Previous Post
Next Post

Shawn VanDiver (courtesy‘s editors have seen fit to republish a civilian disarmament screed from 2014 penned by Navy Vet Shawn VanDiver. (Seriously.) The self-professed “former weapons instructor” reckons the recent Mississippi revenge shooting at Delta State is reason enough to resubmit his gun control plan to the HuffPo’s anti-gun audience. Which is reason enough for us to fisk it again, and point out that his understanding of the Second Amendment’s stricture – the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed – is sorely lacking. Clock this . . .

Licensing, to be renewed every five years with full background checks and mental health screenings, is the first step. Adding a checkbox to a driver’s license and another form would make this easy to implement. My driver’s license tells folks that I am a donor; it could very easily also indicate whether or not I am a gun owner or authorized to carry concealed firearms.

Before you tell me how I am violating your rights by proposing a record of gun owners, note that the constitution does not say that you have the right to bear arms and not tell anyone. We regulate chemicals, elevators, airplanes, and financial transactions–and none of those are specifically designed to kill anyone.

I guess the Fifth Amendment’s right to silence – albeit during a criminal investigation – evaded Mr. VanDiver’s attention. That and the fact that the Constitution does say you have the right to keep and bear arms and not tell the government. More precisely, it prohibits the government from infringing on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms by requiring firearms registration.

If that’s not clear enough – and sadly it isn’t – there’s a little something called the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. That piece of legislation states:

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

But again, the Second Amendment. Question: would the Founding Father have regarded firearms registration a violation of the U.S. Constitution? Put it this way: did they resist surrendering their arms, ammunition and gunpowder to the British in Boston?

The next step is requiring 40 hours of training prior to license approval. I’m here to tell you that there is little value to having a firearm if one is cannot employ it tactically. I’m not saying we need owners to be trained to the level of Navy SEALs or SWAT teams, but if you claim to want these weapons to protect your home, then you should at least have a baseline knowledge. The training hours should jump to 80 hours for a concealed carry permit. This training should be done by the government to ensure consistency and quality control and should be covered by the tax on ammunition.

And finally, to pay for the licensing process and training as well as the background and mental health screenings, we can add a modest tax to ammunition sales (think five to ten cents per round–a manageable amount). This way, the costs are spread amongst those who wish to own guns. defines “infringe” as “to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress; to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon).”

If the government requires firearms training, that’s infringement – in the same sense that if the government mandated training for those wishing to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech that would also be a clear infringement. While we’re at it, government firearms taxation is also infringement – in the same sense that a poll tax is an infringement on Americans’ right to vote.

Yes I know: many states require firearms registration and mandatory firearms training. I’m also aware that there’s a federal tax on ammunition and state and local taxes on the sale of ammunition and firearms. Just as I’m aware that the NSA’s collection of “mega-data” infringes on the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection against indiscriminate search and seizure.

We can argue about the social utility of gun laws, but one thing’s of sure: they are unconstitutional. They infringe on Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. The same Constitution that Mr. VanDiver swore to defend and uphold. [h/t JM]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. PPFFFFFFT! What this country needs – since I was in high school in the sixties – is some real Americans as Civics/Government teachers. I had a great one, and he definitely shaped my life, even during my sorta leftist college years, he was always there somewhere, pointing me back in the right direction…

    Rev. Floyd T. Binns, this goes out to you, wherever you are. The high school I attended (Culpeper County High School) is now a middle school that bears his name.

      • I hope to join your ranks soon, gentlemen. With some luck, my family will be moving to good old Virginia and out of communist Maryland for good. Pray for us.

      • College student from Fairfax County (currently elsewhere). As a history major, I may well end up teaching in Loudoun County as well.

    • In our state, civics/government is no longer taught as a stand-alone course. What they learn about government these days is glossed over in about 10 minutes in “social studies”.

    • I had Mr. Hoggs . He was a little liberal , but wasn’t a pushy lib though , allowed us to think for ourselves , I actually leaned a little liberal as I think most young people do , because they haven’t started contributing into the pool yet . I was going to vote for Ted Kennedy when he sought the 1976 and 1980 nominations . Wow ! but two thumbs up for Mr. Hogg . Taught 11th and 12th graders civics and constitution and let students think . God bless .

    • He sounds less anti-Constitution than most US soldiers I’ve met. Most of them think that you shouldn’t have any rights or be allowed to vote unless you work for the government.

      • Man, your experience is totally different than mine. Pretty much all of the guys I’ve served with are all pro-freedom

        • I guess I should clarify I mean ENLISTED guys I’ve served with…don’t really know about officers. Officers I tended to stay away from to not get caught up when they had their “brilliant” ideas.

        • Almost all vets that I know from USMC, USA, and USAF are pro-gun and pro-freedom….USN vets seem to be a different story…most that I know (or know of), seem to be liberal/anti-gun Democrats…#1 on that list is James Florio, former Governor of NJ, that started the whole ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ nonsense in the 1980’s… He served four years on active duty and 18 years in the Active Naval Reserve… and was thrown out of office in 1993…His ban still stands today because of the Democrat majority in the legislature…no offense to all the right minded
          Navy vets out there…just anecdotal observation on my part.

        • As active duty USN my experience is completely different. Granted I’m a MA (Naval Military police) but, most of my coworkers both in rate (job) and those of different rates are pro gun and right wing with a few exceptions of my less intellectually capable coworkers.

      • You are not from here.
        Or you are but ate working for the other side.
        Or you are full of it.
        Or you are ‘talking’ to a ‘crowd’ that’s a JDAM short of perfection.

      • Huh? Couldn’t be further from reality. If that’s your take, apparently you need to get out and meet more of the great soldiers that defend us and our constitution. Where are the one’s you’ve met from? Serving a cushy appointed office job in D.C. perhaps?

      • In my experience low-ranking EMs and buck sergeants were pro-gun-rights. Senior NCOs and officers seemed reflexively against them, on average. I assume this is because officers think “if civilians have gun rights, soon enlisted men might have gun rights, and that would be risky for us!”

        I actually remember the day and hour that I realized, at age 18, how thoroughly I had given up my rights, freedoms, day and night, having joined the Army. I fought in the war, went to RW flight school, and soon got out of active duty. Went to college and law school….and never forgot the feeling of being made, and with needless thoroughness, a slave. I’d never let my son do the same thing. An officer can resign. An officer maintains the ability to rebel against a needless war on the other sided of the globe without being jailed. An EM? Nope. It isn’t difficult to understand the structure: No country can get the educated well-cultured affluent upper-middle class to serve as officers with worse terms.

        • Rope back up.

          F the “needless” overseas war crap.
          Weakness is provative, better to beat your chest and say you can’t wait for the next one. Wet-sh_t in the slightest only makes people think they might want a shot at the title.

        • Yep. But eventual it gets personal…and you didn’t get to pick the malefactor. Further, you’re keeping the title globally for who, exactly? I’m for greater freedom for the EM in their off time. It seems to me the all-volunteer army, so beloved of Cheney and Rumsfeld, puts a lot of distance between the citizenry and the politicians with their war choices. I’m reminded of “A Separate Piece,” the kid’s image of WW as just the amusement of some fat old men living richly in safety.

          I would rather politicians were closer to and more ‘of’ the people. I would also prefer that soldiers and sailors identified more with the life and towns they would eventually return to. And yet I know the pay, pension, and benefits (and the possibility of losing them) weigh heavily in the calculations of those with 20+ years or a medical.

          But yes, my preferences have to fold into a system that says to other nations “don’t you f’g even think about it!”

      • When I was in the Marine Corps, almost every Marine I met believed in Freedom and the 2nd Amendment. You must hang out with some guys who joined and then immediately regretted it, they were probably consciences objectors as well.

      • Just from my personal anecdotal experience, and I have said this before, I found Soldiers in my Reserve units more constitutionally minded then when I was in Active duty. I think actually have to live in the real world and hold down an actual job during the week will do that.

        Also anecdotal, but I also find the USN the worst out of all the branches when it came to 2a rights. Maybe it’s that closed ship mentality, I don’t know.

        • A big ship , closed up or on , for long durations could be similar to living in a big city . You can’t survive without community , collectivism , and the control of Big Brother ( government ) providing your protection and sustenance . I would assume that when these folks get out and start living a life of independence , if they ever do , they will come back around . God always favors the small over the weak and the individual over the collective , remember Babylon , the story of Noah , Esau an Jacob . Over and over the same theme . If you do not toss out your dependence on Him and forsake His love , grace and protection for technology and mans protection He will honor your sacrifices .

  2. I find it hilarious that a Navy vet, who took an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, thinks he knows best.

    I have found in my experience that I am just as proficient with any firearm as most active or retired military.

    So thanks to all you veterans for serving your country. But just because you served in the military doesn’t mean you know what is best for me or any other law abiding citizen

    From my cold dead hands.

    • Back in the 1990s the Australian military would compete against civilian target shooters in service shooting competitions, and nearly all the time they were well and truely beaten by the civilians.

      When we lost the self-loading rifles and had to revert to bolt-action rifles such ass Lee-Enfields, Mausers, Springfields, and Enfields, the squaddies thought they were going to sweep the field taking all the prizes. The result was the civilians trouncing the services by even greater margins. After that there was a ban on the services competing against civilian shooters. It was so embarrassing they didn’t want to play any more.

      When asked by a serviceman how we shoot so well I replied “Correct me if I’m wrong, but you shoot every few months with a pool issued rifle and issued ammunition. We use our own rifles nearly every week with commercial spec or handloaded ammunition. Who do you think is going to be better?” He didn’t correct me and agreed who would be better.

    • I too found it, to put it mildly, annoying that he started off his idiocy with the statement, “As a Navy veteran, I know how America should implement gun control.” Well, guess what, my dad was a Navy veteran, and he had precisely the opposite outlook on how America should approach gun control. My brother-in-law is a Navy veteran, and the same can be said for him. So just shuck any pretense that your Navy vet status is what makes you right or wrong on gun-control, Mr Guns-for-me-but-not-for-thee.

  3. For whatever reason, it seems like the overwhelming majority of veterans publicly supporting gun control were Navy.

    • Makes sense, the vast majority of sailors aren’t allowed to be armed at any time for any reason unless ordered by the Captain.

      • Something about being in a ship in a structure that closely resembles an ant colony kinda leads me to believe that sailors would be more likely to be anti-individual rights (read: freedom).

        Soldiers, marines, and even pilots shoot their enemies individually to some degree, sailors don’t.

        Granted I’ve never been in the armed forces, so if my comments are way off base, please ignore them.

    • Yes, only rich people should have guns. People with money and 80 hours of free time for government mandated training. And tax everything: guns, ammo, targets! And insurance, lots and lots of insurance! And attorneys!!! Oh, the rapture!! Then only very, very rich people can afford to own guns. Childless, rich people. Probably vegetarians. Then our plan will be complete. . .

  4. Sooooo–we’re at the point where they are literally repeating the same garbage no one else bought the first time around just a year ago. And they think a classic example of a crime of passion will make it all palatable this time? Like 40 hours of training would have convinced the lovelorn college professor (a college professor, not a career criminal) not to off the lady of his obsessions? Talk about intellectually bankrupt…

  5. First, we managed to get through 200 years without gun registrations and/or training requirements.
    40 hours is enough to prevent all but those intending a career in law enforcement from even owning a gun, and 80, I have heard, exceeds the handgun training offered to service personnel (other than special forces guys) or in, I believe, POST. So where does he get the idea that owning firearms, for any reason at all, requires proficiency? Are less proficient (and poor) people to be denied arms? I think not.
    FOPA, though, only applies to the Federal government; the feds may not require registration, nor require states to require registration, but states are free to do as they choose. Although FOPA was enacted prior to McDonald v. Chicago (and that decision’s extension of the 2A to the states), the explicit language of the statute (which applies only to actions of the AG) would not support an argument that the anti-registration provisions apply to the states as well.
    The issue of the imposition of a tax was covered by the Supreme Court in Miller, and although it was an obvious put-up, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will revisit, and even more unlikely that it will reverse that decision approving the $200 tax on certain weapons. The same decision will most certainly be applied to any tax on any weapons and ammo (aka the Seattle ordinance). In fact, I suspect that that confiscatory taxes and regulations will be the new avenue of attack for gun control advocates. For example, the City of San Francisco is currently considering an ordinance that will require all weapons and ammo sales to be video recorded, as well as paper records kept, with ALL ammo sales to be submitted to the SFPD weekly. What is even stranger is that there is only one gun shop left in SF, and apparently the owner has given up and is closing next month. Daly City will be enacting new zoning regulations that are intended to prevent the opening of a single new store (which is moving from nearby, after it lost its lease), as have Pleasanton and other cities. Tax and regulation of the business of guns is not, so far, covered under the Second Amendment, and we can expect that such businesses will continue to be treated no differently than porno houses and bars.

  6. Sounds like a case of stolen valor. Or broke-back (broke di<k) liberal blue house of (D) soft on defense / only power projection directed against the actual [law-abiding] citizenry – and, therefore F- ING TRYANNY

    FU (better be lying) Navy Vet. NOT IN MY NAVY!!!!!

    • Did the Navy he served in was prefixed by the word “Royal”?

      “Rum, sodomy, and the lash. The three great traditions of the Royal Navy.” Attributed to Winston Churchill.

  7. Don’t you just love how they automatically; almost by default, assume they are talking to children, or as I strongly suspect…..idiots. We all need looking after by people like….well,…like them, of course. Natch.

  8. Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bobby Kennedy, Harvey Milk, John McCain, John Connally, Sargent Shriver, Mike Wallace, Justice John Paul Stevens, Don Rumsfeld and Shawn VanDiver.

    What do these famous statists have in common with the Village People?

    • Point conceded insofar as you stipulate those named reached such status despite ther service in the US NAVY, or the US MILITARY (we can’t fix everyone – Charlie Rengel), and, (many) are better for the country than the lame wet cr_p we have in office now.

    • I have to agree with this one. At what point in my life did I doom myself to reading the blather of such idiots.

      Shawn VanDiver spent twelve years in the navy (EM) after high school. His educational attainement? AA Coastal Community College, and degree mill (my personal view) Nation University, CA (all courses are at night, more than 28,000 students. His resume, post-2011, shows a rabid urge to volunteer for any organization that will help him gain some kind of FEMA/DHS type contract for small firms. Oh, and

      Organizations Shawn supports:

      Clinton Foundation
      Human Rights Campaign
      PFLAG – Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
      ASIS International
      International Association of Emergency Managers
      California Young Democrats
      Truman National Security Project
      California Democratic Party

      • I know this is stupid . I’m going to say it anyway . NEVER NAME YOUR SON SHAWN . I know there are some perfectly good ones but everyone I can think of is an absolute lush , everyone named Shawn is whack .

    • >what it represents

      Mindless, unquestioning obedience to the Washington DC political class?

  9. I was a mahcine gunners, who regularly instructed machine guns in the Marines, and since that qualifies me as a constitutional scholar, and a lawyer, and of course an expert in everything I say that machine guns should be owned by eery civillian with nothing more than a monetary transaction.

    • YES.

      Sir , may you live a thousand years, and your wisdom be sown and heeded.
      May I live to purchase you a fine brace of full auto arms, by means of cash&carry, and may they forever provide you great service and peace, under God.

  10. What Mr. Shawn VanDiver is advocating is open rebellion against the United States Constitution. How is that not treason? Why is the United States Justice Department NOT charging him?

    Can you imagine if someone were openly advocating the same with respect to free speech? No one can own, possess, practice, or operate any free speech venue, method, or technology in their own home without first attending 40 hours of government training. And no one can own, possess, practice, or operate any free speech venue, method, or technology outside the home without first attending 80 hours of government training. Furthermore, everyone who passes the government training and actually practices their right to free speech must pay a tax of 5 to 10 cents per sentence — which is really quite manageable. Oh, and of course they must pass a psychological screening every few years and have libel/slander insurance. Finally, the average Joe could not exercise free speech in “sensitive locations” like schools, hospitals, government buildings, sports stadiums, bars, parks, public transit, etc.

    • I am copying this comment and keeping it for future use. I will cite you as the author, though. I can’t afford plagiarism insurance, the premiums are too high.

  11. I like how he wants 80 hours of training but the time taxes each round 5-10 cents. What are you supposed to train with when you run out of money to afford the now expensive ammunition?

    • No surprise. Shawn’s pursuit of money is completely aimed at getting government-paid taxpayer-bleeding funds. His intelligence is indicated by his inability to transfer to one of the academically competitive SD colleges, even SD State. I get it. The chump doesn’t know much about the Constitutiion or the nature of law. Or math. Or history. So he writes something for HuffPo. Why not? That’s a natural.

    • If the gun-grabbers are fed to pigs, the swine will repel the left-handed a_ _-wipe of satan’s nutsack pimple vermin.

  12. I am not trying to sound like I am siding with this Navy vet at all.
    But I struggling to understand something.

    The federal government is supposed have only the powers it has been granted by the people of the states that created it.

    The federal government WAS NOT GRANTED THE POWER to require
    Background Checks, or Licensing in order to own or carry a firearm, or gun registration or to stop me from owning NFA items, Suppressors, SBR’s, Full Autos, etc.

    But is it infringing on our right to keep and bear arms TO REQUIRE that ALL CITIZENS to
    have some sort of Firearms Training?
    8 Hours?
    4 Hours?
    2 Hours to demonstrate safe handling of a firearm and that you can shoot a bad guy at 5 yards distance
    without shooting yourself or an innocent bystander?

    Congress does have the authority to require training for the Militia according Article 1 Section 8.16.
    The Constitutional Militia has NOT been repealed so says Edwin Vieira, constitutional scholar.

    So as far as I am concerned WE ARE ALL still in the Constitutional Militia.

    I know the Founding Fathers DID NOT require training in order to own firearms for personal
    self-defense that’s because they already had their training by being in the militia.

    But they all had training IF they were in the Militia.

    Or am I wrong?

    Granted their training was much more than what was necessary for Personal Self-Defense.

    Well I guess the next question is “what if they don’t get the training, would they be allowed to keep and carry their arms”?

    Well I don’t know.
    I don’t know everything.

    What I do know is from only a few experiences at the gun range where some people mishandle their guns so unsafely that it scares me sometimes.
    It would be good that everyone VOLUNTARILY get some training.

    The Colonial Militia members were required to have their weapons, but if they could not afford them,
    weapons and ammo would be provided.

    Why could this not apply to Training as well.

    If you can afford to get your own training fine, but if you can not afford it,
    some would be provided at the cost to the public.

    So never mind about the federal government.
    What about the states?
    If the federal government did not or could not require training,
    should the states be allowed to require training?

    States have their own requirements for training of their National Guard.

    I’d like to know what you guys think.

    • U R NUTS

      Government is “We the People” [everywhere gov’t exists (none yet governed by robots, beasts, or aliens), but WE recite it in our founding documents].
      “Government” is merely a conglomerate of your a_ _hole neighbors who needed jobs [certainly there is work to be done, but FU and yours in the goat-a_ _ if I hear from one of you mf’s that we “need to be led” as it is more likely that we merely elect representatives to go to D.C. to tell YOUR a-hole neighbors needing jobs (your representatives) to go pound salt if they attempt to overrun their authority in doIng their relegated errands].
      WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AMERICA FAILS? Your reps gave attempted to f-it up nerely all ways possible. BUT ANYONE LAYING A CLAIM TO KNOWING HOW LONG IT WILL LAST IS F U L L. O F. S H I T. OR LYING. Keep your guns for the end of America so that you have a vote in what comes next.
      FURTHER- any attempt to govern type/manner/means/certification/standardization is just their way of saying you can’t declare civil war without asking their permission. To which I refer you back to my earlier statement. They are just your f-ng a-hole neighbors needing jobs, AND THEY WORK FOR YOU!!!
      If you din’t make them f-off for me then you have to.

    • Glen,

      I don’t have an answer for your question regarding Congress’ authority of training the militia.

      Here are some thoughts that jumped into my mind, in no particular order:
      (1) Teaching safe firearms handling is trivial. It takes all of 10 minutes to explain and remember the “four rules”. It would take another 30 minutes or so of supervised target shooting to reinforce the rules. An annual “refresher” of 30 minutes of supervised target shooting would maintain the rules in a person’s mind.
      (2) I have to believe that much of militia training would be in regard to military tactics, coordination, and operations. Thus, a tiny fraction of any militia training would be devoted to firearms handling and a majority would be focused on other aspects.
      (3) Training requirements cannot be a “back door” method to disarm We the People. If Congress can require government training before we can keep and bear arms, then Congress can disarm us if training is excessive/expensive/onerous/omitted.

      Training is fantastic. And it is simple. That is why We the People should encourage voluntary training of all stripes.

    • You are on the right track.
      The Antis say that we need mandatory gun training for public safety; it’s for the children. It makes all the sense in the world for us to agree with the Antis on this point. We are a nation of 360 million guns and 320 million souls. While only about 45% of households keep arms, members of the other 55% of households are apt to encounter arms. They had better be prepared to handle them safely. Men, women, children, illegal aliens. If we had universal training-to-arms we Kate Sternly might still be among us.

      Congress is empowered to define the militia in whatever way it sees fit consistent with the proposition of encompassing the universe – or very nearly all – the People. To include women in the 21st century makes sense. To anticipate that the youth will survive to their mid-teens and become militiamen and women makes sense. Eddie Eagle for elementary children; 4 rules for middle-school children; marksmanship or carry for high school students. The States have the authority – and I believe the duty – to train the militia.

      Why do we have virtually universal driver’s education? Because we justifiably presume that just about everyone will need to know how to drive sooner or later. We do not presume that some people will not be able to afford to own a car; or won’t need to use a car because they have public transportation available to them. Instead, we presume a 99% probability that they will drive some day; and, the time to train their muscles and habits is in their youth. Likewise, they will be pedestrians among cars; they must have an innate understanding that cars do not stop-on-a-dime and that drivers have blind-spots. This same reasoning applies to gun safety.

      The Anti’s might resist the idea of universal training-to-arms. They might fear more than anything else the possibility of universally eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But we PotG ought not harbor these fears. We ought to go directly to Congress confident that our Mothers who Demand Action will be there to give full-throated support for universal training-to-arms under the Constitutional authority granted to Congress.

      Should I be mistaken, then I want to see those Antis who disapprove of gun-safety training prescribed by Congress make their arguments on-camera.

  13. His original article from the Daily Beast shows his true, almost unfathomable childish stupidity. In it, he is asking lawmakers to pass these “common sense” laws to end gun deaths. Here’s where he goes full retard:

    “Call your state senators, your assembly members, your mayors, and your city councils. Tell them that you want to protect your kids. You want to protect your communities. Hell, you want to protect yourself. Tell them that, with the stroke of a pen, they can improve safety for their constituents and side with the clear majority of Americans.”

    Anybody see the problem there? “you want to protect your kids”…but he doesn’t actually mean you. Or him for that matter. There’s no way this princess is protecting anything. He doesn’t even seem to mean the police will protect the kids. Apparently, the “stroke of a pen” can protect the children. That’s right, just by signing a piece of paper our kids will be safe forever. Asinine.

    That pen wielding politician isn’t protecting anything. The actual man (and if YOU aren’t willing to take responsibility for the protection of YOUR kids, you ain’t one) is who protects kids. That’s your responsibility. And it’s your responsibility to do so the best way you can. For me, and millions like me, that’s with a gun.

  14. Navy Weapons Instructor – unimpressive. The level of training that Navy Sailors receive with firearms is unimpressive, unfortunately. So to use that banner ties him to the problem.

    His other credentials – more unimpressive.

    His points – moot rehash.

    This guy has no street cred.

    Time to move on.

  15. Hey I’m a random guy on the internet, who also happens to me a Naval Veteran and a Qualified Expert Marksman with both handguns and rifles. Is my opinion that this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about have some kind of extra weight now? What a silly bit of agit-prop.

  16. Where and how did this guy and Shannon, and the Bradys and all the other anti-gun twits get ordained to tell the REST OF AMERICA what our rights are and how we must behave to keep them? Who made them so #^@&!*($%^&@ superior to the “unwashed masses” they feel they must control and deny freedoms to? What makes this guys opinion any more valid than mine? Or Ralph’s? Or Dirk’s? How does he rate space in HuffPo and we don’t? This is the kind of stuff that gives me a head ache.

  17. He’s a rerun. No new material so regurgitate and serve it up again. He is certainly not of the character of any military person I’ve ever known. Weird dude.

  18. The 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution so the people could protect themselves from a corrupt government. That is why it says “shall not infringe” so we can have what the government has to prevent a Holocaust. I believe the people should have what the government has including machine guns. The only gun control law there should be is that criminals can’t have any firearms. Thanks for your vote, pass the word.

Comments are closed.