Virginia gun laws...please answer

2,308 Views | 35 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Osodecentx
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
With respect, I am a pro-2nd amendment conservative that just happens to not own a gun. These Democratic sponsored proposed laws do not seem to be that big of a deal to me and actually, quite reasonable.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-va-sheriff-we-will-not-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-control-laws

Can someone who is opposed to them explain the other side? Maybe I am missing something.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
These laws will create a slippery slope.

They won't work and when they don't, they will call for extreme measures.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

With respect, I am a pro-2nd amendment conservative that just happens to not own a gun. These Democratic sponsored proposed laws do not seem to be that big of a deal to me and actually, quite reasonable.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-va-sheriff-we-will-not-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-control-laws

Can someone who is opposed to them explain the other side? Maybe I am missing something.
Agree with you fadskier. I am a second amendment guy (who owns guns) but see no problem with more extensive background checks and "red flag" laws.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't like the 1 month limitation, but it would not have affected any of my gun purchases.

I'm okay with the other 2 bills. I just don't see the problem.

"The three bills that made it through include a law that will allow local authorities to ban weapons from public spaces during some events, another that limits handgun purchases to one a month, and a law requiring background checks for all firearm purchases," The Daily Wire reported.
codyorr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Playing devil's advocate:

SB35: Makes public spaces during permitted events more dangerous, as people wishing to inflict harm will know there are fewer civilians potentially carrying who could stop them.

SB69: What Doc said -- slippery slope to restrict the flow of handguns to law-abiding citizens.

SB70: Creates/expands the black market for firearm purchases, which makes it even harder to police firearm sales.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
codyorr said:

Playing devil's advocate:

SB35: Makes public spaces during permitted events more dangerous, as people wishing to inflict harm will know there are fewer civilians potentially carrying who could stop them.

SB69: What Doc said -- slippery slope to restrict the flow of handguns to law-abiding citizens.

SB70: Creates/expands the black market for firearm purchases, which makes it even harder to police firearm sales.
I just thought of what you said in regard to SB 35 and it reminded me of what happened in Vegas

Your point is well taken on the other points.

Wonder if we can apply some laws to pregnancy? There some men and women out there reproducing that shouldn't be allowed.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
codyorr said:

Playing devil's advocate:

SB35: Makes public spaces during permitted events more dangerous, as people wishing to inflict harm will know there are fewer civilians potentially carrying who could stop them.
This is permissive, not mandatory

SB69: What Doc said -- slippery slope to restrict the flow of handguns to law-abiding citizens.
This is the one I don't like

SB70: Creates/expands the black market for firearm purchases, which makes it even harder to police firearm sales.
I disagree. Black market will exist on the margin of any activity
Answers in bold
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I didn't know Kansas City was in Virginia. Great job CNN.

quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

codyorr said:

Playing devil's advocate:

SB35: Makes public spaces during permitted events more dangerous, as people wishing to inflict harm will know there are fewer civilians potentially carrying who could stop them.
This is permissive, not mandatory

SB69: What Doc said -- slippery slope to restrict the flow of handguns to law-abiding citizens.
This is the one I don't like

SB70: Creates/expands the black market for firearm purchases, which makes it even harder to police firearm sales.
I disagree. Black market will exist on the margin of any activity
Answers in bold
Not familiar enough with the language of SB35, but advertising shooting galleries is not a good idea. If you have twelve businesses on a block and eleven have signs prominently displayed saying "This location protected by armed guard", who wants to guess which business gets held up? It's not a lock, I've had some really stupid criminal clients, but I know where the odds take me.

I don't need a handgun a week, but that shouldn't give me the right to stop someone else from buying as many as they want.

Anything that restricts the legal market for a high demand item will increase the black market demand. Look at marijuana in California.
Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

These laws will create a slippery slope.

They won't work and when they don't, they will call for extreme measures.

That's an opinion, and these new laws won't affect 99%+ of gun owners/buyers.
corncob pipe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More cowbells!! More Gestapo!!

Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Buddha Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

These laws will create a slippery slope.

They won't work and when they don't, they will call for extreme measures.

That's an opinion, and these new laws won't affect 99%+ of gun owners/buyers.


It doesn't matter. That's the same rationale used to confiscate money and property from the wealthy in Venezuela. It's the same rationale that sent Jews to gas chambers? If it's wrong to do, it's wrong to do. These laws are wrong and violate the second amendment.
codyorr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

Buddha Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

These laws will create a slippery slope.

They won't work and when they don't, they will call for extreme measures.

That's an opinion, and these new laws won't affect 99%+ of gun owners/buyers.


It doesn't matter. That's the same rationale used to confiscate money and property from the wealthy in Venezuela. It's the same rationale that sent Jews to gas chambers? If it's wrong to do, it's wrong to do. These laws are wrong and violate the second amendment.


The SC has ruled that free speech is not without limits, specifically when the speech creates a danger to society. The SC could rule (if it hasn't already in a previous case) that some forms of gun control fall into this permissible category. For example, firearm access is already restricted in some buildings (some states prohibit firearms within courtrooms).

There's sufficient grey area in what the SC would uphold versus strike down, so we should be able to discuss these proposals on their merits without immediately jumping to, "they are unconstitutional so wrong".
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bearitto said:

Buddha Bear said:

Doc Holliday said:

These laws will create a slippery slope.

They won't work and when they don't, they will call for extreme measures.

That's an opinion, and these new laws won't affect 99%+ of gun owners/buyers.


These laws are wrong and violate the second amendment.
Maybe, the the SC has not yet ruled that way.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
corncob pipe said:

More cowbells!! More Gestapo!!




Good grief......this country is on the verge of an internal coup...and the loss of our personal freedoms ..

Time to repeal the Patriot Act .

quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

corncob pipe said:

More cowbells!! More Gestapo!!




Good grief......this country is on the verge of an internal coup...and the loss of our personal freedoms ..

Time to repeal the Patriot Act .


Way past time. Then repeal hate crime laws. Red flag laws.

And will the GOP finally man up and repeal Trumpcare?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Canada2017 said:

corncob pipe said:

More cowbells!! More Gestapo!!




Good grief......this country is on the verge of an internal coup...and the loss of our personal freedoms ..

Time to repeal the Patriot Act .


Way past time. Then repeal hate crime laws. Red flag laws.

And will the GOP finally man up and repeal Trumpcare?
Abuses of FISA court in recent years have troubled me, but we need the Patriot Act because we have some really bad actors trying to take us down.

I support some Red Flag laws.

I'm with you on the repeal of hate crime legislation
El Oso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Senate Bill 35: Authorizes any locality to prohibit the possession of firearms and ammunition in public spaces during permitted events or events that would otherwise require a permit. Introduced by Sen. Scott Surovell, D-Mount Vernon.

This opens a massive loop hole similar to one we have to be mindful of here in Texas.

Bass Hall (and several other entertainment venues in DFW) is posted 51%. Legally speaking, Bass Hall cannot post any signage because it is a publicly owned building. However, Bass Hall has determined that because the bar carts stationed around the venue make the money on the day of the event, they can use the TABC restrictions to shut down carry to the building. This is despite the fact that ticket sales are what actually gets one into the venue and alcohol percentage of ticket sales would be at 0%.

I would even bet a fairly large amount of money that alcohol doesn't comprise 51% of all concessions sold at any given performance if you add up the sales of all vendors in the building.

Expect a lawsuit this year to begin and eliminate this loophole that an "innocent looking law" created to prohibit the legal carrying of a firearm by a person vetted by the state to legally carry a firearm.
El Oso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SB 69: Prohibits anyone who is not a licensed firearms dealer from purchasing more than one handgun within a 30-day period, making the offense a Class 1 misdemeanor. Exempts those with valid Virginia concealed handgun permits and those replacing a lost or stolen handgun, as well as law enforcement agencies, state and local correctional facilities, private security companies and those with special circumstances with a background check from Virginia State Police. Also exempts purchases made during a private sale for a personal collection of rare or historical items. Introduced by Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton.

I've never bought more than one handgun at a time, but I do have three different types of rifles on my saving money for list.

Why shouldn't I be able to buy all 3 on the same day?
El Oso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SB 70: Requires background checks for any firearm transfer and directs State Police to set up a process for obtaining such a check from a licensed firearms dealer. Anyone who sells a firearm without a background check is guilty of a Class 6 felony, and the person who receives the firearm is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Exempts transfers between immediate family members and by estate administrators, as well as transfers during lawful activities at shooting ranges or similar spaces designed for target practice. It also exempts temporary transfers that occur while the owner is present or are necessary to prevent death or bodily harm. Additionally, it allows transfers of antique firearms, transfers that are part of a buy-back or give-back program and those that occur by operation of law. Introduced by Sen. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth.

You have a LTC and I have a LTC. This law would prohibit us from trading guns or one of us selling a gun to the other.
Add an exemption for licensed gun owners and I would probably buy in.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
El Oso said:

SB 69: Prohibits anyone who is not a licensed firearms dealer from purchasing more than one handgun within a 30-day period, making the offense a Class 1 misdemeanor. Exempts those with valid Virginia concealed handgun permits and those replacing a lost or stolen handgun, as well as law enforcement agencies, state and local correctional facilities, private security companies and those with special circumstances with a background check from Virginia State Police. Also exempts purchases made during a private sale for a personal collection of rare or historical items. Introduced by Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton.

I've never bought more than one handgun at a time, but I do have three different types of rifles on my saving money for list.

Why shouldn't I be able to buy all 3 on the same day?

I think it is more than 1 handgun
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

El Oso said:

SB 69: Prohibits anyone who is not a licensed firearms dealer from purchasing more than one handgun within a 30-day period, making the offense a Class 1 misdemeanor. Exempts those with valid Virginia concealed handgun permits and those replacing a lost or stolen handgun, as well as law enforcement agencies, state and local correctional facilities, private security companies and those with special circumstances with a background check from Virginia State Police. Also exempts purchases made during a private sale for a personal collection of rare or historical items. Introduced by Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton.

I've never bought more than one handgun at a time, but I do have three different types of rifles on my saving money for list.

Why shouldn't I be able to buy all 3 on the same day?

I think it is more than 1 handgun
Same deal: why make him space out his purchases to the state's schedule?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Osodecentx said:

El Oso said:

SB 69: Prohibits anyone who is not a licensed firearms dealer from purchasing more than one handgun within a 30-day period, making the offense a Class 1 misdemeanor. Exempts those with valid Virginia concealed handgun permits and those replacing a lost or stolen handgun, as well as law enforcement agencies, state and local correctional facilities, private security companies and those with special circumstances with a background check from Virginia State Police. Also exempts purchases made during a private sale for a personal collection of rare or historical items. Introduced by Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton.

I've never bought more than one handgun at a time, but I do have three different types of rifles on my saving money for list.

Why shouldn't I be able to buy all 3 on the same day?

I think it is more than 1 handgun
Same deal: why make him space out his purchases to the state's schedule?
This is a marginal issue for me
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

With respect, I am a pro-2nd amendment conservative that just happens to not own a gun. These Democratic sponsored proposed laws do not seem to be that big of a deal to me and actually, quite reasonable.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-va-sheriff-we-will-not-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-control-laws

Can someone who is opposed to them explain the other side? Maybe I am missing something.
Disclosure: I'm turning 65 in a couple of weeks. Grew up around guns and hunting with my Korea veteran dad (Bronze Star, Combat Infantry, Purple Heart, et al). Firearm safety, trigger control and sight picture were drilled into me from an early age and became as natural as breathing. Everyone I knew had guns at home. Never a problem. Actually had a Federal Firearms License in the late '80s-early '90s mainly out of curiosity and to acquire a few rifles for my dad and some buddies at a discount. Gave it up when Clinton made it more expensive than I was willing to pay. Still a little pissed about that. Lived through the Assault Weapons Ban and saw what that did to prices. Picked up a couple of semi-autos mainly as a hobby-grade investment when the AWB expired. Started getting interested in evil black rifles when Obama was elected and I didn't want to be left out again, so started building them myself. Lots and lots of fun. Legos for big boys.

Anyway, with the benefit of decades of thought and reflection, and in view of the leftward lurch of our Republic, I no longer have any confidence in any governmental body from a local city council up to and including our Supreme Court. Why should we depend on a few in black robes to determine our rights? Mao was correct - political power grows from the barrel of a gun. End of story. FWIW, google Bronze Age Mindset. I think there's some eternal truth there.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

fadskier said:

With respect, I am a pro-2nd amendment conservative that just happens to not own a gun. These Democratic sponsored proposed laws do not seem to be that big of a deal to me and actually, quite reasonable.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-va-sheriff-we-will-not-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-control-laws

Can someone who is opposed to them explain the other side? Maybe I am missing something.
Agree with you fadskier. I am a second amendment guy (who owns guns) but see no problem with more extensive background checks and "red flag" laws.
Biggest problem is presuming good faith on the part of law enforcement. Last cycle, George Soros spent $750K in a Democrat primary in San Antonio.....to unseat a Democrat incumbent in favor of a social justice warrior. Laws like this in the hands of bad faith are a weapon against the 2nd amendment, particularly "red flag" laws. Problem with red flag laws? Define crazy. Define hate speech. Depending on the definition, YOU could have your guns seized without due process, just because a single neighbor is scared of you and the DA is a gun-grabbing ideologue. VERY slippery slope.

Mandatory background checks on ALL transactions is a pointless and intrusive and unnecessary regulation that only infringes on rights of law abiding citizens. Two guys on a deer lease together can't trade weapons without involving law enforcement? A grandpa can't leave (or buy) a weapon for a grandson without a background check? Is that really a reasonable regulation? If we have a problem with gun violence, is that really a good use of law enforcement resources? Have transactions like that EVER been the source of a weapon used in a mass shooting? Why then, are they being proposed? (answer: there is an agenda here.)

All of these regulations infringe on the part of the population which is NOT the problem. (law abiding citizens.)

None of these regulations will do anything to stop the gun problem de jour. Used to be Saturday Night Specials. Now, it's ARs. Tomorrow it will be something else. Gun grabbers will always have a reason why others shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Might even be because those others are conservatives. Look at how the media reported the Virginia demonstrations as manifestations of white nationalism. And that's supposed to make me more reasonable? They want me to compromise on gun rights while inferring that I'm a white nationalist for liking my guns and wanting to keep them?

Heller reserved the power for govt to enact prudent regulations. How could banning the #1 selling rifle in the country be prudent? Really? The most popular gun in the country kills less people per year than hammers and so we have to ban it? And I'm supposed to treat such a suggestion seriously?

None of these regulations address the primary problem of de jour (mass shootings). Not. One. That's because the real problem, the root cause, is mental illness. We used to put crazy people in mental hospitals. And that was a mess. So we liberalized....made it much harder to involuntarily commit people, to keep committed people in custody/treatment, etc.... That was a reasonable way to address what had become an affront to the individuals' right of liberty. But, 4 decades down the road, we can see that we perhaps went too far...that we need to re-think the problem...that maybe the sweet spot is at least a few steps backwards.

But we can't address that. Because it's a distraction from rolling back gun ownership rights.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

fadskier said:

With respect, I am a pro-2nd amendment conservative that just happens to not own a gun. These Democratic sponsored proposed laws do not seem to be that big of a deal to me and actually, quite reasonable.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-va-sheriff-we-will-not-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-control-laws

Can someone who is opposed to them explain the other side? Maybe I am missing something.
Agree with you fadskier. I am a second amendment guy (who owns guns) but see no problem with more extensive background checks and "red flag" laws.
Biggest problem is presuming good faith on the part of law enforcement. Last cycle, George Soros spent $750K in a Democrat primary in San Antonio.....to unseat a Democrat incumbent in favor of a social justice warrior. Laws like this in the hands of bad faith are a weapon against the 2nd amendment, particularly "red flag" laws. Problem with red flag laws? Define crazy. Define hate speech. Depending on the definition, YOU could have your guns seized without due process, just because a single neighbor is scared of you and the DA is a gun-grabbing ideologue. VERY slippery slope.

Mandatory background checks on ALL transactions is a pointless and intrusive and unnecessary regulation that only infringes on rights of law abiding citizens. Two guys on a deer lease together can't trade weapons without involving law enforcement? A grandpa can't leave (or buy) a weapon for a grandson without a background check? Is that really a reasonable regulation? If we have a problem with gun violence, is that really a good use of law enforcement resources? Have transactions like that EVER been the source of a weapon used in a mass shooting? Why then, are they being proposed? (answer: there is an agenda here.)

All of these regulations infringe on the part of the population which is NOT the problem. (law abiding citizens.)

None of these regulations will do anything to stop the gun problem de jour. Used to be Saturday Night Specials. Now, it's ARs. Tomorrow it will be something else. Gun grabbers will always have a reason why others shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Might even be because those others are conservatives. Look at how the media reported the Virginia demonstrations as manifestations of white nationalism. And that's supposed to make me more reasonable? They want me to compromise on gun rights while inferring that I'm a white nationalist for liking my guns and wanting to keep them?

Heller reserved the power for govt to enact prudent regulations. How could banning the #1 selling rifle in the country be prudent? Really? The most popular gun in the country kills less people per year than hammers and so we have to ban it? And I'm supposed to treat such a suggestion seriously?

None of these regulations address the primary problem of de jour (mass shootings). Not. One. That's because the real problem, the root cause, is mental illness. We used to put crazy people in mental hospitals. And that was a mess. So we liberalized....made it much harder to involuntarily commit people, to keep committed people in custody/treatment, etc.... That was a reasonable way to address what had become an affront to the individuals' right of liberty. But, 4 decades down the road, we can see that we perhaps went too far...that we need to re-think the problem...that maybe the sweet spot is at least a few steps backwards.

But we can't address that. Because it's a distraction from rolling back gun ownership rights.
Thank you so much for nailing this so well. 100% concur.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

With respect, I am a pro-2nd amendment conservative that just happens to not own a gun. These Democratic sponsored proposed laws do not seem to be that big of a deal to me and actually, quite reasonable.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-va-sheriff-we-will-not-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-control-laws

Can someone who is opposed to them explain the other side? Maybe I am missing something.
The permitted event law prohibits carrying a firearm not just at permitted events, but in any public street, road, alley, sidewalk or public right-of-way or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public and is being used by or is adjacent to a permitted event or an event that would otherwise require a permit. It puts an onerous, daily burden on the gun owner to keep track of the times and locations of all kinds of events that may or may not be permitted. This makes it difficult if not impossible to know when and where it's legal to carry. The law also allows the state and city governments to sue gun manufacturers, holding them liable for the behavior of criminals over which they have no control.

The background check law applies to all firearm sales and trades, with no exceptions other than antiques. The exception for immediate family members only applies to gifts, and even a gift to anyone other than an immediate family member is a felony offense. This is a sweeping power for the state, with harsh penalties for a wide range of transactions that are innocent 99% of the time. The worst law of the three, in my opinion.

The one-per-month law is designed to curb export of handguns to states with more restrictions, in particular New York. Virginia had this law on the books for almost twenty years, and it was ineffective. Reinstating it will do nothing but further inconvenience gun owners.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for those details!

I would add that "inconvenience" understates it significantly. Take an unintentional infraction and add an anti-2nd DA to the mix, and we have added substantial legal liability to gun ownership itself. Which, of course is entirely the objective - saddling today's law-abiding gun owners with the threat of criminal records for doing things they've legally done their entire lives.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

fadskier said:

With respect, I am a pro-2nd amendment conservative that just happens to not own a gun. These Democratic sponsored proposed laws do not seem to be that big of a deal to me and actually, quite reasonable.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-va-sheriff-we-will-not-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-control-laws

Can someone who is opposed to them explain the other side? Maybe I am missing something.
The permitted event law prohibits carrying a firearm not just at permitted events, but in any public street, road, alley, sidewalk or public right-of-way or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public and is being used by or is adjacent to a permitted event or an event that would otherwise require a permit. It puts an onerous, daily burden on the gun owner to keep track of the times and locations of all kinds of events that may or may not be permitted. This makes it difficult if not impossible to know when and where it's legal to carry. The law also allows the state and city governments to sue gun manufacturers, holding them liable for the behavior of criminals over which they have no control.

The background check law applies to all firearm sales and trades, with no exceptions other than antiques. The exception for immediate family members only applies to gifts, and even a gift to anyone other than an immediate family member is a felony offense. This is a sweeping power for the state, with harsh penalties for a wide range of transactions that are innocent 99% of the time. The worst law of the three, in my opinion.

The one-per-month law is designed to curb export of handguns to states with more restrictions, in particular New York. Virginia had this law on the books for almost twenty years, and it was ineffective. Reinstating it will do nothing but further inconvenience gun owners.
Thank you!
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Too many states still have civil asset forfeiture laws.

Get too near a gun free event? Forfeit your gun.
Neighbor uses red flag law to SWAT you? Forfeit your gun.
Out grew your .20 ga and want to sell it your younger cousin as a starter dove gun, but didn't put him through a background check? Forfeit your gun.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I mean you can't even lend a gun to someone unless you're continuously in their presence. So your cousin calls and wants to borrow a shotgun to take his son on his first hunt...you have to say no, that would make me a felon.

It's not just a big restriction on gun rights but a big restriction on the right to use and trade your property in general. Think of any item in your house other than a gun and imagine a similar law.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

It's not just a big restriction on gun rights but a big restriction on the right to use and trade your property in general. Think of any item in your house other than a gun and imagine a similar law.
What other items in my house kill people?
Bearitto
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Too many states still have civil asset forfeiture laws.

Get too near a gun free event? Forfeit your gun.
Neighbor uses red flag law to SWAT you? Forfeit your gun.
Out grew your .20 ga and want to sell it your younger cousin as a starter dove gun, but didn't put him through a background check? Forfeit your gun.


Your well taken point included, CAF laws are an abomination. They completely negate due process and should be eliminated.
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

I mean you can't even lend a gun to someone unless you're continuously in their presence. So your cousin calls and wants to borrow a shotgun to take his son on his first hunt...you have to say no, that would make me a felon.

It's not just a big restriction on gun rights but a big restriction on the right to use and trade your property in general. Think of any item in your house other than a gun and imagine a similar law.


You read like a liberal against a dude getting choked to death by the police for selling his "Lucy" cigarettes on the streets.

Liberal!
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As others have pointed out, hammers and knives have killed more people than semiauto long guns.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.