Anti-gun politician gets his prison sentence

It’s not for the crimes he committed against gun owners but 14 years in prison will keep him off the streets long enough and probably out political office forever such that Rod Blagojevich will never trouble us again. Read about his sentence and crimes here, here, and here.

I first heard about Blagojevich from a friend who was a gun-rights activist in Chicago. Some of the stories were astounding. The corruption and abuse of power that comes out of that political cesspool makes it very clear why they don’t want citizens to own firearms. People that willing to causally abuse the power of government for personal gain know the subjects of their abuse will entertain thoughts of ending their reigns of terror via lead poisoning.

Here is an open letter to Blagojevich my friend wrote when Blagojevich was in Congress.

Good-bye and good riddance to Rod Blagojevich. He is just one more anti-gun politician in prison where they belong. There are many more on my list.

CBS is confirming gun owner fears of the ATF

Via Say Uncle we have CBS reports that what we feared of the ATF was actually true:

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the “big fish.”

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”

“It’s like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back,” says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. “It’s a circular way of thinking.”

The ATF secretly told gun dealers to approve sales the dealers would have refused because of suspicions the gun would end up in the hands of bad guys. The dealers repeatedly asked for reassurance from the ATF and received it. The ATF then used these sales from gun dealers as justification for illegal regulations against those same gun dealers.

It’s as if the ATF really believed it was in their job description to, as one bigot expressed it, “to make it harder for people to get guns.”

The ATF should no more make it difficult for people to get guns than there should be a government agency that makes it more difficult for people to purchase religious materials, publish newspapers, or get a fair trial.

That the ATF apparently sees it’s mission as such is justification to, if not abolish it, at least severely cut their budget and prosecute the people responsible for this atrocious abuse of power.

This is how we will know we have won

We will know we have won when you read essentially the same story but with “gays and lesbians” replaced “gun owners”:

The Obama administration announced on Tuesday that the United States would use all the tools of American diplomacy, including the potent enticement of foreign aid, to promote gay rights around the world.

In a memorandum issued by President Obama in Washington and in a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton here, the administration vowed to actively combat efforts by other nations that criminalize homosexual conduct, abuse gay men, lesbians, bisexuals or transgendered people, or ignore abuse against them.

“Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct,” Mrs. Clinton said at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, “but in fact they are one and the same.”

Of course it’s a rare situation when I think we should be giving foreign aid but there is still “the stick” even if you have a policy of not giving out “carrots”.

Holder shouldn’t be asked to resign

The evidence is sketchy in places and testimony is changing in the Fast and Furious scandal so we don’t yet know for certain what happened. But many people, including 52 members of the House and two senators, are calling for the resignation or firing of Holder and even indictment ATF officials.

There is one nagging piece of evidence that I haven’t been hearing requests for that should, and I think must, be demanded by the investigating committees. Was operation Fast and Furious what President Obama was referring to when he said, “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”? If it wasn’t then what was he referring to?

Based upon the “guns in Mexico” mantra the ATF implemented a regulation requiring some firearms dealers to report multiple sales of some rifles in direct violation of U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A)):

…dealers shall not be required to submit to the Attorney General reports and information with respect to such records and the contents thereof, except as expressly required by this section.

The following hypothesis is thus fully supported by all the evidence I have seen:

The administration deliberately enabled and in some cases delivered firearms to Mexican drug cartels in an effort to justify subversion of U.S. law with illegal regulations imposed upon U.S. gun dealers and owners.

If this was the intent of Fast and Furious then it would appear the entire chain of command from President Obama on down knew and were responsible for the results. This isn’t resignation material.

18 USC 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

If Fast and Furious was “under the radar” gun control and resulted in the deaths of not just a Border Patrol agent but hundreds of Mexicans then it would appear to me that the administration doesn’t just have the shame of resignation hanging over them. They have the specter of a death sentence starting at them. The investigating committee should use that as a bargaining chip to get their full cooperation. Once all the facts have surfaced the culprits should be given a fair trial and appropriate sentences.

Violation of civil rights under the color of law must be taken very seriously. Inalienable civil rights of the individual are one of the key difference between our supposed form of government and that of a totalitarian government. If the U.S. Attorney General and/or the President of the United States were and/or are treating their positions as if this is a totalitarian society they need to be subject to extremely severe sanctions to not only to punish them for their crimes but as a deterrent for future aspiring tyrants at both the national and local level.

Quote of the day—Joe Walsh

I challenge you to debate the Second Amendment in my district in front of real Americans in the heartland, not Washington D.C. insiders. Unless, of course, you have no interest in hearing what real Americans have to say.

Joe Walsh
U.S. Representative from Illinois
December 2, 2011
Letter to Dennis Henigan, Acting President, The Brady Campaign.
[Henigan wants to have the debate in D.C.. Walsh says it should be in his Congressional district.

Henigan didn’t care what the U.S. Constitution said about guns so of course he has no interest in what real Americans have to say about guns. People are even less relevant than the Constitution to his type. Plus being outnumbered 100:1 by a bunch of gun owners would probably require too many layers of Depends.

Sebastian has more thoughts on the debate about the (no) debate.—Joe]

Defensive Gun Use… maybe

Via email.

Discuss.

Subject: DGU or not?
From: An Anonymous friend of mine
Date: Mon, Dec 05, 2011 12:32 am
To: Joe Huffman

was wondering if you’d mind posting this (sourcing it as “from an anonymous friend of mine”) for people to think about and comment on. It happened to me just a few days ago. I’m not entirely sure what all I think about it, just yet.

<><><>

DGU
Defensive Gun Use… maybe

Sometimes when a person uses a gun in self defense, it’s obvious: clear threats are made, shots are fired, blood is drawn, legal issues considered with lawyers, and much paperwork is filed.

Sometimes, it’s not so clear-cut. Case in point:

I was out for a walk in the woods, on a public trail that was foot, bike, and horse only. It is clearly marked as such, with obvious “No motorcycles” symbols. I was about a mile from the (empty) parking lot when I heard the sound of motorcycles coming from up ahead. I saw two young men in hoodies (late teens or early twenties) coming down the path on mini-bikes (very small motorcycles) and around the “S” curves in the trail. I had my DSLR, so I took pictures of them as they came by – it was not very discreet, and they obligingly flipped me off as they went by and around the next corner. I kept walking. I heard the mini-bikes continue along, and then stop and idle, then turn around and started coming back my way.

I looked to see if there was anyplace I could jump off the trail to let them go on by (I didn’t want a confrontation if I didn’t have to have one), jogged a few yards forward and ducked off to the side and hunkered down. I heard the bikes stop back up the trail a piece, and one rider said to the other, “Did you see him jump off right there?”

I figured there was no benefit in keeping down at that point, so I stepped back over to the edge of the trail (I was up a slight embankment), and looked at them. I vaguely recognized one of them – likely a former student. They were back down the trail about 15 yards or a little more, stopped, and looking at me. They asked, aggressively and feeding on one another’s comments and attitude, things like, “Why did you take our pictures, are you weird or something?!”

I replied “I take pictures of a lot of things out here. Mushrooms, birds. And people breaking the law; the trail is clearly posted ‘no motorcycles’.” And I took another few pictures, causing them to promptly attempt to conceal their faces with their hands, but neither of us moved toward the other.

They argued with me a bit, saying they didn’t see any signs, I should delete the pictures, etc. I said I’d walk the trail and if I saw any damage, or vandalism, or heard reports of problems later, then I’d show the photos to the appropriate authorities; if not, then no harm no foul no report. One of them started to get off his bike, saying belligerently, “I guess I’m going to have to fuck up your camera!”

I didn’t change my stance, sweep my coat back, flash a pistol grip, or do anything cinematic. I just stared straight at them, shook my head slightly, and said quietly, but clearly and confidently, “Nah, you don’t want to do that, because then I’d have to defend myself, and that could get… messy.” Not threatening or taunting, not challenging or belittling, not meek or desperate, just confident and not intimidated in the least. In my mind I was thinking about the Glock with a full magazine on my hip, and the fact that I had plenty of distance / time to draw (15 to 20 yards), a great backstop, no innocent bystanders, recent range-time, and good terrain advantage (they’d be running up a somewhat muddy trail, then have to climb a two-foot embankment and go another few steps). I was thinking they were much younger, and outnumbered me, I’d been to the PT recently for my hand, he’d made a clear verbal threat, and running away was clearly not an option with them on mini-bikes, so the legal side was solid. If these two insisted that things had to go all to shit, his day WAS going to be a lot worse than mine.

They suddenly appeared to have a situational epiphany. The lead guy sat back down on the bike, and his body language and tone changed dramatically and instantly, becoming much more easygoing and polite, saying “we didn’t know it was off limits, we didn’t come in the normal way, it’s not like we are out doing drugs, we are just trying to having fun in the outdoors, we’ll turn them off if we pass any horses, please don’t turn us in,” etc. I said again, if I didn’t see any problems on the trail, and heard no reports of problems or vandalism, then I saw no reason to file paperwork, and it would be best if they continued on their way, and I’d continue on mine.

I turned around, and headed on down the trail, listening carefully. I heard them start back up and motor off the other way, slowly. On my way back, I passed their tracks in the mud; they were clearly driving slowly and carefully, as there was no splash or anything torn up anywhere from their tires. I got back to my car, and drove home without any further incident. (Ironically, reviewing the pictures later I noted that far and away the best pictures I got were after they came back to harass me and stopped, and most of the ones I took on their first pass by me would be almost completely useless in trying to identify them (low light means slow shutter speed, and fast moving bikes in a telephoto lens meant out of focus)).

The weirdest part of my recollection is the emotional part. I felt utterly calm. No sweats, no accelerated heart rate or breathing. Just a quick series of mental checklist flashing by – can I avoid them by ducking off to the side somewhere? Then, Can I de-escalate verbally? Well, that’s out, so document the scene and then What’s the physical situation: terrain, backstop, distance, footing, how will I draw from concealment? What’s their mental state, how would I describe how they are acting (body language) and their tone, what specific words did they use? What’s the legal situation? – they came back acting like they knew they did something wrong and knew I’d photographed them and they made verbal threat (intent), two of them apparently in decent shape (ability), all alone in the woods with an empty parking lot at the trailhead (opportunity). It was odd. Not dream-like or anything, just very…clear. Or something.

Was that confrontation a Defensive Gun Usage? I don’t know. I didn’t display or draw or fire or even say I was armed and able to defend myself. I know taking the pictures was the proper thing to do. I don’t think they were unusually psychotic or evil or out searching for victims. But I’m not sure that I’d have been (or acted) nearly as confident in my stance without a gun on my hip, currently having a flakey shoulder and tweaked hand. It may be that they were all bluster, and anything stronger than abject submission would have stopped them. It may be that I could have said the same thing, and had the same effect, knowing I had a Spyderco Delica in my pocket, and some martial arts experience. It may be that the punk just suddenly realized he was being all sorts of stupid, and a possible ticket was much less of a problem than an assault and battery charge.

Maybe. But maybe not.

Random thought of the day

Modified slightly from what Crotalus said almost three years ago

If anti-gun people think guns are penis substitutes then that must mean they wish to be castrated.

Having grown up on a farm I have some experience with this task. I’m willing to donate a few hours of my time to servicing these needs for the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. If they would coordinate their schedules such that I would only have to make one trip to D.C. we could get this taken care of by Christmas. Think of this as an example of my willingness to work together with my political opponents and compromise on common sense solutions.

Quote of the day–edgeninja

I was just reading a NYT op-ed about the insane, irrational paranoia of gun nuts during Obama’s presidency­. These people are just itching for any reason to go on a mass shooting spree. Most of them probably have really small penises too.

edgeninja
December 2, 2011
Comment to Gun Ad Likens Obama To Hitler, Other Dictators.
[It’s Markley’s Law Monday!

I was going through the comments on this Huffington Post article and finding the commenters were generating QOTD material faster than I could harvest it. There are going to be Markley’s Law QOTDs every Monday for several weeks along with “Crap for Brains” and “Why are Liberals so Violent” QOTD material for quite some time.—Joe]

Drop it, or I’ll shoot you

Ry and Aaron W. both sent me email on this:

Tim Patterson has no doubts he would have pulled the trigger.

He’s glad he didn’t have to.

But when a woman is being attacked by a man with a knife, Patterson says he’ll do what must be done.

“If he had not stopped what he was doing,” he says, his voice fading. “He came very close to dying. Really, really close.”

..

A man had a woman’s head pulled back with one hand, and a knife to her throat with the other.

Patterson didn’t hesitate.

He drew his Kimber 1911 .45 with a six-shot clip.

“Drop it, or I’ll shoot you,” he shouted.

The assailant, wearing a hoodie that covered his face, glanced up. He immediately let go of the woman, dropped the knife, raised his arms in the air and fled.

There are some other tidbits that are of possible interest.

Tim Patterson was one of the people Ry tried to get to do the catering for Boomershoot earlier this year. It was just too far (Patterson is in Coeur d’Alene which is probably about a three hour drive with his “The Big Yellow mobile kitchen”) for the number of people we have at Boomershoot.

Patterson has a blog for The Big Yellow Trailer.

The Coeur d’Alene police “is in process of pulling together a public presentation to honor his bravery”.

One of the comments to the story is from an old friend of Patterson’s:

Well Done Tim. I remember when you used to sing a parody of “Don’t mess around with tim” driving around GG in the Mustang II in the mid 70’s and I guess that is still true. Proud to have known you.

For those who don’t “get it”:

he’d been cut ‘n ’bout a hundred places/ and he’d been shot in a couple more

You don’t mess around with Slim.

Quote of the day—Excelsior

This is never going to end until we make it illegal to own firearms. Until then, thousands of innocent people will die every year. So this country has a choice – either give up the deadly weapons or admit the selfish desire to pack heat is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for all those deaths. There is no other way around it – you own a gun, you’re part of the problem. Period.

Excelsior
November 24, 2011
Comment to Dear Amy, Should I Let My Holiday Guests Pack Heat?
[[sarcasm] And the abuse of recreational drugs and alcohol is never going to end until we make it illegal to own them either. [/sarcasm]

I’m always surprised that people who make claims like this were smart enough to assemble a sentence that was intelligible. They could not possibly have given their views more than a second or two of thought. Of course the last two sentences demonstrate they think proof by vigorous assertion is valid too.

It’s pure crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Anonymous

NJ is in the dark ages trying to eliminate violent crime with bloodletting, that is the blood of crime victims, disarmed by their state’s archaic gun control laws and forced to face violent criminals on the streets that do not obey those laws with nothing more than a cell phone in one hand and a prayer in the other.

Anonymous
November 28, 2011
Comment to Amick: Gun laws in the Garden State
[It’s an imperfect analogy because there are some diseases that are treated by bloodletting. There appear to be no benefits to restrictions on restricting access to handheld weapons. Hence NJ restrictions on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is more harmful than bloodletting.

However Anonymous is completely correct about NJ being in the dark ages where when dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his own peril. This is analogous to the 13th Amendment guaranteeing there is no slavery but saying black skinned people venture there at their own peril. It’s time, as before, to send in the U.S. Marshals and National Guard to set these bigots straight.—Joe]

They actually believe it

I have been poking around some more in the anti-gun section of the term paper warehouse I reported on a few days ago and continue to be amazed at the total lack of quality in writing and reasoning. This one really did it for me though:

carrying a gun will push him to commit a crime which he has never been intended.

Carrying a gun will “push” a person to commit a crime?

This is frequently hinted at in the anti-gun rhetoric but I don’t believe I have ever heard it explicitly articulated. I always figured that they knew it was so absurd they would never say it directly. Surely they were smart enough to know that if they did they would be mocked and laughed into oblivion. Apparently this person wasn’t that smart and/or they actually believe it.

I have to wonder about the mechanism of this “push”. Is it some sort of mind control? Or is it a “flesh magnet” that pulls their hand to the gun and then causes it to squeeze the trigger? Can we measure the magnitude of the “push”? Would that “push” be proportional to the area or mass of the possessor? Does the force extend to nearby people as well? Is it inversely proportional to the distance or the square of the distance? And does wearing a government uniform provide immunity from this “push” for the possessor of the gun?

But there is another option which should be considered. It could be that the author has crap for brains and just doesn’t have a clue as what they are writing about.

Peterson Syndrome example

This is from Canada:

Karen Vanscoy’s 14-year-old daughter was shot and killed in 1996 by an acquaintance using a stolen gun.

“The proposed weakening of our gun laws will make it easier for those at risk of committing acts of violence either towards themselves or others to acquire guns,” said Vanscoy.

She is complaining about the possible elimination of the long gun registry. How in the world does she think the Canadian long gun registry would have prevented the murder of her daughter?

It’s Peterson Syndrome. She is incapable of logical thinking.

And of course the writer (an “independent journalist covering social justice events”) doesn’t give any time to the violated natural rights of firearms owners.

Quote of the day—Weer’d Beard

George Washington didn’t cross the Delaware River to get to his duck blind.

Weer’d Beard
November 30, 2011
The Other Way, Actually
[I like the way he said that.—Joe]

Read the column the UK’s Daily Mail pulled for being too dangerous

Of course I knew it was possible. But I didn’t dare say it for fear of being wrong and embarrassed when some other explanation came to light. So I just stated the facts when a pro-gun story disappeared from the UK’s Daily Mail.

I did manage to contact the author who responded with a single URL. It is a link to the same story on a different website with the subtitle, “Read the column the UK’s Daily Mail pulled for being too dangerous”.

Not only was it possible; it was what happened. Some people in the UK are such wimps they can’t tolerate people even speaking about the exercise of their natural right to keep and bear arms.

Should they end up needing that which they don’t have it will be hard to give them much sympathy beyond nominating them for a collective (as they surely would have wanted it) Darwin Award.

The quality I would expect

Someone apparently wrote a term paper on the Brady Campaign and is making it available to others.

The quality is about what I would expect for a Brady Campaign supporter:

The Brady Campaign is a very large organisation, and they are working to prevent gun violence through legislations. Ronald Weagan’s press secretary was a man called Jim Brady. Jim Brady was seriously wounded by a shoot during an assassination attempt on Ronald Weagan, who was the president of the United States at that time. After the harsh experience and the wounds mentally, Jim Brady and his wife Sarah Brady began to work for stricter gun control laws. In the 1993 the Brady law was passed. If you wanted to buy a handgun, you had to wait in a five-day period so there could be made a background check and a ban on the military-style, semi-automatic machine guns and the “assault weapons”. George Bush did not renew the ban of the “assault weapons” in 2004. The Brady Campaign argues that armed revolution and violence against the government is not necessary in a democracy.

The Second Amendment Myth and Meaning means that the American nation suffers from an epidemic of gun violence. They mean sensible national gun control laws are urgently needed to reduce this violence and killings. They mean the NRA’s constitutional theory is a calculated distortion of the text, history and judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment. They say it is time for the debate over gun violence to focus on the real issues, free from the NRA’s constitutional mythology and they say that the courts consistently have ruled that there is no constitutional right to own a gun for private purposes unrelated to the organized state militia.

The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment is an organisation which promotes the Second Amendment right to carry and bear arms. The organisation has about 4 million members and defends the right to possess, buy and use firearms.

I would guess they are functioning at about a fifth grade level:

  • The Brady Campaign cannot be considered “very large”.
  • Organization is consistently misspelled.
  • It’s Reagan, not “Weagan”.
  • Grammar is extremely poor.
  • “Semi-automatic machine guns” is contradictory.
  • “Assault weapons” were not covered by the 1993 Brady Act.
  • Even though the term paper was uploaded today the Heller decision is unknown (or perhaps irrelevant in their world view) to them.
  • The Second Amendment is not an organization.
  • They state the NRA “defends the right” but yet claims the court interpretations of the Second Amendment does not recognize a right to keep and bear arms.

It’s possible they are mocking the Brady Campaign but my guess is they really are that dumb.

Pro-gun story disappeared

There appears to have been an article saying “It is time for Europeans to support the natural right of human beings to protect oneself with a firearm” on a UK newspaper website earlier today. It is no longer available. Here is the screen capture evidence:

DailyMail

Clicking on the link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2067300/Europeans-guns–It-time-Europeans-support-natural-right-human-beings-protect-oneself-firearm.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) yields, “Sorry. The page you have requested does not exist or is no longer available.” There does not appear to be a cache available for it either.

I can find all other articles by this same author but the one I am interested in doesn’t show up.

I was unable to find his email address or I would have attempted to contact him and find out what happened.

Update: Via some suggestions in the comments I was able to contact Brian Darling. He send me a one URL response, “http://bit.ly/tUExhc”.

I love the line after the title, “Read the column the UK’s Daily Mail pulled for being too dangerous”. I do wish he had elaborated on that a bit more but there are times when you don’t tweak the nose of the one who feeds you.

Quote of the day—Texas Aggie

For the people who insist on carrying weapons, driving oversized pickups and HumVees to the 7/11, and similar manifestations of psychological problems, it isn’t that they’re paranoid, although that may also be a problem. Their major problem is a real or imagined dysfunction in their capacity to procreate. They may have tried the various “enlarge your penis” advertisements on the internet and none of them gave results, so now they go with an artificial sexual apparatus enhancer.

Texas Aggie
November 24, 2011
Comment to Dear Amy, Should I Let My Holiday Guests Pack Heat?
[Ahhhh yes. It’s the kindergarten kids talking about penises and giggling.

When in the context of gun owners it’s known as Markley’s Law.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

Give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.

Real gun control will take courage. In the long run, half-measures and compromises only sacrifice lives.

Josh Sugarmann
1999
Seattle and Honolulu shootings more reasons to regulate guns
[This is from the dark days of gun owner rights activism.

Sugarmann goes through regulatory proposals such as licensing, registration, expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines. He then concludes a complete ban is the only rational conclusion.

I grudgingly admire Sugarmann for his genius in regards to “assault weapons” and his honesty in saying the endgame must be, always has been, and always will be a complete ban.—Joe]

States rights doesn’t mean they can infringe on the rights of the people

I realize the ability (and to a certain extent the desire) to get elected is largely uncorrelated with intelligence but the ugly parallels to statements like the following just jump out of the page at me:

While our Constitution guarantees people a right to bear arms, the decision was made to allow states to regulate guns, in order to allow them to develop strategies that meet the individual states’ demographic, economic and lifestyle needs. What works for Florida or Texas may not work for New Jersey and vice versa, and gun control should be the sole provision of the individual states, not the federal government.

Replace “a right to bear arms” with “will not be slaves” and “guns” with “ni**ers”.

Now start heating up the tar and gathering the feathers for New Jersey State Senator Loretta Weinberg.