Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Political Discussion and Debate => Topic started by: Darth Fife on December 20, 2012, 03:45:33 PM

Title: Gun Control
Post by: Darth Fife on December 20, 2012, 03:45:33 PM
This is mostly for our Liberal Friends...

I would like to hear you identify a specific gun control law which would have prevented the tragedy in Newtown CT. 
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Solar on December 20, 2012, 03:54:46 PM
)))))))))))))crickets((((((((((((((
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Yawn on December 20, 2012, 04:37:47 PM
Well this has got to PO the libs.

NRA Membership Increasing 8,000 A Day After Sandy Hook Shooting
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/447898/nra-membership-increasing-8000-a-day-after-sandy-hook-shooting/#gkG8Au29DFT8REvW.99 (http://www.inquisitr.com/447898/nra-membership-increasing-8000-a-day-after-sandy-hook-shooting/#gkG8Au29DFT8REvW.99)

They just don't get law abiding America.  Happens EVERY TIME there's a tragedy.  The American People just don't react the way the politicians want them to.

Obama puts guns in the hands of violent criminals in Mexico and "rebels" (aka TERRORISTS) in the Middle East but wants to take then from law abiding American citizens!  Did I mention that I despise this man?
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Darth Fife on December 20, 2012, 10:18:18 PM
Where are all of our Liberals?  :huh:

Are they awaiting the arrival of the Mother Ship? :laugh:
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: JustKari on December 21, 2012, 10:21:05 AM
Most of my lib friends (family, I can't help it)  are for the 2nd Amendment, most of them even do some shooting for fun.  Only one has talked about gun bans, and she is ultra lib., she is even a PETA donater.   :confused:  At least shooting is one thing we can talk about without offending each other at Christmas dinner.  :tounge:
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 12:05:09 PM
Well, a very simple one would be to high capacity gun clips would certainly have helped. Those particular kind of clips are not used for hunting or self defense, so it should be a no-brainer.
Also; the argument the NRA proposes that we should have armed officers at our schools does not hold water - Columbine had armed guards as well
But in the end, because I'm an independent, I favor a layered approach. Poverty, gun access, children's access to violent video games and movies, drugs and mental health care should ALL be part of the discussion.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Solar on December 21, 2012, 12:30:22 PM
Quote from: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 12:05:09 PM
Well, a very simple one would be to high capacity gun clips would certainly have helped. Those particular kind of clips are not used for hunting or self defense, so it should be a no-brainer.
Also; the argument the NRA proposes that we should have armed officers at our schools does not hold water - Columbine had armed guards as well
But in the end, because I'm an independent, I favor a layered approach. Poverty, gun access, children's access to violent video games and movies, drugs and mental health care should ALL be part of the discussion.
Yes, Columbine did have one armed guard, and he was actually effective in saving lives.
But keep in mind, these two idiots had IEDs as well, and he was out gunned.

That's right, but it isn't like the deputy was sitting around eating doughnuts during the Columbine massacre. He traded fire (that is, he drew fire) with Harris for an extended period of time, during which Harris's gun jammed. The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before the SWAT teams and the rest of the cavalry arrived, and before Harris and Klebold killed themselves in the library. Harris and Klebold had an assault plan — a sloppy plan, but a plan nonetheless. They had dozens of IEDs, some of which detonated, others of which did not. And there were two of them. In this highly chaotic tactical environment, the deputy acted both bravely and prudently, and who knows how many lives he saved by engaging Harris.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336338/columbine-had-armed-guard-daniel-foster# (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336338/columbine-had-armed-guard-daniel-foster#)
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 12:36:15 PM
Very true, but these shootings happened in minutes, mostly limited to a couple of classrooms. Even if there were an armed guard at the school, he most likely wouldn't be able to have done anything. My point is that by the time a person gets to a school (or anywhere) with a gun in their hand and a plan to kill, people will die. The goal should be to keep a person from GETTING to that point, and that involves something more than arming our schools.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Solar on December 21, 2012, 12:44:24 PM
Quote from: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 12:36:15 PM
Very true, but these shootings happened in minutes, mostly limited to a couple of classrooms. Even if there were an armed guard at the school, he most likely wouldn't be able to have done anything. My point is that by the time a person gets to a school (or anywhere) with a gun in their hand and a plan to kill, people will die. The goal should be to keep a person from GETTING to that point, and that involves something more than arming our schools.
OK, that's nice and all, but how would you implement such a pan?
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 12:55:13 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2012, 12:44:24 PM
OK, that's nice and all, but how would you implement such a pan?

THAT'S the big question, and a conversation I would be happy to see. Also: I'm new, so hello and thank you for replying :)
The things I said above about mental health focus, specific types of gun access, increased restrictions on gun show purchases, etc would be a good start. There are many things that we can do that do not involve taking people's guns away or creating a police state. Each area of the country has individual circumstances and should have a tailored approach to their own issues with gun violence. I am very much state's rights oriented, but obviously a nationwide dialogue should be happening to address the fact that guns are falling into the wrong hands.  But adding MORE guns to the equation and militarizing our schools is heading AWAY from personal freedoms, not towards them.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: taxed on December 21, 2012, 12:59:19 PM
Quote from: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 12:36:15 PM
Very true, but these shootings happened in minutes, mostly limited to a couple of classrooms. Even if there were an armed guard at the school, he most likely wouldn't be able to have done anything. My point is that by the time a person gets to a school (or anywhere) with a gun in their hand and a plan to kill, people will die. The goal should be to keep a person from GETTING to that point, and that involves something more than arming our schools.
That's why teachers should carry firearms, along with the principal and other faculty.  Just training the school to get under their desks and wait to be killed doesn't work very well.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Solar on December 21, 2012, 01:22:06 PM
Quote from: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 12:55:13 PM
THAT'S the big question, and a conversation I would be happy to see. Also: I'm new, so hello and thank you for replying :)
The things I said above about mental health focus, specific types of gun access, increased restrictions on gun show purchases, etc would be a good start. There are many things that we can do that do not involve taking people's guns away or creating a police state. Each area of the country has individual circumstances and should have a tailored approach to their own issues with gun violence. I am very much state's rights oriented, but obviously a nationwide dialogue should be happening to address the fact that guns are falling into the wrong hands.  But adding MORE guns to the equation and militarizing our schools is heading AWAY from personal freedoms, not towards them.
First off welcome to the forum.
However, statistics prove that an armed citizenry is a peaceful society.
I don't feel like looking up the stats, but look at Chicago.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 02:12:44 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2012, 01:22:06 PM
First off welcome to the forum.
However, statistics prove that an armed citizenry is a peaceful society.
I don't feel like looking up the stats, but look at Chicago.
Thank you! I'm really liking it here so far :)
I would be interested to see what statistics prove that arming citizens contributes to a peaceful society.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Darth Fife on December 21, 2012, 02:28:46 PM
Quote from: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 12:05:09 PM
Well, a very simple one would be to high capacity gun clips would certainly have helped. Those particular kind of clips are not used for hunting or self defense, so it should be a no-brainer.
Also; the argument the NRA proposes that we should have armed officers at our schools does not hold water - Columbine had armed guards as well
But in the end, because I'm an independent, I favor a layered approach. Poverty, gun access, children's access to violent video games and movies, drugs and mental health care should ALL be part of the discussion.

There is some question as to whether or not he had the bushmaster in the school. If that is the case, he did all of the killing with hand guns with normal sized clips.  So restricting the size of the magazine, would have made little difference.

Plus, I question whether an extended magazine would have had that large an effect even if he did have it. He is not going to be standing there, flat footed an firing off all 30 or whatever rounds. He is going to fire a few round, assess the environment, fire a few more rounds, perhaps move to another location. During each one of those "pauses" he would have a chance to replace a "normal" sized clip/magazine.

If he fired one round after another as fast as he could until the magazine was empty, his accuracy would decrease dramatically.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: BILLY Defiant on December 21, 2012, 02:36:49 PM
Quote from: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 12:36:15 PM
Very true, but these shootings happened in minutes, mostly limited to a couple of classrooms. Even if there were an armed guard at the school, he most likely wouldn't be able to have done anything. My point is that by the time a person gets to a school (or anywhere) with a gun in their hand and a plan to kill, people will die. The goal should be to keep a person from GETTING to that point, and that involves something more than arming our schools.

What you are talking about involves a comprehensive security plan...which is more involved than putting an armed guard in a school.
And I agree, however, "gun control" measures are NOT going to work.
We have enough laws now that don't work. consider the fact that in the school shooting and the Oregaon Mall shooter the assailant STOLE the weapons.

I am curious that while you previously mentioned "mental health" you seemed to not prioritize it in your list...rather you proposed something as useless as banning Hi Cap clips ( BTW they're not "clips" the proper terminology is magazines).

I for one feel there is a direct correletion to treating "behavior" problems in our youth to the use of drugs in their therapy. Personally I'm appaled at the drugging of our youth.

This is where we need to begin if we want real solutions to this type of violence.

Billy

Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 02:37:45 PM
Quote from: Darth Fife on December 21, 2012, 02:28:46 PM
There is some question as to whether or not he had the bushmaster in the school. If that is the case, he did all of the killing with hand guns with normal sized clips.  So restricting the size of the magazine, would have made little difference.

Plus, I question whether an extended magazine would have had that large an effect even if he did have it. He is not going to be standing there, flat footed an firing off all 30 or whatever rounds. He is going to fire a few round, assess the environment, fire a few more rounds, perhaps move to another location. During each one of those "pauses" he would have a chance to replace a "normal" sized clip/magazine.

If he fired one round after another as fast as he could until the magazine was empty, his accuracy would decrease dramatically.

That may have been the case, but we're talking about measures that would IMPROVE the likelihood of survival,  because there is no one thing that will completely solve the problem.
As far as extended magazines, it may only take a few seconds (for a well-trained individual, which alot of school shooters are not), but it may be those few seconds that save some lives.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Solar on December 21, 2012, 02:57:51 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2012, 01:22:06 PM
First off welcome to the forum.
However, statistics prove that an armed citizenry is a peaceful society.
I don't feel like looking up the stats, but look at Chicago.
Long read, but you'll get my point.

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html (http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html)
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Darth Fife on December 21, 2012, 09:57:50 PM
This is a little more concise, Solar. :wink:

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-Robert A. Heinlein
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Darth Fife on December 23, 2012, 08:34:45 AM
Quote from: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 02:37:45 PM
That may have been the case, but we're talking about measures that would IMPROVE the likelihood of survival,  because there is no one thing that will completely solve the problem.
As far as extended magazines, it may only take a few seconds (for a well-trained individual, which alot of school shooters are not), but it may be those few seconds that save some lives.

The only way those few seconds would make the difference is if someone opposing the shooter is armed and can use those few seconds to take him/her out.

If you truly want to increase the "likelihood of survival" put an armed guard in every school and have at least one member of the faculty who has a firearm available to them and knows how to use it.

And get rid of all of that "gun free zone" nonsense - its killing our kids.

Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Solar on December 23, 2012, 11:06:49 AM
Quote from: thefirebrand on December 21, 2012, 02:37:45 PM
That may have been the case, but we're talking about measures that would IMPROVE the likelihood of survival,  because there is no one thing that will completely solve the problem.
As far as extended magazines, it may only take a few seconds (for a well-trained individual, which alot of school shooters are not), but it may be those few seconds that save some lives.
Problem is, like drugs and guns, regardless of the law, high capacity clips will always be available.
I can get any size magazine I want, you just have to be willing to pay a bit more for them.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Yawn on December 23, 2012, 03:11:59 PM
It does sound simplistic, but new laws really do only affect the law abiding. Means nothing to those intending a massacre.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: mdgiles on December 23, 2012, 04:05:14 PM
Quote from: Yawn on December 23, 2012, 03:11:59 PM
It does sound simplistic, but new laws really do only affect the law abiding. Means nothing to those intending a massacre.
It isn't about the crazies - anybody with the sense that GOD gave a rock, realizes there isn't much we can do about them - except be prepared to shoot back when they show up. All this talk about new laws is ALL about getting weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: keyboarder on December 24, 2012, 09:09:23 PM
Does it not seem like tnere has been increase in mass shootings since the last election? To quote ole' D. Gregory, "one a month". 

I asked my husband who was AF for twenty years if he suspected anything remotely involving our government in these incidents and he siad maybe but they did seem terroist related because of the similarity of the incidents and the places targeted.  Plus, the shooter almost always kills himself when confronted, making it something a terroist would do.  The fact that slaughtering innocents is a big clue, since our average everyday terroist has no problem doing this.  Husband said that the AF and other branches of service spent x amount of dollars training its men about terroism and that some of these similarities in incidents were part of the training.

Everyone labels these perps as crazies but i have a problem with that.  The mother of this last mass murderer knew that her son had bad problems yet she keeps guns around, even goes out target shooting with him?  How crazy is she?
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Cyborg on December 24, 2012, 11:21:35 PM

Stepping back and asking a few questions.

1. Do we have an increase in shootings in schools? ..................... I would say Yes.

I'm 75. I can't remember any school shooting 50 years ago. I went to a all boy College preparatory school in Chicago in 1954.  There were 4,500 boys enrolled. We did not have police stationed at the school. All the Chicago schools do now.
What Changed?

2. In Chicago where they have had as many as 900 homicides in one year, who is committing the crime?
Crime in Chicago - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago)
Homicides in Chicago 1990-2012

    1990: 851
    1991: 927
    1992: 943
    1993: 855
    1994: 931
    1995: 828
    1996: 796
    1997: 761
    1998: 704
    1999: 643
    2000: 633
    2001: 667
    2002: 656
    2003: 601
    2004: 453
    2005: 451
    2006: 471
    2007: 448
    2008: 513
    2009: 459
    2010: 436
    2011: 433
    2012: 491

   
The answer to the number two question is easy. In Chicago 90 % of the crime is committed in 10% of the geographic area in Chicago.
You can see a nicely colored chart by copying the Wikipedia URL above. 

I can go further on the homicides in Chicago.

Of the "Offenders" = 90% have prior felony arrest records

But there is a little surprise with the backgrounds of the Victims > about 70% - 80% of the Victims have prior felony arrest records

The other factor is drugs are involved in about 80% of crime.

The African American murder victimization rate was approximately 34 per 100,000; the Hispanic rate was 11 per 100,000, and the white rate 3 per 100,000.

Over 75% of victims and 88% of offenders had a prior arrest history.
11% of armed robbery victims were female,
50% of domestic victims were female, and
7% of gang-related victims were female.

31% of armed robbery victims were over 45 years old.
29% of domestic-related murders were committed by women.

From 1991 to 2005, 19.2% of armed robbery murder victims were white, and only 4.3% of armed robbery murder offenders were white.

What that says is most crime is black on black and most of that is mostly in localized black communities and mostly committed by 17 - 25 year olds.

That's crime in general.

Our Media / Press usually ignores all that crime.

They love the Zimmerman / Martin, the Duke LaCrosse, the Columbine and the Newtown type.

The race baiters love it
The far left Libs love it
and Our Media / Press love it

Anything they can turn into a serial saga like the  OJ Simpson murder.

So we have two kinds of crime.
The run of the mill mostly black youth on black and the crime that invades society with sensation murder that can be exploited.

Are there any common characteristics between the two?
What are the distinct differences - particularly in the mass shootings?

Well in the Mass shootings - in every case

1. The Perp told other people of their intent.

2. The Perp or Perps were mentally unstable

3. The Mental instability was known by more than just the parent.
4. It was known by responsible people - people that could have interceded with just a little more authority.

Stopping Newtown type of crime.

Nancy Lanza had gone to court to institutionalize Adam. (Without success)

There needs to be a way to temporarily have some kind of authority intercede on an emergency basis.

What are the other society changes?
Drugs sex permeate the entertainment  media / industry

I'm sleepy I may reply to a reply to add more
















Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Darth Fife on December 25, 2012, 04:29:55 AM
Quote from: Cyborg on December 24, 2012, 11:21:35 PM

What are the other society changes?
Drugs sex permeate the entertainment  media / industry

I'm sleepy I may reply to a reply to add more

This is where I get up on my soapbox.

Maybe it was because you were tired, but you left out the most important element - violence, specifically, graphic violence.

I have far less of a problem with sex in movies than I do with graphic violence. After all, sex has been a intergal part of romance novels for, quite literally centuries, but you don't find bored/neglected housewives going out and committing mass murders! I mean, you don't hear about serial killers blaming their anti-social behavior on Lady Chatterly's Lover!

But mindless, graphic violence, I believe does have a significant influence on the minds and attitudes of our young people.  And yes, I am making a distinction between (most) cartoon violence and what I call graphic violence. There is a difference.

Smarter people than I have said that they would rather their children see to people making love in a movie than have them see a movie where one person dismembers another with an axe.

But, maybe that's just me... :rolleyes:

Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Solar on December 25, 2012, 07:41:46 AM
The absolute number one, indisputable reason for increased murder of any kind, the destruction of the family by the left.
Removing God from the public venue, be it school or Govt building and Hollywoods need to promote an anti Christian view of how our country wants to live.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Patriot on December 25, 2012, 08:04:44 AM
Quote from: taxed on December 21, 2012, 12:59:19 PM
That's why teachers should carry firearms, along with the principal and other faculty.  Just training the school to get under their desks and wait to be killed doesn't work very well.

Like this, apparently in Israel, a country with experience dealing with terrorists:

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi45.tinypic.com%2F28slkw4.jpg&hash=2acc27f36ba4b9348216141857e6f32f9f6258ec)
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Cyborg on December 25, 2012, 12:43:26 PM
USAPATRIOT  I saved your picture for my archive.

I agree with Darth and Solar 

I don't know about the smarter people than you though.
[[[ Smarter people than I have said that they would rather their children see to people making love in a movie than have them see a movie where one person dismembers another with an axe.]]]

Overall, I think graphic sex is also almost as undesirable. It does nothing to elevate courtship and love in relationships.

There are it seems to me multiple different problems with graphic violence.

1. Don't you think there is probably a difference with the frequency of the exposure to graphic violence?
In the 40 - 50 the bad guy got shot and fell down.
Today you might see a throat cut and arterial blood spurting ("""in slow motion""") to heighten the shock. But you see it enough times it no longer shocks.
I don't (can't) watch graphic horror movies.
I had more than enough in the Military.
I am not entertained by seeing people brutalized or killed.
In fact that is a subject I need to explore in depth. (The media graphic violence)

My short response is - Violence does not turn normal people into serial killers or mass murderers. But there is always a bountiful supply of candidates that until they explode remain anonymous.
People that are that way are unstable and have probably been that way for a considerable length of time.

I strongly hesitate to say = >> we need to become more scientific and precise in determining who is a potential mass killer.
Just that thought is fraught with many unholy alliances that can be a invitation for those that have the skill and authority to examine and put anybody under their microscope that does not """neatly""" fit into their conceptual construct of of desirable political, social, emotional ideological characteristics. beliefs and values.

It's almost better to have the occasional mass killer than give the government another excuse or reason to develop means to further control the citizenry.

I make a distinct difference between Media & the Media / Press. They are two entirely different animals and in my opinion should be clearly identified when speaking of either.

The "Media" is much more of a political indoctrination machine than the Media / Press. Within the Media it is not just graphic violence -

It is the Media > and < the Media / Press that together set the "standard bar" for society. They steer society conduct and politics. The public has been mostly ignorant and unable to mount a coordinated effort to blunt or refute it. In fact they both have been engaged in a program of far left Liberal brainwashing / indoctrination for 50 years.
Political messages, thoughts, perspectives that are common today would have been stomped on in 1950 and called Communist, Leninist, Socialist or worse.

What is different today?

No Heroes (Figuratively) No good guy on a White Horse to fight for right and conquer the bad guy
No good honest respectable hero "role model" Today the bad guy is just about indistinguishable from the good guy.
When there is a difference our Media & Media / Press quickly burn the good guy at the stake if he's Christian or Conservative!

Who are or have been  the role models today?

Rappers, criminals, drug heads, alcoholics, crazy people, radicals, conspiracy theorists, terrorists,
Ispo facto  lindsey lohan, Charlie Sheen, Demi Moore, Kim Kardasian, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farakhan, Mumia Abu Jamal,

Our Media / Press and Media do not denigrate or disparage any of them. But take some Conservative or Christian and they will slice and dice them into fine hamburger.

What doesn't exist as a valued and admired trait and  is not  promoted on TV - real romance, courtship, respect, honesty, honor, integrity, Christianity, belief in God, family values, spousal commitment. etc:

In fact programs intentionally integrate into their plot / story line, the depiction of Christians, Conservatives, Republicans, right wing persons who are identified as the "Perp"  They are now representative of the vile child molester, the homophobes, the wife beater, the serial killer, the killer of Gays, the bomber, the terrorist and on and on. A good example of that  is "Law & Order - Special Victims Unit" - the program with Det Stabler and Benson

Today there is no respect for anything.
Rappers spent 30 years turning police authority into a pig sty. women into "HO's" and drugs into delicious candy. Yes, yes > "Kill the Pigs"

All of the above does nothing to elevate society.

Gun Control will do nothing to stop the crap.

One thing I predict is - a dramatic increase in Islamic terrorism - particularly in the US.

I have to stop - my dog is bugging me to go out.

















Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Darth Fife on December 25, 2012, 05:36:40 PM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_PqOqZkBCqBg%2FRgppA_qfhrI%2FAAAAAAAAAAk%2FUYo9f4jjiYQ%2Fs1600%2Fs_protects.jpg&hash=0a6eb38b86cbd5695a486eb03fce857cd67fd807)
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Yawn on December 25, 2012, 05:45:00 PM
I think if we had a law making it illegal for children to take loaded guns to school, we wouldn't have these kinds of shootings  :wink:
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: tankabbot on December 30, 2012, 11:39:54 AM
Cyborg. I just registered here just to say your last post was spot on and I could not have put it better.

Just now watching Fox news Sunday show with Chris Wallace and they were talking gun control with Lindsay Graham and Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein said her assault weapons ban would not affect Senator Graham. (Senator Graham owns a AR15) Duh no shit! It only affects regular law-biding citizens. Only criminals and the rich will be allowed to have any guns if the liberals have their way. Some liberals make me sick. I apologize for my spelling and grammar I have been up all night.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: taxed on December 30, 2012, 11:45:54 AM
How many anti-gun liberals, if their child ended up in a situation where a shooter went loose in a school full of unarmed people, would opt for the choice to have someone in there with a gun at that moment.

Liberals, when it comes to their family and property, turn conservative real quick when it is convenient for them.
Title: Re: Gun Control
Post by: Yawn on December 30, 2012, 12:15:22 PM
Celebrities who can afford it have no problem with being surrounded with "good guys" with guns.  You just don't have the same right to protect YOUR life.