37°Clear

Patrick Hope to Introduce Bill Banning Guns in Virginia’s Capitol

by ARLnow.com — January 11, 2011 at 1:55 pm 2,331 123 Comments

(Updated at 2:15 p.m.) Del. Patrick Hope (D), who represents part of Arlington in the Virginia House of Delegates, announced that he will introduce legislation today that would ban firearms in Virginia’s Capitol building and the General Assembly Building.

Although Hope wrote the legislation several weeks ago, he is now citing the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon, Arizona on Saturday as a reason why it should be passed.

“The tragedy this weekend in Tucson should cause all public officials to re-examine the safety and security of themselves, their staff, and visitors,” Hope said in a statement. “Every day we put our personal lives, the lives of our staff, and the lives of the general public at risk by allowing firearms in the GAB and the Capitol.”

Hope said criticism of his bill is misguided.

“There’s nothing offensive or unconstitutional about asking individuals not to bring firearms into the GAB or the Capitol,” he said. “You can’t walk through an airport with a gun, you can’t enter the US Capitol or Federal Courthouses with a gun. Why should the Virginia Capitol and the GAB be any different?”

In 2006, a lawmaker accidentally fired his gun in the General Assembly Building. The bullet struck a bulletproof vest that was hanging in a closet and no one was hurt, save a small cut on the lawmaker’s hand.

Anyone with a concealed weapon permit is allowed to carry a gun in the Capitol and General Assembly Buildings.

  • Ben

    I get the banning issue but claiming it will protect lives (save from accidents) is extremely misguided.

    You think a criminal would suddenly stop and go home because guns were banned from a particular location?

    • mehoo

      If you ban guns in a certain building, and enforce it with appropriate measures, yes, the presences of guns and gun violence in that building will go way down in that location. The Capitol is a potential target, just like an airplane.

      • Dude Where’s My Car

        You may just be moving the location of the violence. The ancient Romans had a religious boundary of Rome called the Pomerium. No weapons were allowed inside the Pomerium. So, when they wanted to shank Julius Caesar, they just patiently waited until he was outside the Pomerium. Supposedly Brutus said “Sic Semper Tyrannis” (“thus always to tyrants”) when stabbing Caesar, which is of course the motto of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as being a favorite phrase of John Wilkes Booth and Timothy McVeigh.

        • The Pope of South Arlington

          “Supposedly Brutus said “Sic Semper Tyrannis” ”

          So saith Shakespeare. I dont know why this misnomer still has wings?

          • Dude Where’s My Car

            I qualified it with “supposedly,” because there is always one person in the crowd who raises his hand and says, “Uh, Brutus didn’t actually say that…” :-D I guess we will never know for sure since Fox News wasn’t around at the time. ;-)

        • mehoo

          No, I think it’s likely that some people will want to shoot up the Capitol, and won’t get a thrill or make a statement out of shooting somewhere else. You know, like on airplanes.

        • KalashniKEV

          Elevating elected officials to “Royalty Status” is like pouring gasoline on the fire.

          • mehoo

            They are already elevated to “target” status. And as you may have noticed with the shooting in AZ, civilians often get hit too.

          • KalashniKEV

            So am I worth less in the eyes of the law?

            That’s as ridiculous as “Hate Crimes” legistlation…

          • mehoo

            You’re not worth less. When you go to the Capitol, you’ll be protected too. When legislators are outside the Capitol, they get no special protection.

            This bill applies to a place that is a more likely target. Just like airplanes.

      • KalashniKEV

        That’s right! Because spree killings never happen at places that restrict the right to defend yourself! Like College Campuses, Military Installations, Shopping Malls, the Post Office… Oh wait… THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE IS TRUE!

        • mehoo

          Um, they happen less often when appropriate security measures are in place.

          Saying that we should just give up because we can’t prevent every single incident is kinda silly. You could say that about any law.

          • KalashniKEV

            And whenever someone feels like not-following-the-rules you get some doofus giving a press conference saying, “appropriate measures failed today…”

            If you aren’t inclined to follow the rules in the first place (like, ummm you’re planning a murder, or you’re a criminal) you won’t be deterred from carrying out your evil plan.

          • mehoo

            If you have evidence that security measures never work, let me know.

            Pointing to a high-risk area and saying there was violence despite the security measures is misleading, because that’s why the security measures are there in the first place, and it’s quite possible that there would be MORE violence without them.

          • KalashniKEV

            I know how it works… I even done it.

            Your false logic only works on the un-knowledged.

          • mehoo

            It’s not false logic, dude. Is security always useless? Provide some evidence that security never stops crime.

    • BoredHouseWife

      Exactly.

    • Darwin

      There are on average 2.5 MILLION defensive uses of guns every year. Banning law abiding citizens from owning AND carrying them invites criminals to kill and/or rape these conveniently helpless victims.

      • mehoo

        True – except in places where security can provide more protection than armed citizens could…such as in a secure government building with armed guards and metal detectors.

      • Set the controls

        Out of curiosity, which is the worse fate to the gun-slinging public? That only officialdom is allowed to own guns or that marauding outlaws are the only members of the public able to obtain guns, leaving the “law-abiding” as the only unarmed citizenry? Kind of a loaded question, I know.

  • Lou

    Make the legislators give theirs up, too.

    • Arlington, Northside

      Why? It is there house.

    • Arlington, Northside

      *their

  • The Pope of South Arlington

    1. You cant legislate insanity.

    2. Congresswoman Giffords was shot at a Safeway.

    • mehoo

      1. You can do SOMETHING about it. You don’t just give up.

      2. Perhaps that’s because guns in the U.S. Capitol are banned. You think they shouldn’t be? The point is that these people are special targets. It makes sense to have extra security in the place they gather, the place most likely to attract nutjobs.

      • Burger
        • Arlington, Northside

          That incident brings up legit talking points for both sides of the gun debate.

        • mehoo

          Do you think all laws should be abolished simply because some people continue to succeed in committing crimes?

          • Andrew

            No, but that also doesn’t mean making more laws that impact law-abiding citizens.

          • mehoo

            Those laws also protect law-abiding citizens though.

            Look, out on the street and in your home, you should expect to defend yourself. The police can’t be everywhere. But in a contained area where there’s a very high risk and few entry points, it’s practical to disarm everyone (except security guards) reliably.

            Do you think we should allow guns on airplanes too?

          • Burger

            Ah…your typical use of hyperbole to argue.

            Did I say that. No. My point is that facts do not support your argument and this is coming from someone that believes in gun control.

          • mehoo

            No hyperbole. Are you referring to my comment about airplanes? Can you answer it?

        • Lou

          I think the answer is that the ban did not work. The guy got around a metal detector and killed two people.

          Figured I would answer the question since it was being avoided.

          • mehoo

            I answered it. I said the idea that you should just give up on a law because it won’t work 100% of the time is silly.

            Without a gun ban in the Capitol, you might have alot more shootings than that one.

          • KalashniKEV

            Then again, you might not…

            What if, What if…

            What if self defense were unrestricted in the Capitol and the victim issued a proper response?

          • mehoo

            The victim issued a proper response? Is that before or after he’s dead?

          • KalashniKEV

            Whenever a “complex problem” presented itself to me, Death-in-Place was never really an acceptable option.

            Perhaps to you, it is!

          • mehoo

            Death in place is certainly an option for everyone, if the shooter shoots you first. It was for six people in Arizona. No security measure – an armed guard or your own personal weapon – is 100% reliable.

          • KalashniKEV

            Seatbelts aren’t 100% effective either, but they’re still a reasonable precaution and I still wear them too.

            NEXT.

    • Dude Where’s My Car

      We should “legislate insanity,” in the sense that we should make it easier for psychotic people to get medical help and antipsychotic drugs than it is for them to get ammo. If you hear voices in your head telling you to kill people, it should be easier for you to buy a prescription refill than a box of hollowpoints. But ironically, the conservatives who are against free or cheap meds for crazy people (“socialized medicine”) are also the ones who favor unfettered access to semiautomatic weapons.

      • ClarGirl

        I could not agree with this more. I’m not exactly pro-gun but I’m far less concerned about people having guns than about them not having access to mental help. If they had easy access to a variety of treatment options, I wouldn’t need to be that concerned about their access to guns. Crazy people with a mission will find a way to make it happen. We need them to be treated for the crazy.

      • The Pope of South Arlington

        Here’s the problem, crazy people don’t realize they’re crazy.

        • Dude Where’s My Car

          Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes the crazy person has a comorbid illness (e.g. major depression in the Va. Tech shooter, alcoholism in the Tucson shooter) which they do recognize, and, if there were low barriers to psychiatric eval and treatment, could nip the problem in the bud and keep people from going off the deep end. However, with both the Va. Tech shooter and the Tucson shooter, it was known publically by others that these were people who needed help. That is, we didn’t have to wait until the crazy person self-identified as “crazy.” What we needed to do was point them in the direction of treatment and make that an easier, more attractive option to going on a killing spree. Our society can’t afford to penalize people for seeking help, when we’ve decided that we want guns to be ubiquitous and cheap.

  • mehoo

    I wonder how many people are reading this and thinking “you mean they aren’t banned already?”

    • Michelle

      No, I was thinking that Richmond is already a very liberal area when it comes to guns to banning them would make ZERO sense. What the hell is the purpose of the 2nd ammd. if things like this continue to happen?

      • mehoo

        Could you rephrase that? It’s confusing.

  • Patrick

    Why not just make an announcement to all criminals intent on shooting up the capitol and GAB buildings that once past security you will encounter no armed resistance?

    • brif

      because once past security there will still be armed law enforcement personnel on duty.

      • mehoo

        What Virginia, and most of the nation – but especially Virginia – needs is better mental health services and identification of the need for services.

        • TGEoA

          As long as you live here, I agree.

          • mehoo

            Are you posting from class? Does your teacher know you’re screwing around on the computers?

  • Arlington, Northside

    Just as an FYI, guns are banned and screened at courthouses to keep victims from bringing in there own justice, and to keep defendants from riding themselves of witnesses and judges they disagree with. You can’t really compare such a place with a legislature building.

  • R.Griffon

    Classic “feel good” legislation, and nothing more. Anyone intent on doing harm will either walk right past the guards and metal detectors, or simply wait outside until their intended target comes out.

    • Banksy

      By your logic, what’s the point of having ANY laws because they’ll always get broken? People speed so we shouldn’t have any speed limits! How asinine.

      Gun nuts cry, “Criminals can always get guns,” as if the black market for guns is a magic street corner where the weapons miraculously appear. Guess what? Law enforcement knows how guns get into the hands of criminals — through gun shows and other private sales where background checks aren’t required, through crooked gun dealers, by theft from gunowners who are too stupid to secure their weapons. The problem is, the gun lobby makes it easy for criminals to get their hands on guns by ensuring our gun laws are incredibly weak.

      This doesn’t even address the shooters who weren’t criminals until they pulled the trigger. Prohibiting the carrying of weapons in the legislature except by trained law enforcement makes sense. The NRA has duped people into thinking they need guns for self-defense, when in reality it’s more likely to be used in anger, insanity, or despair.

      • KalashniKEV

        “People speed so we shouldn’t have any speed limits! How asinine.”

        And by lowering the speed limit, we’ll always catch Bank Robbers!

        Logic FAIL.

        • Banksy

          Coherent retort FAIL!

          I don’t think you understood the point I was making. Read my comment again. It’s okay if your lips move when you do.

      • R.Griffon

        That’s just dumb. Nobody’s saying there shouldn’t be any laws b/c if there are they will just get broken. That’s your logic – not mine. Laws don’t change behavior (as anyone who’s driven up and down 95 will see, to use your example); they only establish a basis for punishment after the fact.

        The point is that whatever meager punishment they have in mind for people carrying a weapon into the building is trivial to someone determined to create the greater crime of actually shooting someone and all that that implies. It’s like making it illegal to drop your pants in an ally in an effort to prevent rape. It may help people without critical thinking skills to feel better, but it’s doing zero to deter crime.

        • Lou

          If I’m reading all this right, there is no proposed penalty. He just wants to disarm people, make them leave their guns with security. This only applies to the CCW subset, as they are currently the only non-officials allowed to bring guns into the two buildings.

      • Darwin

        “when in reality it’s more likely to be used in anger, insanity, or despair.”
        This is incorrect and the typical response every time some of our second amendment rights are restored. When VA (and many other states) began issuing conceal carry permits or allowing open carry anti-gunners cried “It will be the wild west with shootings on every corner if someone so much as cuts someone off!” Several years later they are ashamed and can’t admit that crime has gone down in every state that enacted laws allowing law abiding citizens to bear arms.
        An armed society is a polite and safe society.

    • mehoo

      Um, no, people won’t walk right past metal detectors. There are people called “guards” there to make sure they go through them.

      • R.Griffon

        Right. So they just shoot the guards (see: Capital shooting). Whew. Thank goodness it was only some minimum-wage earning guards who’ll be shot instead of our precious politicians. Crisis averted.

        • Lou

          And in that case he walked past the metal detector, then shot the people. Double ban-fail.

          • KalashniKEV

            Don’t forget about the pilot in Cali who lost his CCW for filming all kinds of people walking around the metal detectors… or the IRANIAN guy who walked THROUGH the metal detector with his pistol in Houston recently…

        • mehoo

          So how does that differ from law-abiding citizens with guns?

          How did that work out in Arizona?

          Security can’t be perfect, not even your version.

  • Khartet

    Good luck but the gun nutters will resist any reasonable control on guns. They have been brainwashed by the NRA. They won’t admit but they are all responsible for the ridiculous number of guns in this countyr and the rampant gun violence in our cities. They crie about the 2nd ammendment but all conveniently skip over the “well regulated militia” part. There is no reasoning with a gun nut.

    • Banksy

      Damn straight. The gun nuts don’t really give a damn about preventing crime or senseless shootings. The measures they support only cause more violence.

    • Andrew

      What is reasonable control? How well have gun control laws worked for Canada and the UK?

      • Banksy

        Better than our weakass laws here! Check out http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

        The data is a bit old, but the United States’ per capita murder rate by firearms in 1998-2000 was more than 5 times that of Canada and 27 times that of the U.K.

        • KalashniKEV

          Why not get really “progressive” and compare them to the rest of continental Europe??? It’s cultural. Men in those societies are emasculated and they don’t have our values.

          • mehoo

            Because that’s goofy.

          • KalashniKEV

            Any FACTS that doesn’t support the agenda of the Authoritarian Left is “goofy” anything Emotional is Rational and relevant… didn’t you guys invent this sort of doublespeak?

          • mehoo

            Um, no, the facts are simply irrelevant, and goofy too. And I’m not the authoritarian left. You will respond with some more goofiness about how I really am, because you can tell. You’re probably a Glenn Beck fan. I can tell.

          • KalashniKEV

            “the facts are simply irrelevant”

            Classic… I wasn’t sure if you were intellectually bankrupt enough to follow my trail of breadcrumbs there!

            Now we know! (And knowing is 50% of the Battle)

          • mehoo

            YOUR facts are irrelevant. You brought up something irrelevant. I called you on it. Why don’t you bring up poodle grooming and then throw a tantrum when I say that’s irrelevant too?

          • KalashniKEV

            Wipe the froth off your keys and clear your head. You’re being owned by your emotions right now. Think rationally. Stop saying foolish things.

            BTW… Would you care to guess what the other 50% of the Battle is?
            :)
            Hint: It requires a gun.

        • Andrew

          Cool…but, that doesn’t really show you what happened before and after gun control was enacted in Canada and the UK.

    • KalashniKEV

      We’re just “Drunk off Freedom.”

      :)

    • Dave

      The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm beyond serving in a militia. The Supreme Court said “a well regulated militia” is just an example, and does not limit the operative clause, which is the right to bear arms. (see here)

      That being said, I really have no problem with not allowing regular citizens to carry firearms in the Virginia Capitol and General Assembly. I was surprised that wasn’t already a rule.

  • QPGirl

    Exactly. What’s wrong is that this nutbag should never have been able to get a gun in the first place – just like the Va Tech shooter should never have been able to buy a gun.

    • Dude Where’s My Car

      Respectfully disagree with you here. This country goes round-and-round in circles on gun bans and gun restrictions. Some gun advocates respond with their own special brand of craziness by saying everyone should have guns :-D and that way someone else in the crowd can shoot anyone who embarks on a shooting spree. We go around and around on these points and rarely make progress. What we really need is for people who are obviously having mental problems to have free and unfettered access to mental health professionals and medication. Unfortunately, some of the people who argue against this kind of “socialized medicine” are also the ones arguing for free and unfettered access to guns & ammo.

  • othersideoftheriver

    I agree with dude where’s my car — interestingly, Arizona also apparently is unique in having a system wherein anyone can call mental health services and say “so and so needs you to take a look at them.” Just too few people were aware of it in the Ariz. shooter’s case.

    • KalashniKEV

      That’ll work great! How long should they then detain the person for observation? Until they are deemed “harmless?”

      This could be very useful to the authoritarian left!!!

      • Eponymous Coward

        Until they’re certain he’s not a Mexican?

        • Dude Where’s My Car

          lol

        • KalashniKEV

          How can we be certain if he doesn’t carry identification?

          I think we recently discovered that in the absence of adequate documentation the default category is “Citizen.” :)

      • mehoo

        Oh, give it a rest already. This kind of paranoia is why we can’t even make progress with basic mental health services. (It’s also a reason to seek those services, but that will have to wait for another day).

  • The Pope of South Arlington

    Apart from the dead people there’s no meaning here, just another self-seeking degenerate looking for distinction.

    • Lou

      Word

    • KalashniKEV

      And more self-serving anti-constitutionalists trying to capitalize on tragedy to enrich themselves at the expense of the citizens.

      • mehoo

        Yeah, this is called a “circumstantial ad hominem.” Look it up.

        • KalashniKEV

          Check your tone there, John Stewart. :)

          • mehoo

            You obviously didn’t look it up. Try “www.google.com.” Ah, heck, you need some help. Here:

            http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

          • KalashniKEV

            Outside of her political affiliation, McCarthy is a disturbed and off balanced person, with revenge on her mind. This is the LAST person you want making the rules!

            I feel for her loss, but I don’t think it’s a qualification to hold political office. No matter how much evil she can inflict upon the rest of us, it’s not going to bring her husband back.

            BTW, let’s confront the faults in her logic… Collin Ferguson was a racially motivated spree killer. Did she blame her loss on race relations in this country? No. She blamed the inanimate object. Why? Who knows, but uniting people together is far less satisfying than tearing them apart when malice is on your mind and you are bent on Revenge. She is a sick, sick person.

  • Lacy Forest

    If the person has a CCW permit, I say let him in. Many studies have shown that CCW permit holders are the most law-abiding citizens out there. For example, a Georgia study found that CCW permit holders were 5 times less likely then non-permit holders to commit violent crime and a Texas study found them to be 14 times less likely to commit a non-violent crime.

    • R.Griffon

      This. Only I’d like to make the additional caveat that I think some level of mandatory training and proficiency testing should accompany such permits.

      • Darwin

        I don’t have a problem with this…sometimes I wish they did this to allow people to have kids! (Kidding of course on the last part!)

  • Roger

    These Democrats will do ANYTHING to slam dunk individual liberties! First it’s the Sheriff of Pima with the airwaves inflamatory speech.I guess the rhetoric calling for Pres.Bush’s assasination wasn’t inflamatory at all then.Now we have another Democrat in VA demanding that one can’t wear a gun in the State Capitol building?Why not?He’s afraid? What’s he need to be afraid of for, the criminals that shoot politicians have always targeted conservatives, not liberals. Proving once again that criminals are obviously not listening to this inflamatory speech. This speech the libs hate so much is about small Gov./MORE individual liberty as opposed to less that the libs teach, less tax as opposed to the libs ever more tax, and on and on.
    If criminals really did target politicians based on hate of the Gov., they would be targeting liberals because libs really DO hate Gov.
    Come on liberals, you’ve got nothing to worry about.

    • Wolf_N_Sheep

      Waste of time, money, and our liberty. Shame on Old Dominion if we pass this.

  • JimPB

    If it’s good for the seat of state government, then it’s good for each of our workplaces and for our home domains.

  • Darwin

    Patrick is my rep, I have met him on several occasions, he is a nice well meaning guy but refuses to listen to any logic when it comes to gun laws. He clings to the belief that VA has in his words “some of the most lenient gun laws in the country” and would not accept my response that the rabid anti-gun Brady group itself admits we have the 14th strictest laws.

    His views on health care and capital punishment are worth a listen though. Like I said good guy but with a non-fact based bias toward guns.

    • KalashniKEV

      Kudos to you, sir, for confronting a gun grabber and calling him out on his irrational agenda. The Facts simply do NOT support their argument, so they need to rely on Emotion and spin it up as much as they can. It’s always sick to see the enemies of the constitution crawl out from under their rocks in the wake of a tragedy- to enrich themselves and earn political capital.

      Who ever thought we would hear Carolyn McCarthy’s name again?

      • mehoo

        You have a constitutional right to carry guns into a government building? Really?

        How about an airplane?

        • KalashniKEV

          I have the right to carry a gun where ever I see fit. It’s part of the rights that exist in a state of nature, and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

          The fact that I am restricted from doing so in certain places, and under certain circumstances, is an abomination, and a threat to my safety.

      • Darwin

        Actually yes I do have the right to carry on planes and in government buildings, I’m a law abiding citizen and when the TSA has stated they expect us regular plane passangers to be the first line of defense you had better believe the means to protect myself goes double. Unfortunately Mehoo your “let’s take away every one’s rights before they do something wrong” line of thinking can only be answered by a quote from George Washington:
        “It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.”

        • mehoo

          Wow, someone took the bait. Maybe we should have two airline systems, one with no security and one with. You could opt out of TSA. Who needs a boxcutter?

          “let’s take away every one’s rights before they do something wrong”

          No, that is not my thinking. I am merely making specific, reasonable exceptions. In general, I support gun rights.

          • KalashniKEV

            Well if Mohammed Atta or some other Radical answered the call to Jihad, I would just shoot them.

            What’s the box cutter for? Those pesky little bags of peanuts that go flying everywhere???

          • Darwin

            Not “no security” but what if I am a conceal carry permit holder meaning I not only passed a background check to buy a firearm but also a more thorough one to carry it, what is the danger in letting those of us in this category carry on a plane or in a state capitol building? The answer is “none”. People always use the term “reasonable gun laws” but they are typically anything but a way to slowly erode our rights.

          • mehoo

            Sure, you’d just shoot him. He wouldn’t shoot you first, or shoot a hole in the side of the plane. Nobody would be hurt in a hail of gunfire in a crowded metal tube.

          • mehoo

            Darwin – does this mean you think that someone who has no CC permit should be excluded from the Capitol with a gun?

            I would think you would oppose permits at all. Someone who thinks they have a right to carry on a plane would probably think they have a right to carry without a permit, etc. Or do you make a distinction between concealed and open? Doesn’t seem consistent either.

            I interpret this to mean you also support reasonable exceptions, you just have a different idea about what they should be. Which should make for much more productive and respectful discussion than some of the children on this board have to offer.

          • KalashniKEV

            Tell that argument to the Air Marshall who was pumping gas last week before USAjobs got to his application…

          • Darwin

            Mehoo, that is the current rule in VA, you must have a CC permit to carry in the Capital building. But yes (Touché)I guess I do make the distinction between some one who has gone out to get the permit and one that has not as to where they can carry. (However I don’t think you should need one to open carry in almost all locations.) I am willing to compromise where it seems to make sense. For example in VA I can have a friend come over and hand me $400 and I hand them one of my guns and we are totally legal. No background check, no paperwork. Now I can be arrested if that person was not allowed to own a gun so it would be in my best interest to check but I don’t have to. I would be willing to make that check manditory if only to silence anti-gun critics.

  • Darwin

    You never see people begging to have their rights taken away faster than on the gun issue. The BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) is an abomination, what if I had a government agency called the Bureau of Speech, Religion, and Firearms?

    • KalashniKEV

      BATFE was conceived as a sort of “American Gestapo” to carry out paramilitary action against American citizens where Posse Comitatus and the Army Values would prevent the Army from doing so.

      • mehoo

        Just gets better! Keep piling it on!

        • KalashniKEV

          OK… I’ve got a Google assignment for you… Waco.

          (not the town)

          • mehoo

            More! I want more!

          • Banksy

            Gotta give it to you, mehoo — your ability to put up with the rantings by the likes of KalashniKEV and Darwin is admirable. Congratulations! You have reached the “get the gun nut to spout off about the Posse Comitatus and Waco” level! Would you like to try for the “Hitler banned guns, so gun control=Nazism” level of irrational arguments?

          • KalashniKEV

            Molon Labe!

          • Darwin

            Banksy, I didn’t make any of those comments but point taken, its like when I go on liberal forms and suggest President Obama can not in fact walk on water and the liberals work themselves into a blind rage and end up chanting “F” Bush or something that doesn’t even apply to the conversation.

            Many of us take our gun rights very personally because it comes across as people literally trying to take away our ability to stay alive and keep our families alive should the rare occasion arise where we would need our firearms to do so.

          • KalashniKEV

            Test?

  • KalashniKEV

    Oh, wow…

×

Subscribe to our mailing list