The benefit of anonymity also means some of the posers could literally be that, provocateurs out there trying to make gun owners look like morons.
“[W]hat [the city] cannot do is form an agreement to lease its building, take my client’s money, and then a week before the show make a decision to breach that contract…”
There is no legitimate reason the government … can give that should supersede the rights of deceased veterans’ survivors.
We owe Tony thanks for making it clear that no, it’s not about “commonsense gun safety,” and yes, his counterparts on our side of the border really are talking about taking our guns.
Those who hold religion in contempt have always been more than happy to exploit religious useful idiots if it advances their agenda.
Expecting the nation’s top law enforcement agency to comply with the nation’s laws hardly seems out of line…
Does anyone believe the cartels are dependent on small retail purchases of semi-autos with added costs of paying straw purchasers along with shipping costs and smuggling risks?
The other thing that’s way past due is for gun groups to recognize the single greatest threat to continued legal recognition of the right to keep and bear arms and so inform their members.
Sorry, but I’ll not “politely urge” my representative and senators “to support the Restore the Armed Career Criminal Act.”
Having Congress provide more money for that will only make everything worse. That means more people will die.
Illinois gun owners need something more binding than the ISP statement.
It’s past time we saw some rights enforcement added to the law enforcement mix, especially when it comes to guns.
Gillum is just another in a long line of Democrats who won’t control themselves yet harbor a megalomaniacal obsession to control everybody else.
Ours is the side that demands due process. We also demand consistency in principles.
That’s a pretty specific response to a crime for which so many details have yet to be released.
Gannett Publications is not interested in gun safety and employs no one qualified to offer lessons if it was.
No matter what others tell you, and always without addressing my challenge, the issues of guns and immigration are inextricably intertwined.
“TWO HAPPY MEALS AND A 357 [sic] MAGNUM PLEASE!” bellows another ignoramus who sounds a few fries short of those meals.
What we’re seeing here from the Big Three gun-grab groups are signs of worry.
Where have we seen our urban media betters dismiss flyover Americans as “Deplorables” and slack-jawed yokels before? Or perhaps I should ask “When haven’t we?”
There has to be room in the “Big Tent” for principled standard-bearers who caution us when we stray from core principles. I’d argue they should all be.
Because he, with other privileged celebrities, came out in full support of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence/Bloomberg Mayors Against Illegal Guns agenda to “Demand a Plan.”
A major had the authority to do that? What law or executive or martial law order was passed to allow for the military to compel civilians to surrender their arms?
The point is to further limit the availability of firearms to California citizens by drying up their sources of supply.
What good is the Second Amendment if the people are denied the right to buy arms and ammunition in times of national emergency?