User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7104 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
The pimple on that elephant's ass was a child's life, Ray.
Which is why people want to increase the controls, Ray. The existing laws worked. Unfortunately, existing law allowed his mother to have stockpiled weapons of an absurd nature, and he used those instead.
Your argument that "the law worked, so there's no point in trying to improve the law, because the law would never work" is...convoluted, to say the least
But here's where this supposed comparison falls apart... The NRA is a really thing. We KNOW who the NRA is. It has a real budget, conducts real fundraising, does real lobbying, has a real person who says these things, and exerts real influence on lawmakers.
What is the "left"? Some amorphous, constantly shifting boogeyman... which has no real power. Sure - you can find a Bloomberg here, some urban congressman there - but they're hardly speakers for the "left" as a whole by any reasonable definition. They don't win their seats based on the issue - and any replacements wouldn't lose them based on different stances.
You're essentially equating one of the most successful fundraising and lobbying entities in the nation with a bunch of blog scribblers.
That's just ridiculous.
Well, we could save at least another child's life if we lock up all the Adam Lanza's. WHY DON'T YOU ADVOCATE THAT WE DO THIS, YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD?!!?!?!
Why do people re-post their comments on the next page? We all read it the first time.
Sam, I say this in all sincerity; you're way too smart to be making such a dumb argument.
Obama has no power? Lawmakers have no power? I wasn't forced into Obamacare?
Obama is not "the left" - I consider myself something along the order of "left-center-left" - and Obama is absolutely not part of my ideological tribe. We certainly have some things we agree on - but to whatever extent I'm part of the "left", we don't have anything near the universal cohesiveness that the NRA as a 'thing' has.
What's more - exactly what position has come out of the WH that has the same level of federal police force, armed guards everywhere nonsense we got from the NRA?
It's textbook sleight of hand, Ray --
"The NRA was just matching the insanity of this "left""... and sure, one can find plenty of 'insanity from the left' with a google search.
But that insanity from the left isn't coming from Obama... but you deftly try to substitute Obama for 'the left'.
Do you really think that argumentative logic isn't that baldly transparent?
The GrOverton Window.
He is not singing your tune on revisiting gun laws in the wake of Sandy Hook?
I appreciate the compliment, but in this case, I think I'll stick with the point for the time being.
If reducing the firepower available to Lanza reduced his kill rate by even a fraction, to the point where 24 died instead of 26, that's not something to be handwaved away as a "pimple on an elephant's ass." (And Rays absurd notion that moving existing gun regulations back one tiny step, such that detachable extended clips are classified with automatic weapons and banned from the general public, is equivalent to locking up anyone with "mental illness" is just batshit insane.)
I think I've stated my tune pretty specifically:
1) Universal background checks for transition of ownership/gun acquisition
2) Banning of extended magazines/clips beyond whatever the reasonable limit is (I've said 10)
The third item - "assault weapons ban" - I generally support, but recognize that 'assault weapons' is awfully vague to statutorily define.
While the WH has not specifically said anything -- I'm willing to bet that Obama would agree on those three items as being reasonable, if not ideal legislation.
Does that constitute "insanity from the left"?
Did a 24-hour waiting period, informed consent, and parental consent requirements constitute "insanity from the right" with regard to abortion? And yet the left - in the form of Planned Parenthood in this instance - opposed these things in Casey.
Can you guess what they were afraid of? They think the ultimate end goal of many on the right is to ban all abortion. And they're correct.
2) Banning of extended magazines/clips beyond whatever the reasonable limit is (I've said 10)
When Ray asked what wouldn't be mocked by the circle-jerk lefties if the NRA stated it, it is this type of thing that I was referring to. Which had been stated already. Which he ignores.
EDIT: Or, answers with a question. Equally responsive.
In other words, deflector shields to maximum!
I always thought the whole "Chewbacca defense" was silly parody of the legal mind... but apparently, they implant a chip with a JD that makes one not only proficient in -- but unable to discuss anything without resorting to logical three-card monte.
Not as crassly as he did, but it's still the same argument and demagogic appeal to emotion as the pro-Drug War arguments I've heard from police most of my life and I imagine what a lot of people heard about alcohol during the 20s. Liberals should be better than that.
Truly insane but he's pretty fun for a wingnut and has a sense of humor. We used to make light of the fact that he resembles Tor Johnson and he took it really well.
I didn't ignore it. It's exactly as I stated: as long as the NRA endorses a lefty response to the problem, you guys are totally cool with the NRA.
For a millisecond, anyway, since nobody sane truly believes that the NRA would never be harrassed again by the left if only it endorsed a lefty response to Sandy Hook.
Or Ed Muskie. I remember Jimmy Carter, probably at the '96 DNC after Muskie had died, saying fervently "wouldn't Ed Muskie have made a great President?" He was expecting mass applause, but all the delegates were like, "whatever." Good public servant, though, for sure.
Isn't that by your definition, any response at all that involves guns (aside from passing out more of them)?
Ray, if the NRA decided to place on the boxes (yes, they come in boxes) of 1 out of every 1000 guns sold "Purposefully shooting people in the face who aren't holding a gun on you is probably wrong", you'd call it a lefty response. This discussion with you is pointless, because as you've clearly stated many times, the idea of compromise to you is pointless. Which brings me back to the relevancy of your positions.
It simply doesn't compute for me.
Hell, they don't even need to "endorse it" -- I'd settle for them agreeing not to send out the fear-mongering hounds and simply say "show us the details and we'll hold fire if those proposals are workable with our core mission of protecting second amendment rights"...
...and I'll even listen and bend when it comes things like, say -- who pays for the backgound check and how do we make it accessible to all gunsellers (to which my answer would be - if you're worried about cost, I'd be willing to statutorily guarantee it be free).
I perfectly understand the concept of slippery slopes and limitations on 'rights' -- but we have all sorts of limitations on the 1st amendment that no one seems all that interested in fighting... My freedom of speech doesn't allow me to go to the town square and begin shouting profanities through a megaphone -- and I think most of us are fine with this limitation.
Limiting clip size and universal background checks seem to be perfectly reasonable equivalents... I readily admit they won't stop innocent folks from being shot nor will they end massacres... just like 'disturbing the peace' ordinances wouldn't prevent me from actually going to Daley Plaza tomorrow and getting in a few choice shouts before I faced the choice of either being arrested or ceasing the activity.
The expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban led to a 38% increase in homicides in municipios located near the AZ, TX and NM border compared to those located on the California border.
Quoting from the paper, which is a PDF:
US Gun law leads to thousands of additional homicides each year and many more suicides. Is that a pimple on an elephant's ass? Only if you're an idiot.
What the Ray and the NRA are really arguing is that there is no such thing as a "reasonable" restriction on gun ownership. Which is ridiculous on its face, since there are already numerous restrictions on gun ownership that the overwhelming majority of NRA members find perfectly reasonable.
If it's appropriate for the NRA to fear that the real agenda of those who propose modest restrictions is really to confiscate all firearms from all civilians, then it's only logical for the rest of the world to conclude that the NRA's real agenda is to make it legal for anyone to own 50 caliber machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.
Based on the context of its invocation 'round these here parts, I believe it consists of Tommy Chong, Andy Dick, and Wavy Gravy.
Because you don't give a crap about anything you disagree with. And you refuse to move, in any direction, at all. Various (no, not all) lefties in this very debate are more willing to look on how viable their plans might be, that to accept that FULL BANS OMG are not the answer, so instead go for small compromises. I personally have already said I didn't think more laws might be the answer, that is actually my default position, but there are good ideas out there. There is also endless data such as in #4423, that works with actual numbers. You. Don't. Care. That is it, period. Belief wins, every time.
That's not limited in scope or anything...
Let's see what the National Academy of Sciences said in reviewing the studies on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
The gun issue has never been of much interest to me so I can't say I've read a ton on the issue, but I've before heard anyone on the control side of the argument say anything so conscientious with regard to potential economic hardship from regulations. I think if more Dems said this kinda stuff in public they could probably peel away a significant lot of NRA-sympathetic people.
Because it could be saved by a less intrusive, not to mention actually sane, idea -- keeping guns like the AR-15 out of the hands of the Adam Lanzas.
You still haven't addressed the upthread criticism of your preposterous assertion that Lanza would have killed 26 and exactly 26 kids had he used something other than assault weapons, just because he wanted to.
Once was a 1997 study, one was a 2001 study. There are more in there (this particular ban ended in 2004).
There's a whole free PDF available.
NAS also referred to the Australian bans after the Tasmanian killings, as well.
Here's the abstract for the the NYU study, which found estimated that 21% of the 60% increase in homicides in Mexico were due to ease of availability because of the serious drug cartel activities.
Personally, I neither own a gun nor have any desire to have one. I'm a member of the ACLU and not a member of the NRA. I personally have no problem with limiting capacities and some of the other things mentioned as a reasonable, pragmatic compromise. My only complaint in this subject is that I think there's an issue of trust here on the part of gun owners, the same one that you see from the pro-choice folks - it's hard to trust a reasonable compromise with the same people who have gleefully declared they want much more strict measures. Many gun owners no doubt feel -- and I believe that this is accurate -- that if they simply agree to these compromises, next time there's a very public heinous crime like this, there will be new "reasonable compromise" that moves farther, and so on.
The FAWB, as flawed as it was, still reduced gun deaths. A better bill, which provided fewer loopholes, would do even better.
I would say the bad form is dishonestly quoting only parts of a study, but that's me.
Also, here is one reason why the FOX network is a christmas miracle. Never leave us, FOX.
(edited slightly)
Finally, something Ray can agree with.
The problem is that it would seem to have its own thorny legal issues as well, both due the the nature of the second amendment being a right that you'd essentially have to pay to exercise, and due to greatly extending what liability is creative -- lawyers, let me know if I'm thinking of the right term here -- proximate cause issues. Would really need Ray or DMN to speak further to this, I guess.
Yeah, to the actual responsible parties. The gun maker shouldn't be any more responsible for what the gun buyer does than the brewery should be responsible for the drunk driver or the box cutter manufacturer should be responsible for 9/11. Unless, of course, there was actual coercion involved.
That we support tort law for many things doesn't mean we support suing anybody for any thing one feels like.
"My only complaint in this subject is that I think there's an issue of trust here on the part of gun owners, the same one that you see from the pro-choice folks - it's hard to trust a reasonable compromise with the same people who have gleefully declared they want much more strict measures."
most interesting post of the day....
Sure, but the standard for product liability has never been coercion, it's negligence. And in some cases not even that is required. The argument re gun manufacturers is that they're selling an inherently dangerous product and that it's negligent to not make every effort to prevent that product from falling into the wrong hands. It's a difficult case to make and certainly doesn't apply to every shooting, but it seems like an obvious way to price some of the cost of shooting deaths into the gun economy. Otherwise, gun violence is a huge externality were asking society at large to eat. Maybe that's just the price of the 2nd amendment, but I'm not sure it has to be.
The left - at least me and everyone I know - opposes these measures on merits. Not because of some bizarre slippery slope argument, but because in and of themselves those changes are bad. For a whole variety of reasons, among them they conflict with what the medical profession as a whole has decided is medical best practice for a medical procedure.
So yes it is insanity from the right, which does also want a total ban and other things.
IANAL but I am pretty sure you have to pay right now (cost + taxes) to exercise that right.
I'm not saying it isn't done, I'm saying that it's a terrible justification.
I'm not saying that it's a slam-dunk that means it can't be done, but it is an additional complication.
Science has decided that medical best practice doesn't involve getting parental consent for minors for non-emergency procedures?
Whether or not you agree with the justification for such a law, it's damn hard to argue that parental consent for abortions, with allowances made for intervention in rare instance in which the minor would be in danger, isn't some great danger to the very notions of abortion rights. But pro-choice people *are* extremely distrustful when this is proposed by the very same people that want to completely ban abortion. And like the gun owners, for very good reason
among them they conflict with what the medical profession as a whole has decided is medical best practice for a medical procedure.
A compromise, by definition, is something that's going to be against the best beliefs of the parties involved. If I think the best price for my chocolate is $4 and your peanut butter is worth $1 and you think the best price for your peanut butter is worth $4 and my chocolate is worth $1, the marrying of peanut butter and chocolate is going to necessitate us both coming down from our best practices of valuing peanut butter and chocolate.
Generally speaking, the standard isn't negligence, it's strict liability. The traditional reason for not applying that to guns (or knives) is that the product is functioning as intended. That's the existing legal standard.
In order for insurance to work, it would have to apply to and be paid for by the purchaser of a gun at the time of purchase. The insurance would pay out any time someone was killed or injured by that gun, unless the owner could prove a sale (that is, the insurance would have to cover cases in which the gun was stolen). One obvious issue is that insuring a mass killing would be pretty expensive, making a gun purchase very costly. Of course, the lower the rate of fire, the lower the rate of insurance might be.
While I think there are problems with this idea, the fact that it imposes a cost on the exercise of a Constitutional right isn't very persuasive. You have, for example, a Constitutional right to a lawyer, but you have to pay for her. You have a Constitutional right to freedom of the press, but in order to exercise it you have to buy a press.
Depends. If alcoholic dad knocked up his teenaged daughter and coke-head mom thinks she should keep the baby, then yeah pretty much.
Yes, you have to pay in order to best exercise your right to free speech, but there's a big step between the practicality of needing to pay for publishing and requiring everyone that exercises free speech to have a prearranged libel insurance policy. A sales tax on the gun purchase is simply done in the context of the gun as commerce at the moment of purchase - a required insurance policy would directly hamper the right above and beyond a commercial transaction.
I addressed that directly.
There are 2 separate and distinct rights: to speech, and to "the press". In order to take advantage of the latter, you have to (or at least had to in the past) buy a "press". But even if this example weren't a good one, the lawyer example is.
Well, the economic argument would be that mandatory insurance prevents guy buyers from externalizing the cost of deaths caused by the guns they buy. In effect, you want society to subsidize that cost. Insurance eliminates that subsidy.
I suggested something similar above (single shot, bolt action). Whether this is Constitutional depends on how the Court takes Heller and MacDonald.
No, I would want the person who does something to be responsible for the things they and they alone do.
One wishes there were more to disagree with there than there is. Fervently.
This is exactly the type of thing which makes gun owners suspicious of reasonable measures. Allowing only one-shot guns is just as extreme a position to take as saying that any restriction whatsoever on clip size is an abomination. Self-defense is a difficult environment for the average gun owner, now you're essentially making it even more dangerous to defend oneself. Plus, with only one shot readily available, you make it a tactical necessity to choose a gun that minimizes the room for error or maximizes the stopping power.
While I don't have a gun or desire one, I do have shooting experience. If I needed a gun for self-defense, I'd go with a .22. If I only had one shot and wanted a gun under this scenario, I'm suddenly looking for a .500 Magnum or a shotgun.
There was also Fort Hood.... a freaken military base.
In fairness though, Armed school guards (assuming they're paid and/or real police) are actually less insane than armed teachers at least.
That they have much lower population density, urban centers, racial conflict ? (non whites make up about 5% of the population. and most of that are East Asians)
I've been saying this and again, if the GOP really think the gun rights is what the founding father intended, then they should also advocate for the return of mandatory draft service, since anyone with any sense of history will see that the milita was inseperatably tied to the 2nd amendment, and in reality, it does makes much more practical sense of building "social responsibility" than hoping that everyone goes to church.
A mandatory service to local milita would actually addrses quite a few things at once, but I'm pretty sure if the Republicans aren't going for that the Dems sure as hell won't either.
While I don't have a gun or desire one, I do have shooting experience. If I needed a gun for self-defense, I'd go with a .22. If I only had one shot and wanted a gun under this scenario, I'm suddenly looking for a .500 Magnum or a shotgun.
you've got a gun to defend yourself. Your attacker either doesn't or also has a single shot gun how is this different than having a 9mm and your attacker having a 9mm?
I also don't really care about what makes gun owners suspicious since everything other than, "yes, please I'll have another gun" makes them suspicious.
In fairness though, Armed school guards (assuming they're paid and/or real police) are actually less insane than armed teachers at least.
you know who has shown a history of brutality and occasionally losing it? Guards, that's who.
I agree, but it is a relative comparison to teachers, who are not that much less likely of losing it, and have a much higher chance of accidental discharge in the vicnity of kids and/or having kids messing with their weapons.
Pretty much all direct sales are a pyramid scheme to some extend. Amway was also accused before for example.
It's not a terrible idea. I mean, they shouldn't have guns, because that's just asking for problems, but having retired cops hang out in schools isn't a horrible idea.
This is both wrong on the merits and false in describing what the NRA wants. Taking the latter first, LaPierre called for police in all schools at taxpayer expense. He wants my tax dollars to pay for those who abuse the "right" he's defending.
Nor is this all. Society pays all kinds of costs for the misuse of guns: funerals for little children; medical expenses; emergency responders; the cost of the gun I myself might have to buy because the NRA won't agree to reasonable restrictions for the public safety.
As for the merits, you're skipping over the fact that the perps generally aren't available to be held responsible. They're dead. And however grateful we all are for that fact, that doesn't begin to pay for all the harm done. That additional payment -- insurance -- is what would actually make them "responsible".
Retired cops hanging out in schools doesn't do anything about the next Adam Lanza, whether they have guns or not. And putting what it would take to stop the next Adam Lanza in every elementary school is a terrible idea.
This, in a way, is the same thing that Ray is talking about. There are very few measures that could be put in place that are even remotely realistic to completely stop the next Adam Lanza.
But the goal shouldn't be to necessarily make it impossible, just to make it less likely. If we think about it in terms of baseball, pitchers don't try to make it impossible for hitters to hit the ball. They try to make it more difficult. That should be the policy goal for shooting deaths: harm prevention.
If you want to make it less likely you need to build more schools, decrease class size and school size, add more trained counselors, have more specialized schools, and of course have better trained teachers.
1. There is no right to bear arms. The second amendment is incomprehensible BS that means little to nothing for private citizens.
2. As there is no right to bear arms for private citizens, laws concerning guns should be considered as all other laws - by a balancing of the merits.
3. Thus, all guns should be illegal.
4. Yes, even guns primarily used for hunting should be illegal. If you want to kill a defenseless animal, use a crossbow. It should be hard to kill living things.
5. The federal government should immediately act to confiscate all privately owned guns.
I really don't think any "gun control" position that has entered the public consciousness in the past 20 years is in spitting distance of a true leftist position.
As established here after Obamacare Supreme Court case, there is a right to bear arms. By definition.
But in the spirit of the holidays, I thought I'd use the argument of my competitors.
And regardless, I'm not Ray.
And if Adam Lanza therefore shouldn't be used as pretense for more restrictive gun laws, then he also shouldn't be used as a pretense for less restrictive gun laws.
But anyway, I didn't actually disagree with your "not a terrible idea" assessment. My point was that it's basically a non-responsive idea. We could, in fact, defend our schools against these kinds of attacks if we really wanted to. But it would take something more along the lines of a national guard unit than a retired police officer.
I doubt that was a serious proposal. It's easy to propose something crazy that would never happen.
Or, the tact of the people against voter ID laws, who demand the same, plus not the slightest whiff of inconvenience.
This assumes that parental consent laws are working properly. They are not.
You know what frightens crazy conspiracy nuts with guns who are likely to go completely loopy and start shooting up places?
"The government."
And what's a good indication of "the government" trying to take over America?
"More armed government agents in places like schools, trying to imprison my kids like a FEMA camp!"
Right. It seems like an industry making a huge profit selling assault weapons and handguns and yet bearing none of the costs for the foreseeable (inevitable?) misuse of such weapons is a clear example of freeloading.
I do think Dan's comparison to the alcohol industry is interesting though. I can't think of an easy distinction between the two (other than the fact that I like beer and whiskey and i'm indifferent to guns).
Two potential points:
1. There is no protected right to ammunition. Chris Rock's $1,000 bullets idea fits in here. It has the benefit of being a free market solution, too!
2. For any protected right, the state still has the ability to regulate it, as long as it demonstrates a necessary and compelling interest. The protection of the populace has been accepted. After all, the 1930's act barring machine guns from private ownership has not been overturned. There's no reason why banning full automatics should be obviously constitutional and banning semi-automatics obviously unconstitutional.
Liberal position (and by the way, I know many people who feel this way about guns - - they just don't like then and don't think they should be legal) is that the 2nd Amendment WOULD grant a right (a la Obamacare) but it's uninterpretable nonsense (well regulated militia, etc., "arms" meaning small arms or ??)
But even if it did, the Liberal Anti-Gun position would be to repeal the 2nd.
Agreed. Really, this is something that should be in the libertarian wheelhouse.
Why do we want to have things in our society that aren't priced correctly? How can we say that gun deaths are priced correctly? I run over someone else with my car, they file a claim with the insurance I was required to have by law, the community of car owners and drivers picks up the tab, my individual rates also get raised or my privileges get taken away.
I shoot you with my gun, same deal. Uninsured guns are not paying their own way, because the owners of guns that result in death to others can't afford to pay the claims. This is economically inefficient.
The Lanza case should result in probably hundreds of millions of claims against the gun owning community. Even if Lanza had lived, he could not have afforded to pay those claims. So again, the gun owners are forced to pre-insure against the loss. This is exactly the type of society a libertarian should want.
Nobody ever dies as a result of elections? So, I guess all that talk of how Gore's administration would have been different than Bush's was just hot air.
And the proper comparison isn't people who got shot or got cancer versus people who didn't, but the difference over the baseline - the tobacco companies clearly lied (gun manufacturers have never hid that their guns kill things), but I'd be shocked if the number that would have not used cigarettes otherwise is anything significant.
It was just five guys in black robes, but I never claimed it was not binding; I claimed it was incorrect.
I don't think the same about the interpretation of the second amendment as the right of individuals to bear arms. (Not absolute, of course.) See, e.g., Scalia's majority opinion in Heller. Scalia is correct not because he is a man in a black robe, but because he makes the correct interpretation of the text.
The point is not the baseline at all. The point is that while studies exist that show both smoking and access to assault weapons contribute to the damages claimed, it's impossible to link them to any unique, specific instance of cancer or gun violence, in this case, the Lanza spree. People use that as an escape hatch, and that's what Ray's doing. No matter how general someone might argue for gun control, Ray will always argue it back to the Lanza spree while ignoring the larger argument. Ray is making the same case as the tobacco lobby did for so many years.
Since Lanza's dead, there's nobody for people to point a finger at. So they pretend the NRA was the second gunman.
The NRA's statement _was_ crazy. But no crazier than what we've heard from the usual suspects on the left. The NRA, hearing the nonsense spewed from the left, apparently decided to fight crazy with crazy, draw a line in the sand, and say (as quoted up thread) not one inch.
You mean like health insurance under Obamacare?
Rare is doing all the heavy lifting here, and it's wrong. While it's true that most minors having abortions aren't in danger, they're already telling their parent(s) without being legally compelled to. The only effect of mandatory parental concent is that you end up dragging the 14 year olds who's pregnancy was the result of being raped by her father into court so a dozen or more people can listen while she's forced to recount how her father raped her and told her she's a dirty whore who deserved it (which she probably believes, given it's how she's being raised, and which the judge may well believe, given the composition of judges and how many old people favor this kind of thing). More likely, she'll end up choosing between a coathanger or waiting for her father to induce a miscarriage with a beating that's a bit more vigorous than usual.
So yes, favoring that, for no additional benefit, is an evil position to take.
Nobody ever dies as a result of elections?
Ow. That's just not working.
Since Lanza's dead, there's nobody for people to point a finger at. So they pretend the NRA was the second gunman.
This either. Thinking the backlash would be an iota different against the NRA if Lanza was still alive continues to show you have no clue how humans think.
But not people. Guns don't kill people.
Even DC v. Heller allows plenty of restrictions on handguns, though; it just says you can't outright ban them. So why not pursue the allowable restrictions, and push their limits? The right has no problem doing that when women want to exercise their Roe v. Wade rights, or when it comes to imprisoning huge numbers of people for nonviolent crimes and disenfranchising many of them. Things are plain odd when the Republican Party wants to remove so many people from the voting rolls, but not remove them from the gun-ownership rolls.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main