Your Gun Rights Could Soon Hang In The Balance

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by 22WRF, Apr 23, 2007.

  1. 22WRF

    22WRF Well-Known Member

    May 10, 2004
    -- VA Tech shootings now spurring the most far-reaching gun control
    in a decade

    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

    ACTION: Now that Congress is moving to restrict YOUR rights in
    response to the VA Tech shootings, please make sure to take the
    following three actions after you read this alert:

    1. Urge your Representative to OPPOSE HR 297, the Dingell-McCarthy
    legislation that is designed to take the Brady Law to new heights,
    turning it into a law on steroids which could one day keep even YOU
    from buying a gun. (Contact information and a draft letter to your
    Representative are provided below.)

    2. Gin up the e-mail alert systems in your state and forward this
    e-mail to as many gun owners as you can.

    3. Please stand with Gun Owners of America -- at -- and help us to continue
    this fight, as right now, we are combating this latest onslaught
    ALONE in our nation's capital. GOA spokesmen spent all of last week
    doing radio and TV debates, interviews for newswires, and opinion
    editorials for newspapers. This week, we begin the battle in
    Congress to defeat legislation that could block millions of
    additional, honest gun owners from buying firearms.

    Monday, April 23, 2007

    The biggest gun battle of the year is about to erupt on Capitol Hill.
    Fueled by the recent Virginia Tech shootings, an odd coalition is
    forming to help expand the number of honest people who now won't be
    able to buy a gun.

    The legislation has been introduced by none other than the Queen of
    Gun Control herself, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). But she has
    picked up a key ally, as the bill (HR 297) is being pushed by a
    powerful gun group in Washington, DC.

    On Friday, The Washington Post reported on the strange coalition.
    "With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for tighter gun
    controls," the Post said, "the National Rifle Association has begun
    negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the
    national background-check system."

    Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who was once on the NRA Board of Directors
    but resigned when he supported and voted for the Clinton semi-auto
    ban in 1994, is reported to be "leading talks with the powerful gun
    lobby in hopes of producing a deal [soon]," Democratic aides and
    lawmakers told the newspaper.

    Rep. McCarthy admitted to the Post that her "crusades" for more gun
    control have made her voice "toxic" in gun circles. "So
    Dingell is
    handling negotiations with the NRA," the newspaper reported.
    "Dingell is also in talks with Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted
    Stevens (R-Alaska), House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio)
    and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the senior Republican on the
    House Judiciary Committee."

    Despite all this bad news, the Post article does go on to explain
    that there are some potential pitfalls.

    First, you will remember that this is the bill you helped kill last
    year, when an avalanche of postcards was dumped on Congressional
    desks by thousands upon thousands of GOA activists. That's why the
    Post says there is one huge obstacle -- the members of Gun Owners of

    "The NRA must balance its desire to respond to the worst mass
    shooting by a lone gunman in the nation's history with its
    competition with the more strident Gun Owners of America, which
    opposes any restriction on gun purchases," the Post reported.


    Well, the rest of this alert will answer this question. This alert
    is long, but it is important to read it in its entirety. We need to
    "arm" ourselves with the facts so that we can keep pro-gun
    Congressmen from being duped into supporting a bill that, as of now,
    is being unanimously cosponsored by representatives sporting an
    rating by GOA.

    HR 297 provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the
    states to send more names to the FBI for inclusion in the National
    Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS]. If you are
    thinking, "Oh, I've never committed a felony, so this bill won't
    affect me," then you had better think again. If this bill becomes
    law, you and your adult children will come closer to losing your gun
    rights than ever before.

    Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from
    Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss
    your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans
    Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for
    inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military
    veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our
    society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous

    Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often
    follow our decent men and women who have served their country
    overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their
    patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally
    "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS
    system, and
    they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).

    HR 297 would make sure that more of these names are included in the
    NICS system.

    But, of course, Representatives Dingell and McCarthy tell us that we
    need HR 297 to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to
    prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like we had on
    Virginia Tech. Oh really?

    Then why, after passing all of their gun control, do countries like
    Canada and Germany still have school shootings? Even the infamous
    schoolyard massacre which occurred in Ireland in 1997 took place in a
    country that, at that time, had far more stringent gun controls than
    we do.

    Where has gun control made people safer? Certainly not in
    Washington, DC, nor in Great Britain, nor in any other place that has
    enacted a draconian gun ban.


    Regarding Cho's evil actions last Monday at Virginia Tech, your
    Representative needs to understand three things:

    1. If a criminal is a danger to himself and society, then he should
    not be on the street. If he is, then there's no law (or background
    check for that matter) that will stop him from getting a gun and
    acting out the evil that is in his heart. (Remember that Washington,
    DC and England have not stopped bad guys from getting guns!) So why
    wasn't Cho in the criminal justice system? Why was he allowed to
    intermix with other college students? The justice system frequently
    passes off thugs to psychologists who then let them slip through
    their fingers and back into society -- where they are free to rape,
    rob and murder.

    2. Background checks DO NOT ULTIMATELY STOP criminals and mental
    wackos from getting guns. This means that people who are initially
    denied firearms at a gun store can still buy one illegally and commit
    murder if they are so inclined -- such as Benjamin Smith did in 1999
    (when he left the gun store where he was denied a firearm, bought
    guns on the street, and then committed his racist rampage less than a
    week later).

    NOTE: In the first five years that the Brady Law was in existence,
    there were reportedly only three illegal gun buyers who were sent to
    jail. That is why in 1997, a training manual produced by Handgun
    Control, Inc., guided its activists in how to answer a question
    regarding the low number of convictions under the Brady Law. The
    manual basically says, when you are asked why so few people are being
    sent to jail under Brady, just ignore the question and go on the
    attack. [See -- GOF's Gun Control
    Fact Sheet.]

    3. Background checks threaten to prevent INNOCENT Americans like you
    from exercising your right to own a gun for self-defense. No doubt
    you are familiar with the countless number of times that the NICS
    system has erroneously blocked honest Americans from buying a gun, or
    have heard about the times that the NICS computer system has crashed
    for days at a time, thus preventing all sales nationwide -- and
    effectively shutting down every weekend gun show.

    Perhaps the most pernicious way of denying the rights of law-abiding
    gun owners is to continuously add more and more gun owners' names
    onto the roles of prohibited persons. Clinton did this with many
    military veterans in 1999. And Congress did this in 1996, when Sen.
    Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) successfully pushed a gun ban for people who
    have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or
    merely yelling at a family member. Because of the Lautenberg gun
    ban, millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans can never again own
    guns for self-defense. HR 297 will make it easier for the FBI to
    find out who these people are and to deny firearms to them.

    GOA has documented other problems with this bill in the past. In our
    January alert on HR 297 we pointed out how this bill will easily lend
    itself to bureaucratic "fishing expeditions" into your private
    records, including your financial, employment, and hospital records.

    HR 297 takes us the wrong direction. The anti-gun Rep. Dingell is
    trying to sell the bill to the gun owning public as an improvement in
    the Brady Law. But don't be fooled! The best improvement would be
    to repeal the law and end the "gun free zones" that keep everyone
    defenseless and disarmed -- except for the bad guys.

    CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action
    Center at to send your
    Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can
    call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

    ----- PRE-WRITTEN LETTER -----

    Dear Representative:

    I am a Second Amendment supporter who strongly opposes HR 297 -- the
    NICS Improvement Act of 2007 -- and I strongly agree with Gun Owners
    of America that this bill should be defeated.

    The minor improvements this bill makes to the Brady instant check are
    insignificant when compared to the outrageous invasions of our
    privacy it would permit.

    Gun Owners of America has posted an analysis of HR 297 at on its website, showing how the
    bill will target millions of law-abiding gun owners, including
    thousands of combat veterans who served our country bravely.

    Supporters of this bill say we need it to stop future Seung-Hui Chos
    from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another
    shooting like the one at Virginia Tech. But honestly, what gun law
    has stopped bad guys from getting a gun? Not in Canada, where they
    recently had a school shooting. Certainly not in Washington, DC or
    in England!

    I think we've got to stop treating criminals like medical patients,
    thus allowing them to slip through the cracks. If we are not going
    to incarcerate dangerous people, then all the gun laws in the world
    will never stop them from getting firearms.

    Don't be misled into thinking that this is a bill that gun owners
    endorse. Most gun owners want Brady repealed, not "fixed." The law
    has done nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, but it has
    violated the Second Amendment rights of millions of law-abiding



    GOA In The Media

    As you know, GOA spokesmen have been all over the airwaves in recent
    days. We hope to have a number of television appearances posted to
    our streaming video section at
    shortly -- most likely by Wednesday.
  2. Rommelvon

    Rommelvon New Member

    Aug 6, 2006
    Goldsboro, NC
    Thanks for posting, I am an NRA member but not a GOA member.....yet....I will send off my dues today......scary stuff

  3. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Mar 27, 2003
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    Mine has been sent not only to our man in Mississippi, but also to my friends in Alabama.
  4. winman

    winman New Member

    Aug 28, 2007
    We all can agree that the Virginia Tech shooting was terrible, but how come good people like myself who use guns for hunting (animals not people) should suffer for what some mentally unstable jack ass did? It is a question no liberal will answer (one of the many), they only see one side of it. They dont realize that if you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have them, and if some one wants a gun bad enough they will get one. If they want gun control they need to tell the gun shop owners that if Jamal Johnson want two semi auto handguns and has to pull up his pant every five seconds you dont sell him a gun its very simple, even if his record cleaner than a priest's bed sheets. That plan right there is a simple one that will prevent one hell of alot of crime. Also if you value your guns dont elect Hillary Clinton, hell will come to earth if you do, imagine her, charles schrumer and polosi, goodbye second ammendment. Your guns wont be taken away, if your a good person with a clean record then you'll be fine, other than that the libs wont get anything passed with a few decent republicans and the NRA and GOA. When someone wakes them up and they realize that only a few of every million gun owners uses them to commit a crime. I'd rather be shot than strangled or stabbed. No Clinton, no problems.
  5. wasr762

    wasr762 New Member

    Nov 23, 2007
    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

    ACTION: Now that Congress is moving to restrict YOUR rights in
    response to the VA Tech shootings, please make sure to take the
    following three actions after you read this alert:

    So you must support Ron Paul then? I hope so. Donate to him while you're at it. what better way to protect your second ammendment right than to have Ron Paul who is pro gun in office? every little bit helps.
    Here is Pauls stance on the 2nd ammendment.

    I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

    I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:

    H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
    H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
    H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
    H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.

    In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.

    I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.

    You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment.

    Back to issues main page ›

    Want to support Dr. Paul’s view on The Second Amendment?
    Help us spread the liberty message:

    Join the Campaign.
    Keep the campaign running with your generous contribution.
    Download this statement in Adobe Reader format and spread the word.
    Get the Free Adobe Reader.
  6. myfaforumname

    myfaforumname Former Guest

    Aug 17, 2008
    Yes, be afraid, give us your money. It's not as if there's a constitutional amendment to protect you.
  7. dcd_enterprises

    dcd_enterprises New Member

    Oct 14, 2007
    Wheatland, Iowa
    Of course there is an amendment, it's right next to the one that protects a womans right to commit murder, er, I mean abortion. I mean, it's in there, right?
  8. hayman

    hayman New Member

    Nov 17, 2008
    Onoway Alberta, Canada
    the liberals took our rights away here in Canada. we now have regester all guns when we buy them. that way for about 7 years now. It is a pian. Not worth owning a hand gun you need a permite to take it to the gun range. you can't even stop any were on the way or if you get caught your are charged.
    SO FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT be fore it is to late
  9. LokiCat

    LokiCat New Member

    Dec 5, 2008
    The Midwest
    Citizens of the United States:

    We stand at a point in history where the very fabric of our SOCIETY may well be at risk. Congress is considering the passage of a law which, by it's title, seems to be a reasonable bill. I wonder how many members of the House of Representatives read the entire piece of legislation before they voted to pass it and send it to the Senate. Since the bill had money provided as part of it, it required passage by the House. All money bills are required to be initiated by the House in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. Laws and Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land. Read the following from the US. Constitution. It is Article VI of the basic U.S. Constitution:

    Article. VI.
    All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

    Citizens: read the second paragraph of Article VI. carefully. Note the punctuations carefully! Specifically as follows: "....which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; (not this punctuation) and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United State, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;...

    Is this to mean that Treaties are to be treated differently than the Constitution and Laws? If they were not, the drafters of the U.S. Constitution would have written it as follows: "This Constitution, Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; because they would be equal. The drafters did not mean them to be equal. Laws were to be reviewed by the Supreme Court to see if they abided by the Constitution and it subsequent amendments. Treaties were to be handled differently. I know of NO Supreme Court review of a treaty (to the best of my knowledge)!

    Therefore, why would any lawyer who is a Senator, have the following bill drafted for Congressional ratification which would invalidate the Second Amendment right of citizens to bear arms? Unless he wanted to sneak something thru the system which would provide for a "World Governing Body to which we subscribe under a TREATY, to have control over the weapons possessed by citizens of this Republic?

    James Madison who is considered the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution, wrote during the the ratification process a Federalist Paper, stating the position on "the right to own and keep weapons" which I will note as follows: (the Federalist Papers can be read on line from the Library of Congress and provides interesting insight to the thinkers involved in the drafting of the US Constitution) I have added boldness and underling of the provisions which lead me to my conclusion that the drafters intended "Citizens to have weapons!"

    Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.


    In view of the forgoing, let us look at S2433 and it provisions:


    According to David Bossie, President of the group 'Citizens United for American Sovereignty', based out of Merrifield Virginia, {website:} the above mentioned Senate Bill (S. 2433) is a piece of legislation in the works that all Americans need to know about . . . and know now!

    This bill, sponsored by none other than Sen. Barack Obama, with the backing of Joe Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee, and liberal democrats in Congress, is nothing short of a massive giveaway of American wealth around the

    world, and a betrayal of the public trust, because, if passed, this bill would give over many aspects of our sovereignty to the United Nations.

    The noble sounding name of this bill, 'The Global Poverty Act' is actually a Global Tax, payable to the United Nations, that will be required of all American taxpayers. If passed in the Senate, the House has already passed it, this bill would require the U.S. to increase our foreign aid by $65 BILLION per year, or $845 BILLION over the next 13 years! That's on top of the billions of dollars in foreign aid we already pay out!

    In addition to the economic burdens this potential law would place on our precarious economy, the bill, if passed in the Senate, would also endanger our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms by obligating us to meet certain United Nations mandates.

    According to Senator Obama, we should establish these United Nations' goals as benchmarks for U.S. spending.

    What are they?

    1. The creation of a U.N. International Criminal Court having the power to try and convict American citizens and

    soldiers without any protection from the U.S. Constitution.

    2. A standing United Nations Army forcing U.S. soldiers to serve under U.N. command.

    3. A Gun Ban on all small arms and light weapons-which would repeal our Second Amendment right to bear arms.

    4. The ratification of the ' Kyoto ' global warming treaty and numerous other anti-American measures.

    Recently, the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations (where Sen. Joe Biden sits) approved this plan by a voice vote without any discussion! Why all the secrecy? If Senators Obama and Biden are so proud of this legislation, then why don't they bring it out into the light of day and let the American people have a look at it instead of hiding it behind closed doors and sneaking it through Congress for late night votes.

    It may be only a matter of time before this dangerous legislation reaches a floor vote in the full body of the Senate.

    Please write or call, email your representatives, the White House, the media, or anyone you think will listen, and express your opinions regarding this Global Tax giveaway and betrayal of the American people at a time when our nation and our people are already heavily burdened with the threats to our freedoms and economic prosperity.
  10. chrislind2

    chrislind2 New Member

    Dec 4, 2007
  11. ampaterry

    ampaterry *TFF Admin Staff Chaplain* Staff Member Supporting Member

    Dec 20, 2008
    West Tennessee
    Dead on, Chris -

    Excuse me now - I gotta go oil my flower beds -
  12. pl1215

    pl1215 New Member

    Jan 23, 2009
    Thanks for the info. I just got through using the GOA site to notify my reps. not to vote for HR279 and AG nominee Eric Holder.
  13. SaddleSarge

    SaddleSarge New Member

    Aug 24, 2008
    This in this morning from the NRA-ILA. :mad: For full article, click on the title link:

    No Surprises Here: Former
    President Clinton Advocates New Gun And Magazine Ban

    "...Nobody wants to repeal the Second Amendment, and nobody wants to keep you out of the deer woods, but wouldn't it be nice if your children didn't have to worry about being mowed down by an assault weapon when they turn the corner?..." Former President Bill Clinton
  14. Mr. Nameless

    Mr. Nameless New Member

    Feb 21, 2009
    Coast of N.C.
    well our right to own guns has been on the balance since the first blue, lib, or wat ever you want to call anti gun people came into any kind of political power, but i am currently trying to get my hands on an AR-15 and kimber .45 before obama does anything that might let him become an expert at catching bullets if antone understands wat i mean, now i know a guy who is willing to sell me both guns for $1000, this is actually a very good deal, seeing as how both guns havnt been shot, but i dont want to rant
  15. Sawyer87

    Sawyer87 New Member

    Mar 11, 2009
    Don't know if I would say Blue lib are all agaisnt gun rights. I mostly vote Dem, for they protect my job in education. Most of my family are union members, which Unions fight the facetious corporations from out-sourcing there jobs (which is also protect by the Dems). We are all sportsmen and own gun. We also believe in gun rights. So, not all Dems are against gun rights. I vote Dem because I am tired of big corporations running our country, and as of lately, bankrupting our country. That is why I vote Dem, and not to take the guns out of peoples hand. I could be wrong, and please correct me if I am, isn't H.R.6257 a Rep sponsored bill?
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum House Passes Bill to Protect Second Amendment Rights of America’s Veterans Mar 18, 2017
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Lawyers Attack Gun Rights now Dec 11, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Did Wisconsin just lose the 4th amendment rights Sep 18, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum thoughts on 2A rights of minors Mar 19, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum These Hillary Supporters Want Her to Repeal the Bill of Rights if She's Elected President Aug 4, 2015