. We need four more years of that.

        As for deserve? In a fair and just world we deserve a lot of things, not just guns. But I’ve never seen this fair and just world.

      • barnbwt,

        By all means, if there is a candidate for President of the U.S. who will enthusiastically support our unalienable right to keep and bear arms and who WILL win the election in 2020, I will be casting my vote for him/her.

        In the (almost guaranteed) event that no such candidate exists, I will be voting for Trump:
        (1) NOT because he is an excellent candidate. Rather,
        (2) because he will continue to appoint justices to federal courts that support our right to keep and bear arms.

        Refusing to vote for Trump is helping the civilian disarmament forces win.

    • Whoop dee damn doo-doo, indeed. What’s really sad is to actually read the supposed ‘support’ the DOJ gave to the plaintiff; they believe NYCers should be able to carry guns to their second house as well as the gun range! LOL

  3. Of course the New Zealand tyrant doesn’t understand us. she thinks that everyone has to do what they’re told when they’re told. Nice that we have a written Constitution that helps stand between us and the would be a tyrants here. There they just have a set of principles, she can feel free to ignore.

    • She, and her kind throughout the former British Empire are exactly why we have a Constitution which lists individual rights. Those countries, once colonies, still follow the same form of government, laws, and rights they did under George III. Under his rule, we colonials were discriminated against, our rights violated in the same ways the left seeks to do. The Founders gave us a system which wrote our rights in stone and mandated that the government always respect those rights.

      Commie loving socialists seek now to do as George III. They have been stacking the decks for decades through unions, take over of the educational system, control of the media, packing the courts with liberal judges who do not follow the laws, but make new ones based upon their own personal views, ad nauseum.

      We had a POTUS who sought to turn things around but he was up against a solid wall. That was Reagan who wanted to o what he did for Californians when he replaced Pat Brown (Moonbeam’s father) and restored the state economy and more. How did Reagan get elected in CA? Even the liberals finally realized what Brown was doing to them. It was a bummer that after Reagan saved the state, the liberals turned back to their liberal leadership.

      Trump is the first since then who supports the founding principles, which, contrary to leftist think, is based upon Judaeo-Christian principles. That business owners and investors build businesses, not the people. That it takes right thinking parents to raise a child to be a good citizen, not a village.

      If we are to survive, we must maintain control through at least 2020, or we must be prepared to shed blood. We have a wonderful leader in Trump. Not “great” although history will likely record that he was… just as history is already showing that Obama and Clinton were failures.

      He may not do everything right, but, until someone better comes along, I’ll support the direction he is trying to take us.

      • “we have a Constitution which lists individual rights.”
        “system which wrote our rights in stone”

        It doesn’t list them. The individual possesses far more than are enumerated in the Constitution. It explicitly protects some of the most endangered by tyranny. That’s a very important distinction; that we have unalienable individual rights beyond just what are protected explicitly in the Constitution.

      • One of the reasons maybe Trump does not get everything right, is because he has not been in politics for very long, as opposed to some of those other people. It’s why so many of the swamp people are giving him shit……he hasn’t been in Washington long enough to learn that you must play “their game” in order to get along, and he says he would rather not. He wants to make up the rules for his own game.

  4. Not that it’s a big deal to me but I wonder what if anything he said about scrutiny. I do not wonder strongly enough to read it.

    • I’m afraid I’d have to vote elsewhere; my grandpappy would have been surely killed air-striking Japan, and I wouldn’t have been born to vote in the first place. Nothing personal, lol

      • Actually the atomic bombs were not dropped to save American lives or end the war quickly because Japan had offered to surrender unconditionally 3 months before they were ever dropped. Truman had a variety of nefarious reasons for committing mass murder on helpless civilians who were living in an area the U,S. admitted was not a military target rather it was a terror target of opportunity.

        Truman wanted to terrorize the Russians who had already invaded and occupied two of Japans Islands and are still there to this very day over 3/4 of a century later.

        Truman wanted to justify spending vast amounts of tax dollars to develop the bomb when he ran for re-election and he wanted to get political points as the avenger of Pearl Harbor.

        Truman was also known for being a rabid racist he not only considered Asians all to be sub-human but he hated East Europeans as well and was the prime mover in banning immigration of them when he was a Congressman.

        Even Winston Churchill, known for his ruthlessness was appalled when he learned Truman had incinerated so many helpless civilians in not one but two cities. In a meeting with Truman, Churchill who was as big an asshole as Truman asked Truman right to his face in front of a group of influential people “What did it feel like to kill tens of thousands of civilians in a single instant”. Truman’s face went ashen and he said nothing. For an instant at least the bastard had a guilty conscience.

        • I ask for citation as well. I’ve read that the American command estimated up to 1,000,000 casualties in an invasion of the Japanese homeland. Have you any cause to dispute that?

        • There have been volumes of books written about the unnecessary dropping of the atomic bombs as well as many specials run on TV during the various anniversaries of their dropping. On line you can read what many military experts have said about it. Its interesting to note that all of America’s top WWII Generals condemned the dropping of the bombs as totally unnecessary including General Eisenhower, General McCarther, and General Bradly. The U.S. has never denied that Japan had offered to surrender unconditionally 3 months before the dropping of the atomic bombs. The U.S. had to come up with a lame excuse to justify their use of mass murder on a scale in human history so horrific the entire world condemned it and that was that Japan wanted a guarantee that their Emperor would not be executed.

          General Douglas McCarther that spent decades in the Far East urged Truman to acquiesce to this Japanese request or face continued guerrilla warfare for years to come. Truman followed MacArthur’s advice so the excuse that he continued the war by delaying its end until the Atom bombs were ready to be dropped simply proves the governments excuse for dropping them had not one shred of validity from day 1. Again the U.S. Government admitted as early as 1945 that the Japanese had indeed volunteered to end the war 3 moths before the bombs were dropped.

          I might add the delay in ending the war actually cost thousands more lives especially American ones because the ship that brought the first bomb was sunk by a Japanese submarine that killed over 800 Americans and the loss of hundreds of U.S. Airmen in the ongoing air war over Japan was all totally unnecessary.

          I also forgot to add that the U.S. businessmen did not want half of Japan lost to the Russians either as the loss in trade would have cut into their profits that they knew would come after the war and so it did with more and more U.S. manufacturing jobs being sent there as well as U.S. mfg. goods being imported into Japan after the war. In other words business blind greed also contributed to the dropping of the Atomic bombs.

          In many ways the dropping of the bombs backfired as the U.S. being the only Nation ever to use such inhuman weapons branded it as evil as Nazi Germany was and the entire rest of the world condemns it to this very day including a large portion of the U.S. population especially the people who are products of higher education. The resulting paranoia and panic throughout the U.S. after the bombs were dropped resulted in a wave of people building ridiculousness fall out shelters that would be entirely useless in an atomic war. They would only delay the inevitable i.e. the end of human life on the planet.

        • Vlad Tepes,

          I need an incredibly reliable citation before I will believe that Japan offered to surrender unconditionally three months before the U.S. dropped the atomic bombs.

          Everything that I have reviewed illustrates a Japanese culture in which surrender was unthinkable. And I have heard repeated stories that the Japanese military default policy was to execute everyone who surrendered. Given that back drop, I can plainly see how nothing short of two atomic bombs (utterly and totally annihilating two large cities) would be the only thing that convinced Japan to surrender.

        • vlad, ‘America is evil and sucks’ is not a citation.

          It’s an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions, right?

        • Atomic Weapons Were Not Needed to End the War or Save Lives

          Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.

          But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.

          The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

          Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

          General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

          The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

          Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

          Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

          In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

          During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

          Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

          It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

          The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

          General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):

          MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

          Moreover (pg. 512):

          The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.

          Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):

          I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.

          Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:

          I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.


          In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.

          War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

          He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):

          It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.

          Alfred McCormack – Director of Military Intelligence for the Pacific Theater of War, who was probably in as good position as anyone for judging the situation – believed that the Japanese surrender could have been obtained in a few weeks by blockade alone:

          The Japanese had no longer enough food in stock, and their fuel reserves were practically exhausted. We had begun a secret process of mining all their harbors, which was steadily isolating them from the rest of the world. If we had brought this project to its logical conclusion, the destruction of Japan’s cities with incendiary and other bombs would have been quite unnecessary.

          General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:

          The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

          The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):

          [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.


          Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.

          Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:

          Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

          Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

          I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.

          Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.

          Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):

          When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.

          Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:

          The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]

          British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”

          On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”

          Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?

          Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities.

          For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):

          I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation…

          It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…

          General George Marshall agreed:

        • Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”

          As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

          Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed

          Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.

          As historian Doug Long notes:

          U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).

          Politicians Agreed

          Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):

          The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.

          Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):

          In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

          If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.

          Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?

          If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?

          One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys:

          On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out . . . .” He further stated, “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it.”

          However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan.

          Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) – said differently:

          “A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb.” In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political – diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.

          Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defense in 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb:

          We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.

          Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).

          The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.

          The Real Explanation?


          In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

          New Scientist reported in 2005:

          The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

          Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

          “He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”


          [The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.


          New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

          According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

          “Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

          John Pilger points out:

          The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.

          We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:

          Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.


          Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.


          The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.


          Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.

  5. Stupid though Harris’ words may seem brushing off what she said would be just as stupid. If she got such an insignificant victory it’d only bolster her supporters as they spin it as a nationally affected gun control ban on AR-15s. Now it’s a shorter leap to further restrict or ban AR-15s within the nation or to further restrict or ban importation of other MSRs.

  6. It’s nice to see feminazi Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern ‘without’ her burka on.

    • It’d be a lot nice if the picture was her inside a casket, by the hands of New Zealanders who stood up for themselves.

      That’s my german style joke telling. Laugh.

  7. “This time, though, the Trump Administration joined the fray, filing a brief in support of New York’s Rifle and Pistol Association. Their arguments didn’t break any new ground, but it’s nice to see the administration supporting gun rights given its troubled history with the subject.”

    Too bad he violated the Constitution,to infringe on “We The People” and by dictate ban Bump Stocks.
    Then his ever popular,not,”Take The Guns First Then Worry About Due Process”

    Eff New Zealand,they are not the United States and thankfully we are not them.

    • Bump stocks are neither guns or weapons. I did not even realize they existed prior to Las Vegas. No one who values gun control and marksmanship would ever use one. I believe this was done to help satiate the public outcry at the time of the Las Vegas massacre, without actually going after weapons. I for one will not morn their demise.

      • That fact didn’t stop the BATFE from reclassifying bump stocks as machine guns. The point went way over your head. It’s not about bumpstocks it’s about whether a president can ban something by fiat. Plus you’re implying Trump had to do anything about bumpstocks which he didnt even take action on till after Parkland. The antis openly tried pushing gun control since then so let’s stop pretending it was to appease anyone.

        • It’s an accessory designed to skirt existing automatic weapons laws no matter how it’s classified. Even the NRA didn’t see the value in making this a battle. “The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles ‘should be’ subject to additional regulations.”

        • “Even the NRA didn’t see the value in making this a battle.”

          Negotiating Rights Away doesn’t fight for the exercise of the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms. It steadfastly promotes privileges instead. It shouldn’t be a surprise that the premier gun control asset organization was for the unconstitutional infringement. Trump and the NRA aren’t worth shit when it comes to actual rights. If anything, they are a safety valve, a placebo, a danger to liberty. But, the fools can’t see it; or they don’t want to.

        • The NRA bent over and took it, no lube. Fuck those cowards. They should have stood their ground for that stupid piece of plastic because that’s all it was. Instead, they did what they do best: Submitted and continued to collect.

  8. I made similar comments in another news regarding Jacinda Ardern and he opinion of the US “gun culture” and I was trolled as an insensitive bully by many that do not know their rear ends form a hole in the ground and are overwhelmed by “touchy feelings” instead of logic.

  9. The amicus brief, submitted by the Trump aministration, appears to give a passing nod to “the right to bear arms,” then transmutes “bear” to mean only secure transport. Suggesting the Second Amendment only protects transport in a manner that virtually prohibits any meaningful access for the core right of self defense.

  10. The U.S. will never break weak like the Citizens of Australia because we have a Bill of God Given Rights that no person shall tamper with. Among those rights ,and they are rights of the individual from GOD, is the right to keep and bear arms. No Demotard wannabe Tin Horn Dictator, black robed tyrant or President with executive orders can touch any of those rights. Matter of fact when you get down to the actually wording of the 2nd Amendment all laws hindering us from buying, owning and carrying the firearm of our choice “Any Firearm” are unconstitutional and possibly could be construed treasonous since the Founder all stated the citizens are the nation’s last line of defense.

  11. If by some miracle with dead and illegal clinton voters Kamala became Potus the next day would be pitchforks and torches in the streets.

    There is no Dem running who believes in #2a …i can’t believe given their education they don’t understand the Constitution..

    They just want to hoodwink the public into believing we are a democrazy where govt writes and passes its own laws.

    I mean to watch the crazy CNN,MSNBC,NBC,CBS,ABC witch hunts and other libtard news ur not operating with a full deck…if u can’t see the daily lies since 2016 and b4 smashed in ur face.

    • “If by some miracle with dead and illegal clinton voters Kamala became Potus the next day would be pitchforks and torches in the streets.”

      That would be the best thing that could happen to liberty in this nation. Without some rebellion, it will wither and die.

  12. “…New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she doesn’t understand why the United States…”

    That sounds like something that could be easily fixed. In this day and age with most smart phones having internet access bringing the combined knowledge of the entire world into the palm of your hand anybody who doesn’t understand something is just being willfully ignorant.

    In her case there is a heavy does of arrogance too, but that is a separate issue (two legs baaaad)

  13. Kamala and any other Dem. needs to take a powder! You all need to stop trying to take our right to bare arms and keep our government from disarming it’s people! The people will not allow the government to rule over us! We put these people in office to represent us. Not their own personal views. So fare all I’ve seen is a move for socialism and that will never happen unless your planning to start another civil war? I refuse to allow our government to control rather then work with the people of the U.S.

  14. I don’t understand why any national leader would disarm their law abiding citizens and leave them vulnerable instead of encouraging them to defend themselves from the Crazies, the Criminals, or Enslavement by the Power Drunk State. Hopefully, the citizens of New Zealand will throw here out at their earliest opportunity. Remember, you will only be treated as badly, as you permit yourself to be!

  15. I don’t understand why any national leader would disarm their law abiding citizens and leave them vulnerable instead of encouraging them to defend themselves from the Crazies, the Criminals, or Enslavement by the Power Drunk State. Hopefully, the citizens of New Zealand will throw her out at their earliest opportunity. Remember, you will only be treated as badly, as you permit yourself to be!

  16. The Prim Minester of New Zealand is about as realistic as a plastic gun it looks real but it ain’t real the People of New Zealand joined the long proud Heritage of bending to Islam the three Idiots that attacked the two Mosque in White Chapel New Zealand were Communist Terrorist Stalinist to be exact they were not Christians they were not followers of Donald Trump they were evil and it would have been much worse if a Muslim with a gun in his truck had not returned fire the knee jerk reaction of banning all Semi Automatic rifles was just asinine! The rifles that were used were retooled to be Full Assault Rifles no longer were they A. R. 15’s (Armlite Rifle Model 15’s) they were M-4’s which were already illegal so this whole knee jerk Reaction was dreamed up by people no longer living in the real World Criminals never obey laws period, Terrorist do not obey Laws so this Knee Jerk Reaction will not save one person in fact it will only make the Innocent a bigger target. So this Prime Minister is nothing but a Royal Jester a Clown.

  17. I did not agree with a total ban on weapons in New Zealand but in a lot of “other ways” New Zealand’s Prime Minister Arden is right on the money. Anyone in the lawless U.S. can buy a second hand gun with no paperwork because second hand guns are not vetted in most states. Police reports prove beyond all doubt that these second hand guns also cross state lines from states that have lax laws to big cities in neighboring states that have tough gun laws providing a never ending source of weapons used in murders and crime and by lunatic terrorists (the majority who are white ultra conservative males) and suicides by young depressed children. Many times first responder’s can save a suicidal person that has tried to hang themselves, drown themselves or deliberately overdose on even legal medication but very few times can a person be saved who has blown their brains out with an un-vetted second hand gun or a gun shiftless, irresponsible parents left loaded and laying around the house for children to pick up and either accidentally or on purpose kill themselves with.

    There are few if any laws that demand a person take a mental examination before buying a weapon and even if there were such a law the person who failed the exam would simply resort to buying an un-vetted second hand gun as his most easy choice. Buying a stolen gun would be his second choice but studies prove its often slower and more frustrating for the average nut case or criminal who wants or needs a gun immediately.

    I was once in a bar when I was a young man and to prove a point said in a loud voice to complete strangers (most of whom were already all stinking drunk) “Hey guys I need a pistol, anyone have one for sale”. Much to my shock 3 guys sitting in a row at the bar suddenly slapped down pistols and revolvers on the bar and said , “take your choice” we are running out of money for more booze”. When even the bartender then slapped his gun on the bar and said “you can buy this one because I got a lot more” that really almost made me faint. Now you know how fast second hand guns can be bought by anyone who wants them and at any time of the day or night.

    The second source of guns used in mass murder, robberies and suicides are stolen guns. This is because most if not all states do not have laws demanding guns be locked up in a safe. All a nut case or criminal has to do is break a window and scoop up all the ammo and deadly weapons he wants. It happens every day and happens by the tens of thousands of instances. If there ever was a country that was run by lunatics for lunatics its the U.S. where the word “sanity” is not part of the vocabulary.

    Yes requiring guns to be locked up, prospective buyers required to have a sanity test and the vetting of all gun purchases are simple concepts that have been implemented in all other civilized countries and their purpose easily understood by even the mentally challenged. Too bad the average U.S. gun owner is not able to even be considered that intelligent. They are their own worst enemies because as the mass murder not only continues but gets much worse it guarantees that draconian gun bans will eventually become law which may be as soon as the 2020 elections are over. Lets face facts two recent studies have shown gun ownership is down to between 37 to 42 per cent of the population and the majority of Americans are fed up to the gills over all the mass murders of their children at school and the gun battles in the streets between drug gangs. Do you really think that nothing will be done to stop it after the 2020 elections????

    Because of the “no comprise” attitude in the U.S. over the gun issue results in both sides out to annihilate each other in a winner take all fight which in the end benefits neither side, pro-gun or anti-gun. I guess it proves that the reason many European countries have way less mass murder and gun crime but still own weapons is that they have had people willing to comprise from a large pool of people who actually qualified as being sane. There are a few sane people in the U.S. but you will find none of them in Congress rather you will find only the greedy prostitutes of special interest groups.

    I might add last years attempted terrorist attack in Britain the terrorists found out they could not even buy a shotgun without proper vetting and paperwork and when they walked into a bar with razor blades to kill people they got the shit beat out of them by the patrons who used broken beer bottles and chairs. With no gun control laws people would have died by the hundreds that day but if the terrorists had done this in the U.S. the terrorists could have bought all the ammo and deadly weapons they wanted in minutes.

    Its interesting to note that in the late 80’s Britain had a school shooting and the Brits said “that’s it no more school shootings” and they have had none since then, thirty some years ago. I guess that really shows how NRA propaganda to the contrary is nothing more than bullshit to their hard core followers who believe anything they are told or want to hear i.e. that we have not yet reached the desired gun saturation point. Even the howling of lunatics in asylum are not that deafening.

    Only yesterday we had yet another “attempted” mass murder at a school and two other successful mass murders and shootings at schools in the last 14 days. The World is asking “Is there any sanity left in the U.S.? The answer is no, because we never had any from day one which was back in 1776 and today Congressional Prostitutes will make sure no sanity is ever implemented either. Big money talks and sanity walks in the U.S.

    Just remember you who are reading this are not immune from losing your own children or grand children in a school shooting and at the funeral you will recall reading my post and how you did nothing to stop all this insanity. I personally would not want to carry that guilt to my grave.

    Not so long ago school shootings, especially by children and terrorist attacks by mostly deranged conservative white men was almost unknown. Wages have stagnated in the last 50 years but prices have not and women were forced into the workforce leaving children to raise themselves. Economic pressure from low wages and increased cost of health care have put so much pressure on marriages that most today end in divorce and the children grow up with severe trauma and mental problems. Its no surprise they crack under the strain and go to school and commit mass murder. Its not going to go away and its definitely not going to get better and the proliferation of un-vetted firearms many of which are left just lying around the house has been a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions.

    I might add that affordable mental health care has been blocked time after time by Republican Prostitutes of the Insurance Companies. In a way the Republicans are actually the bigger enemies of gun owners than the Far Left kooks that want to ban all guns.

    In the end the law abiding gun owner gets all the blame but since he did nothing to stop the insanity he has no one to blame but himself when he loses all his guns simply because he refuse to do anything at all about it while marching memorized and thoroughly brainwashed to the well oiled propaganda machine of the NRA which insanely cries we have not yet reached the nirvana and totally Utopian gun saturation point.

    Meanwhile the civilized industrial world goes to bed at night saying to themselves “Thank God I do not live in the U.S. and have to worry about my children being gunned down at school”

    The U.S. is now a country run by the insane for the insane and the graveyards full of children prove it to all but the totally insane. The Prime Minister of New Zealand may have passed a draconian gun law and went to far but she is definitely not insane either.

  18. Dear Vlad, one your namesakes from history named Vlad impaled 20,000+ Moslem Turks that invaded his country. He had balls… as opposed to you, who would wimp out.

    Now, first of all you know nothing.

    Let me teach you a few facts. My favorite person, Jesus Christ, after he arose from the dead said this this disciples:
    Luke (22:35-38): “……….It is different now, whoever has a purse had better take it with him, and his pack too; AND IF HE HAS NO SWORD, LET HIM SELL HIS CLOAK TO BUY ONE.”

    Who can go against the word of God ? ???

    Another thing of great interest is this fact:
    Americans commit just 3.7% of the world’s murders, despite having 4.4% of the world’s population and 40% of the world’s firearms and have 10 times the number of guns per capita as the rest of the world. I hope you realize from this that Americans are unusually peace loving as a people.

    So why is America so much more peaceful than the rest of the world? Because we are just too good and we have a lot of guns…

    As far as New Zealand, this little tidbit explains everything:
    Jacinda Ardern was the former President of the International Union of Socialist Youth, and is current Prime Minister of New Zealand.
    This of course explains her view on the rights of people to defend themselves. She’s just a typical commie/socialist self-approving stupid idiot that savors the joy of destroying all rights and creating subjects, instead of citizens.

    And finally you said:
    “The U.S. is now a country run by the insane for the insane and the graveyards full of children prove it to all but the totally insane. ”
    I wonder how the 100,000,000+ people killed by commie/socialist murderers were feeling as they lay dying because they had no right of self defense….

    • Quote—————-And finally you said:
      “The U.S. is now a country run by the insane for the insane and the graveyards full of children prove it to all but the totally insane. ”
      I wonder how the 100,000,000+ people killed by commie/socialist murderers were feeling as they lay dying because they had no right of self defense….—————–quote

      In the 1950’s a Catholic Priest told me as a young lad “When you point the finger at someone you have 3 fingers pointed right back at yourself”

      The U.S slaughtered 1 1/2 million Chinese during the Boxer Rebellion which was a war of rape, pillage and conquest by the U.S. and European Powers in 1896. It was fought over blind greed and power.

      The U.S. slaughtered 3 million Philippians people during the 1899 war of insurrection. Again it was for blind greed and power over the Islands. Even Teddy Roosevelt bragged it was U.S. destiny to become an Imperialist Power in the world. He never mentioned how many millions of people’s lives it would cost.

      The U.S. slaughtered 3 million Vietnamese during the Vietnam War which was fought over control of the rice and rubber trade not communism as Ho Chi Minh was a Nationalist, and an opportunist who played off the Japanese, the French, the Americans, the Russians and the Chinese and took them for millions in cash and arms and made complete fools out of all of them. He not only won out against all of them but today Vietnam is one of the most prosperous Asian small countries with a rapidly rising economy. About 2 years ago during the celebrations over the victory over American Imperialism in which many American Vietnam Veterans went to to show support and express their regret, the Vietnamese people said ” we never had it so good since we kicked the U.S. the hell out of our country.”. Ho Chi Minh has been called the 20th Centuries greatest Statesmen and a political and military genius.

      So the next time you point your finger and rant against other countries or other forms of government take a look at your own and remember to wipe the blood from your hands while you are looking at your own 3 fingers pointed back at your own nation and yourself.

    • quote——————-“I hope you realize from this that Americans are unusually peace loving as a people.—————–quote

      Jimmy Carter quote ” The U.S. is the most war like nation on the face of the earth”.

      I might add we spend more money on the military and wars of rape, pillage and conquest than any other nation on earth.

      You say peaceful? Read my above post on the millions of people we have slaughtered over blind greed and power over other countries.

  19. “Dear Vlad, one your namesakes from history named Vlad impaled 20,000+ Moslem Turks that invaded his country. He had balls… as opposed to you, who would wimp out.”

    I see you flunked world history. Vlad the impailer was outnumbered 10 to 1 and was fighting a guerrilla war against the Turkish invader. He used psychological warfare and it worked so well the Turkish invading Army who invaded his country turned tail and fled. I would not denigrate the man. He proved to be a superior fighter and general and by the way you do not know me and you might be very surprised if you went up against my generalship in a battle.

  20. Self protection is a universal right. It does not need legislation or approval. Weapons of all sorts fit into self protection category and cannot be denied to those that use them in self defense. Using them aggressively in nefarious means is the issue and accountability is the key to gun violence. Common sense folks, use you brain.


  22. Can anyone tell me when the last time a republican or democrat administration Filed an amicus brief in favor of 2A rights? This seems like a first.

  23. I am a patriot and I am rabidly pro 2nd amendment and even more rabid against any known form of gun-control! So I about fell out as I read Vald Tepes nutty replies. Why? Vlad Tepes was one of my older sc names! After reading a paragraph I realized Tepes ignorant rant was not mine and that was a great relief. I agree with1SG Retired the last of the old ones, their comments made as much sense as Mr. Tepes didn’t, which means they know how the world operates, you don’t!

Comments are closed.