and all of you dismiss the second admendment . Watch the Video I posted above called "No Russian " the whole thing . tell me its not the most violent thing you ever seen ? Then picture some wacko palying it for hours .Originally Posted by plane852
Let's see, I am an over 60 year lady, my hubby is a year older than me. We live a neighborhood, that is about 2/3 barrio and 1/3 hood. We have had a crack house next door, another one was a few houses down. The guy catta- cornered across the street, shot and killed his girlfriend in that house. Late one night, I heard gunshots on the street just back of me. I call 911 and it was a drive by shooting of drug dealer.
Neither my hubby or I feel that we need a gun to protect our home. Our defense right now is a 6 mo old Lab cross puppy, and a variety of medieval weapons, a real broadsword, a 10 lb flanged mace, an 8ft long boar spear with at least a 10 inch cutting blade on it, and an assortment of daggers. I carry a mason's hammer in the car for defense. That's it !
I don't fear my neighbors. I don't buy dope from them, and yes, if a party is too loud, I will call the police. I believe the only things that have been stolen, was a shovel, I left on the porch, a large cheap blue tarp, and one time when I forgot to lock the car, someone took a back pack out of the car. It had 3 hand thrown clay pots in it! That's it and it has been this way for at least 25 years. If I decide I want to go to Jack in the Box at 3 am and get a burger, I do.
I have driven half way across the country, by my self, even slept in my car to save money. And that was in an old $500 car before cell phones.
I have not seen anyone trying to get rid of the second amendment. I have seen some proposals to restrict some aspects of gun ownership. Why should your guns be less regulated than my dog? I have to meet certain requirements to own one, in most cities, I would be limited to how many I can have (often the limit is 2 dogs and 2 cats---and you can't have 4 cats).
I think I am more free than many of you in pro gun movement. Your life is controlled by fear, fear of criminals, fear of your government, fear of so many things. You are NOT free. I am.
I would also like to point out that the quote you attributed to Thomas Jefferson was never said by him
http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...bertyquotation
When governments fear the people, there is liberty...(Quotation)
Quotation: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Variations:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!"
“When the people fear the government, that's tyranny; when the government fears the people, that's freedom.”
Sources consulted: Searching on the phrase "fear the people," "government fear us," "fear the government," "tyranny has found victory," and "government is our servant"
Papers of Thomas Jefferson Digital Edition
Monticello website
Ford's Works of Thomas Jefferson
UVA EText Jefferson Digital Archive: Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government, Texts by or to Thomas Jefferson from the Modern English Collection
Thomas Jefferson Retirement Papers
Quotable Jefferson, ed. Kaminski (searching under "tyranny")
Bartleby.com
Earliest known appearance in print: 1914[1] [2]
Earliest known appearance in print, attributed to Thomas Jefferson: 1994[3]
Other attributions: Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine
Status: We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny," or any of its listed variations.
Comments: One source attributes this quotation to Thomas Jefferson in The Federalist.[4] The Federalist, however, was the work of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison; it also does not contain the text of this quotation. This quotation is vaguely similar to Jefferson's comment in an 1825 letter to William Short: "Some are whigs, liberals, democrats, call them what you please. Others are tories, serviles, aristocrats, &c. The latter fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society; the former consider the people as the safest depository of power in the last resort; they cherish them therefore, and wish to leave in them all the powers to the exercise of which they are competent."[5] To date however, the most likely source of this quotation appears to be a series of debates on socialism published in 1914, in which John Basil Barnhill said, "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty."
Footnotes
↑ John Basil Barnhill, Barnhill-Tichenor Debate on Socialism, As It Appeared in the National Rip-Saw. Saint Louis, Mo.: The National Rip-Saw Pub. Co., 1914, 34.
↑ To establish the earliest appearance of this phrase in print, the following sources were searched for the phrase, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty": Google Books, Google Scholar, Amazon.com, Internet Archive, JSTOR, American Broadsides and Ephemera, American History and Culture Online: Sabin Americana, 1500-1926, Early American Imprints, Series I: Evans (1639-1800), Early American Imprints, Series II: Shaw-Shoemaker (1801-1819), Eighteenth Century Collections Online, The Making of the Modern World: The Goldsmiths'-Kress Library of Economic Literature, America's Historical Newspapers, 19th Century United States Newspapers, American Founding Era Collection.
↑ Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn, It's All in the Game: Butterflies, Mind Control--The Razor's Edge (Phoenix Source Distributors, 1994), 214.
↑ Archimedes C. Articulo, The Experience of Philosophy (Manila, Philipines: Rex Book Store, 2008), 315.
↑ Jefferson to William Short, 8 January 1825. Ford XII:?.
Further Sources
Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government. "Section 5: The Sovereignty of the People."
Americans have always been divided. That's a silly point.
Show me your evidence... oh yeah, you don`t have any.
Pete Tar (February 3rd, 2013)
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder . I guess you live in a uttopian society , good luck with that . Another Obama cronie
Iv never seen it so divided . Your blind
Not blind, it's simply true.
Republicans and Democrats have always butted heads like raging bulls. I'm Canadian and I know this.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...049/story.html
------------------
Also, it's great to see that your comeback to cairenn is to call her mentally disabled and a libertarian. Makes you look incredibly intelligent.
also, utopia is a terrible example after she just said that she lives on aandWe have had a crack house next door, another one was a few houses down.not really happy go lucky!The guy catta- cornered across the street, shot and killed his girlfriend in that house. Late one night, I heard gunshots on the street just back of me. I call 911 and it was a drive by shooting of drug dealer.
Show me your evidence... oh yeah, you don`t have any.
What about this?
An optional level early in the game entitled "No Russian" has the player assume control of a deep-cover CIA agent and former Army Ranger named Joseph Allen, joining a group of Russian ultranationalist terrorists enacting an airport massacre.Although the player is technically allied with the terrorists, they are not forced to kill any of the civilians themselves to fulfill the mission's objectives.
Show me your evidence... oh yeah, you don`t have any.
This is true, in a study posted on here: http://www.policymic.com/articles/24...s-to-gun-crime
Show me your evidence... oh yeah, you don`t have any.
I find it interesting how 2 countries can take such different paths. The last time we had our right to arms affirmed in law was in the English Parliaments Bill of Rights in 1689. That remained in force until after the Napoleonic Wars and the rise of political activism and suffrage. After some unrest and clashes with militias limitations were put in place in 1824. People had been prosecuted for sedition etc but people still demanded more rights which the industrialists fought hard against. The political change did happen anyway by 1832. The next restriction on arms was 1920 when the people were demanding social change and the government were concerned about armed Bolshevic revolt. It is easily shown that the social change happened anyway and it did see the demise of the landed gentry to some extent.
Since then we have had a number of further restrictions and are looking at even tighter controls at the moment. Now there are a great deal of statistics about crime out there but I remember reading one of the number of reported crimes. I think the UK had 85 per 1000 people and the US 80 per 1000 people. That is all crime not just armed crime. However we do not have a thirst to either arm the public or the police, and given that political and social change has still been enacted in the light if what some would class as tyranny I think we are still free. Having arms taken out of the equation undoubtedly shifted the balances in favour of the people. I have yet to meet another Brit who thinks we need to be armed to be free (Ireland excepted).
Just a note on video games. Recent studies seem to show a relationship in the rise if video games and the decrease in violent crime
http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/pluginfile.ph...etter_2011.pdf
The link that violent video games cause violent crimes had always been tenuous to say the least
Clock (February 3rd, 2013)
Not libertarian Liberal . She made no valid point just left wing revisionist history .
I know iv played the game and that mission . The reason for no Russian is so they can blame the American that they leave behind at the end causing a Russain invasion of America , Young children not mine play it .
I understand. But if I would have children, I would not be letting them play Call Of Duty! That's just bad parenting.
Show me your evidence... oh yeah, you don`t have any.
24 hour ban for impoliteness.
Treasure, you are not going to get anywhere just pigeonholing people. Try to understand why they think as they do. You say divisiveness in America is a problem, yet you seem to be enthusiastically contributing to that problem.
There are many different people in the world. Surely there's a little room for understanding and compromise?
And please don't try to post as a guest. Go chill and watch the game*. Come back if you want reasonable and constructive discussion.
*Note to non-Americans, "the game" refers to the Superbowl, not some nefarious shill mind-game or something.
Joe (February 4th, 2013)
So now just having correct knowledge about a subject is a left-wing plot you can just dismiss without even bothering to think about it?
You must really hate all forms of learning then.
The way you see the world and reduce everything in it to a pathetic ideological conflict is disturbing.
"Details beget facts, and facts, judiciously sent forth, become assassins."
Cairenn (February 3rd, 2013)
Glancing at the Frazier Institute link, they apparently do have a good philosophical basis for their measure, although quantification of freedom seems to me a difficult thing to define. They have the starting point right, in that their "Overview" on how they measure it says it's a "negative" definition of freedom, meaning, how much are you free of restraints on what you want to do.
That said, it is important to realize that the importance of the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution is not measurable. It is often said, including by both signers of the Declaration of Independence and by members of the Constitutional Convention and "founders" in general, in one way or another, that the Second Amendment is the guarantor of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The source of our rights, the razor d'être, the reason we have them, is not because a Constitution or amendment or law grants them, because they do not have the legitimate power to do so. There is no moral justification for allowing a government to be the final decision-maker on what rights you have or do not have. If you say the government by law or by representation or monarchy or "democratic" referendum is the final say on how much freedom of speech to allow you, or how much freedom to defend yourself from tyranny you are allowed, then all of your freedoms are exposed to violation.
An absolute monarch that lets his subjects rampant in your criticism of him as a matter of policy means that yes, you have that freedom, but by allowing that monarch to be an absolute monarch, you are exposing yourself to arbitrary loss of ALL such policies in the future.
To the extent New Zealand is exposed by restricting self-defense, its citizens are exposed to the changing winds of political weather. To the extent they depend on Australia's benevolent friendship with them, they are exposed to the political winds of fortune outside their country.
My wife once stopped a kidnapper in his tracks who had started walking off with her son by pulling out her "concealed carry", before we met. It might be a more respectful culture in New Zealand right now, but were the Maoris always respected? Their descendants would have very good reason to suspect any such false sense of security.
But the biggest danger is one that has inflicted Americans already. It is that content and gullible mentality that lets a people's guard down, that "It can't happen here" danger. Wherever "here" is.
The Jews of Germany --and Gypsies, and the handicapped, and genuine liberty-minded Christians-- had plenty of reason to arm themselves against their own tyrannical government, but the government gave no overt signals of what was in the future. "It can't happen here", they said.
The Armenians had plenty of reason to defend themselves against the Turkish government.
The Ukrainians and all Russian subjects have every reason to suspect that their government will behave.
In the United States, lots of political and especially economic freedom is violated already, but the main reason that a Nazi-type regime or a Stalin-type regime is not a reasonable prospect right now is the fact that there are at least tens of millions of citizens that are decently well-armed and who are not in lock-step at any given time with their government.
All of the freedoms that a New Zealander has is worthless if he is attacked at a time he cannot defend himself. My wife had her means of self-defense, which is also the means to defend your family. She had good reason to carry it. New Zealand, for all its geographical advantages, is not immune. The Irish survived the Vandals ravaging the continent while St. Patrick's followers saved many of the Roman and Greek classics, but a Papal army subjugated them again centuries later.
It would seem to be correct to say that the popular interpretation of the second amendment is basically a threat of possible violence.
This has a certain logic to it in terms of game theory.
Much the same as the ability to lie shapes our interaction with others and our 'strategies' (eg, is this person lying? should I lie? Can I lie and not be exposed?), so does the issue of possible violence shape how we interact, eg, What can I get away with before I'm resisted?
It is sad that the relationship between authority and the public is based on the ability to inflict violence (prosecution and imprisonment being modified forms of violence against your freedom), but all evidence is that that power is on the side of the government, not the people. So while in theory the second amendment threatens violence if necessary against a government, the balance is so much on their side that it seems ludicrous to believe it's an actual option.
Resistance to tyranny and its defeat comes in many other forms than force.
"Details beget facts, and facts, judiciously sent forth, become assassins."
New Zealand does not "restrict" self defence - you are entitled to use "reasonable" force to defend yourself -
31 SECTION 48 of the Crimes Act 1961 provides:
Everyone is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.
- New Zealand Law commission
- for guidance on what constitutes "reasonable" see that page - basically you are entitled to use the same force as you belive is being used against you - however if you have few alternatives you can use whatever is to hand.
But there certainly is not the matic "you can shoot anyone in your own house" mentality that seems somewhat popular for a lot of people.
Like most indigenous races, Maori got the sharp end of the stick....BUT, "Maori shot back" - eg the Wairau Massacre of 1843 (Maori massacring Pakeha (white) - half of them after they had surrendered) is sometimes quoted. At that point in time Maori outnumbered settlers by a large margin - that changed with the incflux of the next few decades and the spread of disease.
Also Maori are in an almost unique position among "natives" in that they did actually sign a treaty giving them "the rights of Englishmen" and possession of their possessions - it wasn't followed in the 1800's all that well in respect of land - but Maori males did have the vote and there were Maori MP's from 1867
Pete Tar wrote:
Resistance to tyranny and its defeat comes in many other forms than force.
Indeed - I think if you are in a "liberal democracy" the main defence is a strong civil society, free elections, and the rule of law. And forgetting that those are you main defences is something that may well result in the imposition of tyranny under the guise of protection from it - that is how Germany, for example, fell to the Nazi's - because people were willing to give up those aspects of society in return for a perception of being "protected" from some perceived evil or other. (not that I am comparing anywhere to Germany of the early 1930's!!)
Last edited by MikeC; February 3rd, 2013 at 03:05 PM.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Germany of the 1930s was in a very different situation than the US is, or that really any major country has been in.
The Treaty of Versailles had placed the German people under some horrible restrictions. They were defeated and then subjugated as well. Then there was the world wide depression. They were looking for some way out and some PRIDE back. Hitler gave them a scapegoat for their situation and pride in who they were. Even in the US, we had a rise of radical 'leaders'. We were lucky that none of them were .
The US is not in that type of a condition. The recession has hurt a lot of folks, but in general most Americans have the primary needed things, a roof over their head, clothes to wear, food, and transportation. The fast food places are still having business, Wal Mart is selling big screen TVs. We are not having to chop down the trees in the city parks to burn to provide heat (that is happening in Greece)
which may be why I wasn't comparing the 2.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
How would you know how I see the world ?
Oh, but it will never happen in America ? As far as your Quotes and comments on Jefferson the UNESCO symbol is I need to see not to trust it . either way the Quote is quite right and history has proven it . What state are you from ? or city ? I am sorry for the insult but I feel attacking the Second Amendment is treasonous and it seems like other then guest no one else agrees . I guess since most arent American or native born they dont understand .
thank you !
I don't think people are attacking the Second Amendment. They are criticizing your individual interpretation of the Second Amendment, and you assessment of its global significance, and its necessity for "freedom".
The Second Amendment is part of The Constitution. It's established law. While some people might feel it's not entirely necessary (as shown by other countries), few people would actually seek to repeal it.
I'm fine with the Second Amendement, and the current interpretation of it by the Supreme Court. I think that the gun violence problem should be addressed in the same way the smoking health problem was successfully addressed.
Voicing displeasure with the second amendment is protected by the first amendment.
Claiming it is "treasonous" just exposes a level of hyperbole that suggests rational discourse may be challenging.
I would agree about gun violence . Just dont know what the solution would be ?
Well will see what Feinstein and Obama comes up with as a solution . because what Feinstein has said sounds quite treasonous . That is my opinion and I am free to speak and express it ?
You are- but I am curious if you honestly think Fienstien is attempting to overthrow the government? Because thats what treason means.
Obviously, you are passionate about the subject- and that is great- I wish all Americans were as passionate about issues. But I think it is better to not just blurt out inflammatory rhetoric if you truly want to be a part of solution and drive the discussion forward in a productive manner. Something most politicians seem unwilling or unable to do these days.
Last edited by SR1419; February 4th, 2013 at 12:43 PM.
From what you write here? I mean, isn't it reasonable to assume that what you believe what you write? From the phrase 'leftwing revisionist history' for a start.
"Details beget facts, and facts, judiciously sent forth, become assassins."
Hitler did NOT take away the German people's guns, the Treaty of Versailles did that.
Restrictions imposed by the treaty of Versailles
In 1919 and 1920, to stabilize the country and in part to comply with the Treaty of Versailles, the German Weimar government passed very strict gun ownership restrictions. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles stated, "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."[1]
In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[2] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.
On August 7, 1920, the German government enacted a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.
In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.
Stephen Halbrook writes about the German gun restriction laws in the 1919-1928 period, "Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law."[3]
The 1938 German Weapons Act
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." But under the new law:
Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."[4]
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[5]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[4]
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[4]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, promulgated Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[6][7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany
If you don't like that reference, here are a few more
http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop..._about_hitler/
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...-gun-ownership
http://vagunforum.net/general-discus...95-147219.html
Much of the confusion comes from the Jews not being allowed guns. I understand that the Jews were NOT citizens, so gun ownership was one of a long list of things that they were prevented from doing.
By the way, my liberal friends find me far to conservative for them.
MikeC (February 4th, 2013)
SO!!!! No ONE is trying to take your guns. NO ONE but made up bogy men.
It is like saying that because the city of Dallas wants me to register my dog, that will soon decide to come and seize my dog. Or that registering my car, means the state intends to take it. NONE of those things can be done without additional LAWS and they would have to be passed.
Before you jump to NOLA after Katrina, yes there were some guns seized, but it was a fairly small number of the guns in the city and some of those were taken from abandoned houses. Some were taken from citizens, BUT they did not go and search every house in the city looking for guns. That was a strange time, the police did a LOT of illegal and immoral things. The civil order was left shaken, and in that situation a lot will go wrong. I hope no American city has to live through something like that again.
Treasure, I'm sure you remember the NRA saying that Obama would take your guns if he got elected, then he got elected and he didn't. Then they said he'd take your guns if he got re-elected, and this whole not-taking-your guns in the first term was just a ploy so he could do it in the second?
http://wonkette.com/453659/nra-chief...ling-your-guns
“Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled,” La Pierre declared.
And he got elected. And he's not taking your guns.
Your dog unlike my gun has a mind of its own . It can bite someone maybe ? depending on the dog . Yet my gun seems to stay exactly where I leave it ?
And have you looked at the actual proposals? Are there not some there you would support?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...als/index.html
More detail:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0052.htm
How can you say that ? Maybe your trust him but I dont . Never will either . But thats just me and millions of other Americans .Treasure, I'm sure you remember the NRA saying that Obama would take your guns if he got elected, then he got elected and he didn't. Then they said he'd take your guns if he got re-elected, and this whole not-taking-your guns in the first term was just a ploy so he could do it in the second?
http://wonkette.com/453659/nra-chief...ling-your-guns
“Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled,” La Pierre declared.
And he got elected. And he's not taking your guns.
Does this mean you support siezing dogs?
'cos otherwise how is it relevant to the point that was made - which is that dogs are licenced AND IS NOT BEING SEIZED, cares are licenced and/or registered AND IS NOT BEING SIEZED, and the proposals for gun registration/licencing ARE NOT PROPOSALS TO SIEZE GUNS.
Last edited by MikeC; February 4th, 2013 at 04:21 PM.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Cairenn (February 4th, 2013)
Not many . its seems all about money we dont have being spent on studies . My Ar and my 30rd mags ? Glock 17 with 17 rd mags ? Mental backround checks sound good but that means any vet diagnosed with PTSD no guns , Like the one who just gunned down 2 in texas . Makes law abiding citizens criminals . When they get rid of their security then they can talk gun control . None of those people are more important then me or my family or you . They can all Kiss My @## {Direct U.S. attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun and make recommendations to ensure dangerous people aren't slipping through the cracks.} Eric Holder ? Really ? ITS FINE THEY PURCHASED BILLIONS OF ROUNDS OF HOLLOW POINTS ? which are used for killing not target practice .
Maybe mean ones like pitbulls .Does this mean you support siezing dogs?
'cos otherwise how is it relevant to the point that was made - which is that dogs are licenced AND IS NOT BEING SEIZED, cares are licenced and/or registered AND IS NOT BEING SIEZED, and the proposals for gun registration/licencing ARE NOT PROPOSALS TO SIEZE GUNS.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks