J Thompson. A person can be punished for using a firearm to committ a crime.
True. That must be a lot of comfort to crime victims. Knowing that the person
who killed their family member or close friend will be prosecuted and
incarcerated at taxpayer expense. I am not anti-gun. I am against criminals
having easy access to firearms. I am tired of hearing that criminals will
always find ways to obtain firearms. If we can stop one in ten felons from
obtaining a gun by requiring universal background checks I support it. Given a
choice I would rather prevent a crime than punish someone after the crimne has
airnaut, Thanks for pointing out our differences. Your number was for ages 0 to
19 and included both intentional and unintentional discharge of a firearm. I
intend only to focus on accidental deaths, and then only on the deaths of those
from ages 5 to 9. I want to point out that we experience tragedies more
troubling than Sandy Hook every year. I say "more troubling," because
it's pretty hard to blame the accidental shooters when they are also
victims.We may say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill
people." But whom do we blame for accidents?I also wonder why
these accidental deaths have dropped significantly following the implementation
or our gun control laws, but are starting to creep up again after loosening the
laws. We are responsible for our laws.
Yeah, "patriot", you said Chicago did not do background checks.
"There are ALREADY background checks for guns... many cities such as Chicago
just WON'T enforce them." You want to provide any proof for that? Like
I asked. Not sure what the quote from Cuomo has to do with anything
I said. "Now Mark, what could have happened had that mother had
some recourse to get her son help ... when he was younger?"Ah. .
. You mean something like Universal Health Care with a mental health provision?
Like I said."most socialist and ALL Communist countries ban
guns."Ah. . . Like I already said, thank goodness we aren't
a Communist, or Socialist, country. So did you want to actually
respond to anything I said? Or just say the exact same stuff again and think
that addresses my challenges? Oh well. "Why focus on
the small number of gun deaths, when putting kids into cars is more
dangerous?"RedShirt, are you really trying to say we can't
look at other things just because cars are dangerous?
re:markTransactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a
data-gathering and research organization run by Syracuse University found that
on enforcement of federal gun laws Chicago is dead LAST in the enforcement of
the federal gun laws. They are #90 out of 90.The far leftist
Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo said that following regarding enforcement of
gun laws in the state “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to
the state could be an option."If you paid attention to the
Sandyhook killings the killer was mentally ill and his mother reached out many
times over the years for help for her son ... with little if any success. Now
Mark, what could have happened had that mother had some recourse to get her son
help ... when he was younger? How many other mentally ill killers have we seen
this past 24 months that could have been helped and stopped from killing. Do ya
think this is a worth while investment Mark ...instead of banning guns? Yes Mark - most socialist and ALL Communist countries ban guns - of
course you don't see the connection here in the US do you. Anyway here are the facts to my 'rant'.
"Patriot", can you back up your claim that cities, such as Chicago,
refuse to do background checks? "Once they register em - they
can and WILL take and or tax em!!! "So you are saying they will
take your guns and tax them? Strange. How would they do that? Take 'em and
tax 'em. "they would enforce the laws already on the
books!"Which gun laws are not being enforced by
"liberals"? "What about laws aimed at giving parents
that have kids with mental illness a fighting chance of getting help???"Wow, those three question marks really make your point. Anyway, so you
mean something like Universal Health Care with a mental health provision?"Communism doesn't allow guns!"Thank goodness
we aren't a Communist country. Okay carry on with your rant.
Wise up !!! There are ALREADY background checks for guns... many cities such as
Chicago just WON'T enforce them. This new bill is nothing more than a
backdoor attempt at registration of guns bent on doing one thing.... taking your
guns away!!! This entire facade by liberals as well as this nonsense by Nanny
Bloomberg of NY about "mayors against illegal guns" is nothing more and
nothing less than a a desperate attempt at gun registration. Once they register
em - they can and WILL take and or tax em!!! Wise up AMERICA because the
lib's want your guns and safety is the LAST thing they really care about
otherwise they would enforce the laws already on the books! What about laws
aimed at giving parents that have kids with mental illness a fighting chance of
getting help??? NAH - that makes too much sense! Remember - the bad
guys will STILL get their guns because they don't go through back ground
checks!!! If you want to have a gun to protect yourself or family ya better wake
up or lose your guns forever. Communism doesn't allow guns!
John C. C.Payson, UTEvery year about 20 children in the U.S., ages 5
to 9, die as victims of accidental shootings.John C.C. Where on
earth did you make up that statistic?The CDC reports, and I quote,
"In 2007 there were 3067 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group."20 vs. 3,000 on average is off by a factor of 155.=========Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahSpeaking
of poisonings....There are over 450 deaths per year here in Utah due to
medications.Even more deaths than automobiles.And that's
with very tightly contolled regulations.And while we are on the
subject of poison, and the 2nd amendment....Do you fully support my
Constitutional right to keep and bear chemical weapons?
Your right mountainman... in fact, under age drinking and smoking goes on....
so all you are doing by having ID laws is preventing law abiding citizens from
being able to buy these products.... right?Good grief... who made
this logic up? If criminals are just going to do it anyway, heck, lets abandon
all hope of making it harder on them.And no one has yet explained to
me how having the ID checked of a gun buyer is going to prevent a single, law
abiding person, from buying a legal weapon. All they are trying to do is reduce
the number of venues where a criminal can buy a weapon without challenge. Why
in the world is this so controversial? You have to register to go
to school. You register each year you pay your taxes. If you want to leave
the country, you have to register to get a passport. You want to make hazardous
products, you have to register. Your house, your car... all registered. No
one is going to prevent you from going to school, take your income, prevent you
from leaving the country, or take gun, if you haven't done anything wrong.
Demanding more gun laws because criminals can get guns is like having yourself
neutered because you think your neighbors have too many kids.
Call Senator Lee? Don Quiozte will have more luck taking down that windmill.
Thak you. I have already called Sen. Lee and told him that I did not support
universal background checks either. Thanks anyway. I do not want the likes of
Obama and Bloomberg in my life or home.1."A heavily armed
citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the
government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self
defense is defenseless against their own government."
I don't know how we expect to implement and enforce these "universal
background checks." They sound nice on paper and it only makes sense since
if you buy guns from a retailer you already have to have a background check, but
the thing that people don't seem to understand is that the government has
no way, I mean NO WAY, of ever tracking all the private gun sales and insisting
on background checks. So While it sounds awesome on paper it does nothing of
substance because it will be really easy to just hand a man cash and get a gun.
Making laws does not equate to making the country safer. You have to be able to
reasonably implement the laws. Besides crime statistics (FBI website) show we
really shouldn't even be talking about this in congress. The possibility of
being shot is pretty low. Congress is wasting our time and money based on a
handful of unfortunate events instead of focusing on a much more important issue
of terrible federal fiscal policies.
To "pragmatistferlife" let me get this straight. You are saying that
the limits to magazine size are not limits. What sense does that make?To "andyjaggy" and how would you feel if 100 people lost their life
because of the regulations you support to save 1 life? That is the situation
that will occur with the draconian regulations and gun laws that will come.To "John C. C." yes, and every day 6 kids die in car accidents
and another 694 are injured. Using your logic, we should further regulate cars
and not allow children into vehicles or into areas where vehicles are present.
Who is to blame for the car accidents? Do the cars cause them?Why
focus on the small number of gun deaths, when putting kids into cars is more
Re Irony GuyA Well Regulated Person Or Militia Behaves Responsibly.
If you have more than one assault weapon and find them amusing, there should be
a reality check.
Universal background checks would have had no impact on the Sandy Hook shooting.
You have a sick society that is entertained by violence. This is a
much more complex issue that is only being capitalized by the gun control crowd.
The CDC reported that between 2004 and 2005, that 71,000 children were seen in
emergency rooms because of poisoning. That's about 100 per day. In 2009,
there were 41,592 deaths (children and adults) caused by poisoning, or about 113
per day. Every death is a tragedy, but why is there no uproar about
poisons? Why is Obama not flying around the Country demanding that people
should register with the government before being allowed to buy
"poisons"? Why are Senators not demanding that "poisons" should
only be available in 2oz bottles? What is wrong with the government
when they turn a blind eye to 42,000 deaths? Were those lives not important?
How many people must die before government forces us to be pre-qualified before
Open Minded,Read Heller v DC (554 U.S. 570). In it, the
supremes...you know, the highest court in the land, interpreting what you
supposedly swore an oath to defend, stated clearly that the second amendment
applies to what you call "non-uniform wearing billy bobs." I'll
quote just a bit of it:"We reach the question, then: Does the preface
fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear
arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation
knew and that we have described above..."Go ahead and read the whole
thing. You might learn something, and it is the law of the land, which, by your
own admission, you've sworn to uphold.
Every year about 20 children in the U.S., ages 5 to 9, die as victims of
accidental shootings. That's the age of the students attacked at Sandy
Hook Elementary. But whom do we blame for these accidental shootings?
Certainly not the guns. They don't kill, people kill. And we don't
blame those who accidentally kill, especially those innocents who accidentally
kill themselves.Just think, the equivalent of one Sandy Hook tragedy
every year, but no outcry and no headlines.Before the gun control
laws from 1968 to 1999 there were three or four times as many such accidental
deaths. And still no one to blame.Unfortunately, this particular
death rate has started to trend upwards again, coincident with the lapse of the
1994 assault weapons ban in 2004, and the new law in 2005 protecting gun sellers
from liability.Do future innocent victims of innocent shooters have
any constitutional rights?
So much of what I read on the Editorial page is about protecting our children
and promoting family values. In light of this how could anyone not support more
background checks and/or more controls on assault weapons?
To Red Shirt..Infringed means "act so as to limit or undermine (something);
limiting what specific guns you purchase, or how many bulletts a magazine
contains does not..does not, limit your "right to bear arms" which is
what the second amendment guarantees. Even if you can't buy a magazine
that holds thirty bulletts you can still purchase and own a shotgun or a rifle
etc... It's a right to own/bear an arm/gun..not any specific gun. If you
want to word smith you need to at least apply your reasoing to the issue at
If there were no restrictions allowed on arms then individuals could buy cruise
missiles or predator drones.
"And the bad guys are going to fall in line and obey more gun laws? Any of
you seriously believe that?" The point mountainman, and the all the rest of
"criminals won't obey the law and then only criminals will have
guns" crowd, is they can legally not comply now and you are aiding and
abetting that situation. First of all over 60% of all guns purchased now are
bought from dealers that have to register your purchase and there is no national
register. You can bet all those purchses are from law abiding citizens. With
over 60% all ready having to register what is Obama waiting for to start a
national registery to take away all your guns, the criminals? It's a
fantasy..hasn't happened and will never happen. No President in your life
time or mine will try and outlaw guns..you all are making this up. All
conservatives are doing now is supporting the legal purchase of guns by
criminals. That's it that's what you are pushing.
This proposed Gun bill is no better than Prohibition. It will be just as
Background checks are probably largely ineffective, but if it prevents just a
hand full of murders in any given year,even just ONE murder in a year, then it
is worth the small hassle and inconvenience for everyone. That's my
I love how all the right wing ultra conservatives call polls "liberal
biased" anytime they don't say what they want them to say. Lee uses the
State legislature as a better guide to the will of the people, that's a
good one, keep living in fantasy land Lee. Kind of like when Gayle Ruzicka said
the public didn't really know what they wanted concerning the sex ed bill,
and that's why we have "representative" government instead.
"More gun laws only keep guns out of the law abiding citizenry, not
criminals."How is this possible. The only people this law would
prevent from getting easy access to guns is criminals. If your not a criminal,
by the nature of the law, it would allow you to buy guns. In fact, it might
even make more types of guns more available... since only responsible adults
would have access to them.I would love to have someone explain to me
how only allowing non-fellons and the mentally ill from accessing guns will
keep law abiding people from aquiring guns. In the case of the
firman shootings, back ground checks did provide an impediment to the felon from
buy guns... he would not have gotten them if not for the idiot who bought them
for him... which should be part two of the law... holding these people equally
This Senator is so far out of touch that he may not have email. He is too busy
throwing tea out of the British ship.
Open minded mormonHAHAHAHAHAHA. “infringe means
confiscate”Oh please, stop! My side aches from laughing!Roland,Thank you for pointing out how the SCOTUS has failed us
numerous times, most recently telling us the feds can tax us for not eating
To "Roland Kayser" do you read what you write.If people
already have to pass a background check to legally buy a gun, why do we need
additional laws telling us to do the same thing?FYI, the
constitution forbids people from aiding our enemies, which would include giving
away secrets.To "Open Minded Mormon" you are wrong.
Infringed means "act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach
on" according to the Oxford dictionary. If the government sets limits on
gun purchases, they are infringing on that right.As for the oath you
took, do you live by it, or just give it lip service. You often say that you
have taken the oath, but what do you live up to that oath? We now see
government infringing on our rights, and you seem to be going against the oath
you took to defend the constitution.
Re: "I've sworn the oath, and you?"The oath I swore
contains no reference to Billy Bob, contains no indictment of freedom-loving
Americans as terrorists, it requires me to defend the Constitution [including
the Second Amendment] from all enemies. I took that oath seriously that day back
in '72, and I take it seriously today.Enough so, to stand up
against anyone disingenuously attempting to pervert into something it
isn't. Anyone suggesting an enlistment oath doesn't apply to
protecting all honest, decent Americans exercising their well-established
Constitutional rights is clearly referring to some oath other than the
enlistment or commissioning oath taken by American service members.Maybe a secret, liberal, anti-American oath to some secret combination, but
not an American enlistment oath.
Lds Liberal"Are you calling the US military a secret
combination?"No but I'm calling the US Government one.
Things like NDAA, The Patriot act, TSA, Warrantless wiretapping, etc convinces
me of this. Before you say, "Where were you when Bush did this?
" I was in the 12th grade and couldn't vote. Blaming Bush
won't work anymore because in my eyes they are both Tyrants that deserve to
be in prison for the rest of their lives.
Roland,The Courts punish those who use speech illegally after they
have "spoken", not before. The government does not require anyone to
"pre-register" his speech before "speaking". The government
does not limit the "quantity" of words a citizen may use every day. The
government does not restrict "which words" a citizen may use. Too many liberals can't see the difference between
"pre-authorization" and "punishment". Too many liberals want to
limit the type of firearms that citizens can own - when the Constitution
prohibits that infringement. Too may liberals want to limit the capacity of
those firearms - when the Constitution prohibits that infringement.Owning a firearm is not a punishable crime - under the Constitution. Using a
firearm when committing a crime is punishable. Speaking is not a
punishable crime - under the Constitution. Using speech improperly may be
punished - after the "speech" has taken place.We are free to
speak, knowing that there may be consequences to using speech improperly.We are free to own and bear firearms - without being a member of a
militia - knowing that there may be consequences to using firearms
improperly.The government cannot infringe either speech or firearms
without violating the Constitution.
Once again, criminals will never follow the rules to obtain a firearm. they will
get them and there is no stopping them. That's just a fact. Punishing law
abiding citizens for something they didn't do is just as dumb. The
Government needs to let people choose for themselves or it is facist and the are
hindering the progress they claim to be all in favor of as long as it stays in
the party line.
Senator Lee took an oath to uphold the Constitution. He is doing that. He is
putting the Constitution above the public outcry for more government control of
our lives. He understands the difference between people who want to
turn everything over to the government and the people who want the government to
be leashed. He understands that the federal government has very
little authority and that the federal government has no authority to regulate
the firearms that any citizen may wish to own and operate. He has
read the Constitution. He knows that all government authority comes from the
people and that the government has no authority outside the consent of the
governed. The people (the governed) have clearly stated that government has no
authority to limit personal ownership or use of firearms. He knows
that laws restricting firearms are both illegal and ineffective. He knows that
government can punish those who use firearms to commit crimes after the crime
has been committed. It's a shame that so many are so willing
to give away their freedoms when hundreds of thousands have died to protect
@Mike Richards: The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, yet courts have
ruled that Mormons can't practice polygamy, states can prevent Native
Americans from using peyote in religious ceremonies, and religions that believe
in human sacrifice can't use that as an excuse against murder charges. The
freedom is not absolute.The Constitution guarantees freedom of
speech and of the press, yet courts have ruled that you can't publish
military secrets or child pornography. Neither can you engage in speech that
will bring on immediate violence. The freedom is not absolute.I
would suggest that there are some restrictions on virtually all of our
I just contacted Senator Short-Sale and told him I favor universal background
checks. It's absurd that any nutter can walk into a gun show and buy
without any check at all. The constitutional arguments here are
invalid; every enumerated right is subject to limitation. Even my right to vote
is regulated -- I have to register first! And when will ANY gun
worshiper answer my question: What is meant by "well-regulated"?
procuradorfiscalTooele, UTRe: "Non-uniform wearing Billy Bobs .
. . I've sworn an oath against . . . you."Sounds kinda
secret combination-ish.============= Are you calling the
US military a secret combination?Military oath -- against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic...As I stated:Non-uniform wearing Billy Bobs, riding around in pick-up trucks, open carrying and brandishing assault rifles and such, are not meeting
the Constitutional muster -- they are nothing more than domestic
terrorists. I've sworn the oath, and you?...
I enjoy reading comments from those posters who portray themselves as
constitutional scholars. Puts a smile in my face knowing that the beauty of the
Internet gives everyone the opportunity to exercise their First Amendment
rights, even when they probably should not.
Re: "Non-uniform wearing Billy Bobs . . . I've sworn an oath against .
. . you."Sounds kinda secret combination-ish.I know
you're not talking about any military or other governmental oath, since
they all swear to defend the Constitution.Couple that with calling
anyone exercising well-established Constitutional rights a terrorist, and it
gets pretty scary.
I will contact Lee's office again, although it will do no good. Like some
commenting here, the man is criminally deluded. If reasonable gun controls are
not implemented, with each new gun slaughter of the innocents, I will remember
him as one valuing guns over life.
Re: "Convicted felons . . . buy guns through venues where no check will be
required."I'd love to see your statistics backing up such a
ludicrous statement.It runs counter to what 35+ years prosecutorial
experience tells me. I've never known a felon in receipt to have bought the
gun they're prosecuted for. They either steal them, receive them from other
felons, or from family members/accomplices.NONE of these issues is
addressed, nor could they realistically be addressed, by any of the
unconstitutional, liberal anti-gun legislative proposals.Since these
sophomoric, illegal proposals don't actually address the problems given as
their raison d'etre, we can safely assume they are actually part of a
poorly-disguised liberal agenda to identify, vilify, and sanction gun owners,
and to eventually confiscate their guns.
LDS Liberal / Open Minded Mormon,You wrote, "Infringed means
confisgat".Baloney!Why would you expect anyone to
accept your redefinition of a word simply because your definition suits your
thought process? Why not use the dictionary?Infringe: "to
encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another"Confiscate: "to seize by authority"Using your
redefinition, the government could do anything it wants with your family as long
as it didn't confiscate your children. It could tell you how to feed your
children. It could tell you how to clothe your children. I would call
government interference in my family "infringement". What would you
call it?Just what limits do you place on government? I can't
see that you place any limits on government; but, I can see that you would
restrict the freedom of the people.
Why have any laws against abortion, stealing, and murder? People
will still have abortions, will still steal, and commit murders. Laws don't have any effect on those who wish to do evil. Just like how
gun laws have no effect on those who want to have guns and do evil with them.Any weapon ever invented should be allowed for the public to purchase.
Bazookas, machine guns, nerve gas, nukes, etc. Nothing would deter
crazy people from attacking schools than a teacher armed with a machine gun,
tank, or nuke.If we, the public, are unable to purchase these then
only the bad guys will have them......
I know Mike Lee supports the 2nd amendment, but it wouldn't hurt some of us
to drop him a brief email to support HIM.The credibility of the
federal government is at an all-time low. Why would we want to trust them with
our personal gun information?Why should we believe the feds wouldn't
sell our personal info.? Does anyone need any more "visa" offers?How can the feds afford the money to collect personal gun information while at
the same time they SAY they are forced to let 6000 illegal aliens loose because
they "don't have the funds"?No tours of the White House, but
nagging gun owners for their personal information is o.k.?Besides
its' unconstitutionality, any more 2nd amendment "databases" or
other attempts at progressively denying American citizens their rights should
also be considered a waste of money.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWhere would Senator Lee, or any other
government official, get the authority to legislate anything that directly
violates the Constitution?"shall not be infringed" still has
meaning to those who don't pretend that the Constitution is null and void.
"shall not be infringed" still prohibits government from
requiring any prequalification to firearm ownership.================
"Infringed" means confisgate Mike.It doesn't mean
free and totally unrestricted.Your fantasy world interpretations of the
Consitution remind me of Somalia or Columbia.BTW -- Why it your
"ilk" constantly and purposefully ignores the REST of the 2nd Amendment
-- you know -- the part about the right to keep and bear arms is only being
allowed for a "well regulated militia".[there's that evil
nasty word again...REGULATED, i.e., must meet certain government criteria and
restrictions.]Non-uniform wearing Billy Bobs, riding around in
pick-up trucks, open carrying and brandishing assault rifles and such, are not
meeting the Constutional muster -- they are nothing more than domestic
terrorists. I've sworn an oath against them/you.
@ Wonder. You are missed the point. Will passing ever more laws against grand
larceny, rape or murder stop people from murdering, rapine or stealing? We
already have gun laws, what good are more and more gun laws going to do? The
truth is, more gun laws or more laws prohibiting murder, rape or stealing will
not do any more good than have the strictest gun laws in the world have done in
Chicago which is NOTHING! With your logic since Chicago is he murder capital of
America, we should pass more and more laws against murder! Wrong target (no pun
intended). More gun laws only keep guns out of the law abiding citizenry, not
Anyone who buys a gun from a retailer already has to pass a backgound check.
Convicted felons know this, so they buy guns through venues where no check will
be required. I am generally pro gun rights, but this is no more than common
@Mountanman -- We typically don't make laws by first determining that 100%
of people are already doing what the law calls for. Following your logic, since
there are people who commit murder we should have no laws prohibiting murder.
In fact, we should have no laws at all, because there's always going to be
somebody who doesn't obey that law.
Where would Senator Lee, or any other government official, get the authority to
legislate anything that directly violates the Constitution?"shall not be infringed" still has meaning to those who don't
pretend that the Constitution is null and void. "shall not be
infringed" still prohibits government from requiring any prequalification to
firearm ownership."shall not be infringed" is the
people's guarantee that no one, not the President, not Congress, not the
Court will ever require a background check BEFORE a firearm is owned.Driving a vehicle is not a Constitutionally protected right. Government can
require a driver's license BEFORE allowing anyone to drive.Owning a firearm is every citizen's right. No law can be passed that
infringes on that right - unless those who pass laws think that they are above
the Supreme Law of the Land and that they can put government's desires
above the will of the people - people who have prohibited government from having
authority until itself.
And the bad guys are going to fall in line and obey more gun laws? Any of you
seriously believe that?
The support for " I can do anything I want regarding guns" is getting
whackier and whackier, and a poll that shows over 90% support for something is
only a liberal bias..my, my..did any of you work for the Romney camp.BTW a good story on the front page of what all these macheeesmos fantasize
about and what the real world consequences are (guy with no training and a short
fuse who supposedly defends his daughter and winds up in prison).
The Problems with Universal Back Ground ChecksThe universal back
ground checks as some are trying to write it is really a back door gun
registration, which would come in handy if ever the government decided to
confiscate guns. Or the list could leak out and gun owners would then be targets
for thieves.Another problem is the writers of this bill would
require the seller of a gun to keep records of any gun sale. Presumably if they
lost this record they would be in trouble. This is too much of an imposition.I ask any of our Senators and Representatives, if you do find a gun
restriction you would like to vote for, insist that in that same bill there also
be some give back of gun rights. One example would be to all all people to have
silencers on guns, which would help to prevent hearing loss. The era of take
take take of gun rights needs to be over.
Re: "I would ask any citizens who are concerned about this issue to take a
second and call Sen. Lee's office to express your opinion."I will. And so will many of my friends.We'll call to express
our disgust at this useless, dangerous, illegal intrusion into our lives by an
out-of-control liberal federal government.These new, expanded
"background checks" have but one object -- to make it more difficult and
dangerous to exercise Second Amendment rights.They won't
prevent a single murder. They won't protect schools. They won't keep
guns out of the hands of the mentally impaired. They won't be enforced to
deter criminals any better than the law currently in place.What they
will do is establish a permanent database giving the location of every legally
purchased gun in a law-abiding home, and set up a whole new bureaucracy to make
felons out of honest, decent Americans.Thanks for reminding us to do
the right thing!
Far right politician's definition of a "liberal" poll -- one that
disagrees with their preconceived notion of what people should say in response
to the poll question. Yeah, yeah, skewed polls and all that. I thought we got
past that nonsense after Nov. 2012.
Thank you for the heads-up.My e-mail to the out-of-touch Senator
Short-Sell has just been sent!