Opening the toolbox for the Brady Campaign, VPC, et al.
1. Initiate, Don't React. It's unnecessary to respond to everything the NRA says or does. Always playing defense greatly diminishes your chances of scoring. Of course, when the NRA does or says something stupid--go after them. Otherwise, make the NRA respond to you.
2. Your mission is the four Es. Enforcement. Engineering. Education. Epidemiology.
Enforcement is working to close all the loopholes. Gun show loopholes. The loopholes in the Brady Law.
Engineering-innovations that make firearms safer. Think beyond trigger locks and gun safes. Initiatives that make it easier to trace crime guns.
Education. Do you realize most Americans believe every firearm is registered? They do.
Epidemiology. This cuts across the first 3 Es. One of the things the gunloons dread more than anything is scientific studies. They don't want this information available to the public because it shines a very bright light on our problems.
3. Smeed's Law. Smeed was a British statistician who theorized about auto fatalities and the population. His friend, the American physicist, Dyson Freeman said of Smeed's Law: "People will drive recklessly until the number of deaths reaches the maximum they can tolerate. When the number exceeds that limit, they drive more carefully. Smeed’s Law merely defines the number of deaths that we find psychologically tolerable.”
Your job is to render gun violence in the US intolerable.
4. Guerilla Advocacy. Know the most effective advocacy organization? It ain't the NRA; they spend millions with little return on their investment. It's PETA. PETA does more with less than any organization going. If you're serious about reducing gun violence--PETA can provide lessons in how to get the message across.
In Part 4, I provide specific examples.
Jade you are absolutely brilliant. I hope one of the anti-freedom groups snaps you up and puts you in charge. Preferably the Brady's.
ReplyDeletePETA is a fine example. They "save" animals by killing 10's of thousands of them. Is that how you think you should take on the gun loons?
FWM you are right about PETA killing a large amount of the animals they rescue. But you forgot to mention that many times they roll onto a farm, slaughterhouse, or other animal holding area, and steal these animals.
ReplyDeleteI will assume that the use of PETA and their actions means the following. First many guns that are acquired by the Bradys, and other groups, will be destroyed, and the means to acquire these guns might very well be theft.
Wow. 5 paragraphs to redefine a movement that has been underway for decades. And not one single new idea in the whole works.
ReplyDeleteI didn't laugh out loud after all. It was too sad seeing someone make such a silly post that they obviously take very seriously.
BTW -- the Brady campaign gave up on studies because there just aren't any legitimate ones that prove their point. And they have to skew the results so badly to get what they want that they quickly get found out and reported on -- welcome to the internet age.
Sad. Just sad.
This post is a prime example of why the gun control movement is dying.
ReplyDelete1. The NRA doesn't have to respond to the Brady Campaign. Even Starbucks didn't respond to the Brady Campaign. Aside from getting their press releases floated by the media, the BC is largely irrelevant. The VPC even more so. They are a gnat in a tornado.
ReplyDelete2. Enforcement - Enforcement of what? More laws that don't work.
Engineering - The BC pushing for a safer gun is like PETA pushing for fatter cattle. Why would any gun manufacturer listen to the organization whose goal is to greatly diminish their bottom line?
Education - With the media in the gun control movement's pocket, inability to educate has never been a problem. The problem is the BC chooses to miseducate people with lies and distortions. As a result, people tend to dismiss the BC's efforts to "educate".
Epidemiology - The BC has been buying studies for years. It hasn't worked yet.
3. The only way that is possible is to reverse our current trend and increase the number of gun deaths. i guess this finally proves that it's really about the guns and not so much about saving people.
4. Ah yes... PETA. Good ol' racist, misogynistic, PETA. That's really going to get the leftists rallied behind them.
PETA:
ReplyDeleteI'd rather go nude than have sex with a gun loon.
I'm not sure how they could get the naked women together with firearms (I think Volk has that one tied up).
On the other hand, if women start doing Lysistrata and not have sex with gun owners...
Laci
Women not having sex with gun owners would mean a lot of women couldn't masturbate, either, since they own weapons too.
ReplyDelete"a lot of women"? I've seen the figure for gun ownership among US women and the number runs between 9-13%.
ReplyDeleteThat hardly qualifies as "a lot"
My experience shows that most women are weapon adverse.
Laci
Ahh, the usual suspects think that because PETA is mentioned--we're talking about stealing lab animals and not wearing fur.
ReplyDeleteNice try but no cigar.
The amusing thing about your hatred of PETA is that it demonstrates PETA's effectiveness. After all, one only need look at PETA's results. How many people wear fur these days? How many cosmetic companies now advertise "cruelty-free" products? There are more vegetarians and various meat producers now advertise their products as "free range" and/or organic. I'd even argue hunting has taken a hit as a result of PETA. People are now aware of "puppy mills" and the like and many states are strictly enforcing laws against them.
BTW -- the Brady campaign gave up on studies because there just aren't any legitimate ones that prove their point.
ReplyDeleteStevie goes full silly, again.
There are a wealth of studies showing, for example, the costs of gun ownership outweigh the benefits. Such peer-reviewed studies are done by institutions including Harvard, Stanford, Johns Hopkins and many other colleges.
In fact, the gunloon side cannot and has not ever provided a peer-reviewed study showing the contrary. In fact, the sole non-peer reviewed study was done by John Lott ("More Guns, Less Crime") actually did not show more guns = less crime--only that more guns did not necessarily lead to more crime. Of course, that non-peer-reviewed study has been largely found to be fraudulent.
Laci: “"a lot of women"? I've seen the figure for gun ownership among US women and the number runs between 9-13%. That hardly qualifies as "a lot"”
ReplyDeleteThat is between 14 and 20 million people. What is your definition of “a lot”?
Jade: “There are a wealth of studies showing, for example, the costs of gun ownership outweigh the benefits.”
ReplyDeleteCan you link us to the ones that show benefits and how they calculate those benefits, please? You personally have only referenced the cost.
TS: Easy enough.
ReplyDeleteOne example: Arthur Kellermann et. al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091.
In this study, it was found that a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. In order to conduct this study, homes without guns had to be measured against those with guns. Thus, if there was some positive net benefit to gun ownership then the absence of a gun in the home would have been recognized as a murder risk.
But the findings did not support that.
Re women gun ownership, see:
ReplyDeletehttp://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/03/womenandguns.php
Jade Fool, you're a riot. Outside of Kellerman himself, you're probably the only person on the planet that actually believes Kellerman's numbers.
ReplyDeleteHe had to keep redoing his original study, over and over and over, until his number came down to where people stopped laughing at them. You remember the orginal claim, don't you? 44 times more likely. Of course, it was false and greatly misleading. Then 32, and 26, if I remember correctly. And every time, he had to go back to the drawing board and rework his "study" hoping that if he found a low enough number, some fool would cling to it desperately. I guess he found you.
Kellerman's numbers were outrageously high, and remain so, because he used criminals (violent felons, drug dealers, gang members etc.) and suicides, and cases where the gun was fired and produced a death, but outright ignored cases where the gun was fired but did not produce a death, or cases where the gun was never fired, but merely displayed.
With such cherry-picked numbers, his study couldn't help but come to the conclusion it had.
Seriously, you ought to have your own show. It's comedy gold. Or comedey Jade Gold.
Anon: Sadly, you are pretending that Kellermann redid his study.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't.
He was studying another issue.
There is the study, mentioned above, which found a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one.
Then there is the study (1986) that found every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting.
As is readily apparent to all but you, the studies are of two separate things.
Your confusion could possibly be overcome by reading as opposed to believing what is told to you.
Maybe.
I've looked at many anti-gun studies. They're all a joke, and anyone who looks at them closely sees them as such.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem with the "gun in a household" studies, besides including suicide, is that if someone in a household is turning violent (these things don't happen overnight) they're going to prepare for violence, and when guns are available they'll choose a gun. So this means that every house where violence is going to occur becomes a "gun owning" house; i.e. they don't become a violent house because they're gun owning, they become a gun owning house because they're violent.
Which, of course, brings into question whether or not guns should be so easily available for purchase.
The facts are clear there as well ... when you take away guns you may reduce "gun violence," but not violence overall. This is what happened in England, Australia, etc.
So maybe you can feel good there's less "gun violence," but you've saved no lives. All you've really done is empowered the predators (they'll find the an appropriate weapon to do when they want to do, be it a gun or whatever, and plan around it) and 100% disarmed the victims, who are law abiding and won't break the law to gain weapons.
Firearms ownership is about empowerment. Both political and personal.
If you find a study that is honest and complete, and proves that an armed citizenry is a negative, then I'll join your side. But my lengthy study of history, gun laws, human nature, the effects of gun control, etc., leave me with one obvious conclusion:
A citizenry empowered by arms ownership is a good thing. It's good for me, it's good for you, it's good for our children.
But thank you for playing ... just really GLAD you're losing, as there is much at stake here!
Pure comedy, Jade Goof. Kellerman did indeed rework his numbers. He went from 43 to 26 on that original study.
ReplyDeleteAnd, you are right (for a change), this study is a "new" study, with a "new" conclusion. However, in both studies, the error remains that he cherry-picked homes with violent criminals, and ignored cases where the gun was fired but did not produce a death, and ignored cases where the gun was displayed, but not fired.
Funny stuff, Jade. Get yourself an agent and contact Comedy Central. You have a future in TV.
Anon: You still can't get your facts straight despite my sage corrections of you.
ReplyDeleteKellermann controlled for factors including criminal backgrounds, alcohol/drug use, etc. As I recall there were over 30 factors Kellermann controlled for.
Stevie: You're a wealth of illogic. Basically, your argument appears to be that violent people tend to own guns. Somehow, this is supposed to render Kellermann wrong?
No, my friend, my point is that regardless of laws violent people find the weapons they need to accomplish what they want. Duh.
ReplyDeleteTo put that more simply, a person doesn't become violent because they have access to a weapon, but once someone has decided on violence they're going to find what they need. Whether it's a gun or a club. And then they'll base their attack on what they have.
This is why legal firearms ownership is important. Gun control only disarms the victims, not the predators.
BTW -- the real way to make Brady effective is to get people to support the group/join it/vote with it. This has worked very well for the pro gun side. Unfortunately ... gun control keeps getting less popular every year, so I think that's the root of your problem.
Yes, your "sage corrections" include you insisting that he controlled for those factors. And I agree, he did. He controlled for them by including them, and only them.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point, Jade Goof. Thanks.
By the way, I did something that ought to just infuriate Jade Goof. I picked up a new rifle (PTR-91, HK clone) last weekend, and intend to take it out to the range this weekend. I'll give you all a report when I return.
Stevie: You are saying that violent people are attracted to firearms. How does it disprove Kellerman?
ReplyDeleteReally, I'm at a loss to snark this kind of illogic. By your logic, we shouldn't put seat belts in cars because those who are killed or injured in car accidents are susceptible to auto accidents.
Jadegold: “Then there is the study (1986) that found every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting.”
ReplyDeleteYou know it’s not “used in self-defense” but rather “Justifiable Homicide”. You also know I know this. Why are you bothering to say it like that? If this is the only measure of gun benefit, then gun owners would be better served to show less discretion and shoot to kill whenever possible. Obviously if that is Kellermann’s measure for benefit, it is bogus on both ends.
Jadegold: “Stevie: You are saying that violent people are attracted to firearms. How does it disprove Kellerman?”
ReplyDeleteBecause as long as you are not one of those people who intend to use a firearm for violence, you are not at a higher risk. Get it?
Jadegold: “By your logic, we shouldn't put seat belts in cars because those who are killed or injured in car accidents are susceptible to auto accidents.”
You’ve made that same conclusion against ABS. Naturally having seatbelts will cause people to drive erratically and crash more often.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/04/teacher-faces-student-with-gun.html
I have to agree with the commenter at Deltoid: "Estimating gun ownership in the United States is a very difficult proposition."
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I think the gunloon firearm owning population, while numerous, is still a very loud and extremely small minority.
Another point made by that commenter "Guns are also not culturally neutral."
One major problem in this "debate" is that it is frames as pro and anti-gun: with gun control being seen as "anti-gun". The correllary to that is that making sure that felons, lunatics, and other "disqualified people" are assured a steady supply of firearms is considered "pro-gun".
Personally, I think it goes the other way around.
That's why the "pro-gun" crowd gets called "gunloons".
Laci
Hopefully, Jaded, you managed to understand this by the previous explanation ... but it's not a logical exercise, it's simple fact:
ReplyDelete1. The small percentage of people who WANT to commit violence will always get a gun. And if they can't find guns, they'll find a different tool that will be just as effective.
2. The majority of people, non-violent people, may or may not choose guns.
So you see how that works? Some people who are non-violent own guns and some don't. But 100% of violent people will have a gun, so it throws off the statistics. That's very simple, very logical, and very factual.
Making guns more difficult to buy would make it more difficult for those intent on violence to get them ... but those people will find other weapons or find a gun anyway. What gun laws do is disarm the rest of us and leave us helpless because we are law-abiding.
The seat belt comparison is ... well, there's nothing there to even comment on. I'm afraid it's just plain stupid and meaningless.
One thing you have utterly proven me wrong on ... I didn't think the Mikeb blog could get any more inane than it already was ... but now that you're hear, I'm seeing what inane really is!
Stevie: You're absolutely begging for another post on your silliness.
ReplyDeleteI really don't see how you can come to any other conclusion, based on your argument, than that violent people tend to obtain guns. That being the case, the converse leads to non-violent people not getting guns.
You've slightly modified your argument to say " if they can't find guns, they'll find a different tool that will be just as effective."
But, as always, this doesn't stand up, either. Kellermann's study found that a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. Had you read the study, Kellermann also noted for gun homicides only--a gun in the home carries a murder risk 4.8 times greater than not keeping one. By all other methods of homicide (except guns) the risk was only 1.2 times greater.
It really helpsw if you actually read the studies you elect to debunk rather than be exposed like this.
LOL -- are you really threatening me with another post against me? Why would I care? Of the 30 people who read this site, 25 agree with me and just read to mock you and or Mike in the comments and the other 5 are as inconsequential as yourself. I couldn't care less what you think of me.
ReplyDeleteI'll try one more time to explain this, though I think you're just pretending ignorance because you don't want to accept the truth and you want to keep the comments going. But then ... if you were logical and could accept the truth, you'd be pro gun.
Anyway ... I have read that report, and it's another case where somebody had a conclusion and then crafted a report to support it.
Let's say I do a study on suicide with sleeping pills. Lots of people have sleeping pills in their house. It's a normal thing (like gun ownership). The vast majority use them responsibly, but a small percentage use them to commit suicide.
But ... for people who don't norally have sleeping pills normally in their house ... at the point they decide to commit suicide, they will go out and GET sleeping pills. Because the bottom line is 100% of people who commit suicide with sleeping pills have them in their home (duh), but some of them got them strictly for the purpose of committing suicide.
Get it now? Having sleeping pills in your home doesn't make you more suicidal, but if you become suicidal you'll go out and get some.
And thus it is with gun ownership. Having a gun in a home doesn't make you a murderer, but wanting to become a murderer is a motivation to have a gun in your home.
So the question with both products -- sleeping pills and guns -- is what happens if you take them away. And the answer is ...
With sleeping pills: Lots of people who use them responsibly will suffer more from their insomnia, but suicides won't decrease because there are lots of ways to commit suicide.
With guns: Thousands of the people who defend themselves and their families every year will be disarmed and rendered powerless at the moment they most need protection, and we will lose a honored political and historical right. But the murder rate will be unchanged (as it was in England/Australia when guns were outlawed). Because, again, it's not guns that make people a murderer, it's just one tool out of many available. If a murderer can't get a gun, they don't cease to be a murderer ... they just find something else.
Can't wait to see how you claim not understand that. LOL. Please, please tell me you haven't reproduced (assuming you're old enough to do so in the first place).
Steve - Jade will probably try to "out" you.
ReplyDeleteHe's a particularly despicable troll and that's his specialty. You'd think he'd learn by now, but he's not the sharpest guy in the world, as his adherence to discredited Kellermann shows.
FWM nor I said we hate PETA. However you cannot deny that Peta advocates the theft and destruction of personal property. Even in their ads, and as such, If the Bradys and all other gun control advocates did the same in their ads, and demonstrations, what would it accomplish? Oh yes, they (Peta)have been very effective, but look at their actions.
ReplyDeleteHow many people wear furs, is here nor there. Honestly, few people can actually afford to wear furs these days, and where would people wear them to? Cosmetic companies advertise cruelty free products at this time, because it is politically correct. As for free range products, a nice advertising ploy. Just like "Angus Pride," being 100% angus beef. Oh yes the "organic" products. You see, back in the mid to late 90's good ole uncle same put laws into effect making it illegal for American farmers to use steroids and other growth agents in their feed. Just as it is illegal to feed livestock other livestock. It is not however illegal to do so in other countries (See Canada and the BSE scares).
Hunting has not taken a hit because of Peta, but has taken a hit because of longer work schedules, and stringent laws for acquiring hunting permits.
Now for all my disagreements with Peta and their actions, I can say the following. I agree that because of Peta, people are more aware of the inhumane actions of actions, puppy mills, and agribusiness. More than once have the rescued animals from cruel living conditions. However as FWM and I said, many of these animals are put down. Many of these animals are still viable and could live full, happy lives.
I'd even argue hunting has taken a hit as a result of PETA. People are now aware of "puppy mills" and the like and many states are strictly enforcing laws against them.
Stevie: I completely understand your argument; It's just that it makes absolutely no sense.
ReplyDeleteIn your sleeping pill example, you're basically arguing that people prone to suicide will have sleeping pills in their home. Those not so prone to suicide, won't.
You're critism is so illogical it's funny. BTW, Kellermann's methodology and study conduct is almost exactly similar to studies that noted a link between cancer and smoking. Essentially, the argument you're advancing is that pre-cancerous conditions cause people to smoke.
The study found that gun ownership was associated with a higher risk of gun homicide and was not associated with a higher risk of homicide by other means.
John: The fact that PETA euthanizes some animals shouldn't be a surprise, given the fact PETA's own website addresses it. But you're believing some pretty powerful BS that PETA is just killing healthy animals. In reality, the animals PETA does euthanize are usually very sick and injured.
ReplyDeleteThe websites (there are several, usually with some variation of Peta kills in the title) putting out this crap are funded by the same source, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) which is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
For pity's sake this is group that opposes Mothers Against Drunk Driving and has campaigns saying that transfats and pesticides in your food are harmless.
No, Jade, you completly DON'T understand steven's argument.
ReplyDeleteNot everyone who has sleeping pills in the home commits suicide, but everyone who commits suicide via sleeping pills had them in their home. THAT'S what he said.
Yup -- you figured out a way to pretend not to understand. Fortunately everyone who matters understands, and the fact that you either don't or pretend not to just underlines your intellectual inadequacies.
ReplyDeleteSo what is the difference between smoking causing cancer and guns causing murder? In the first case there is a proven medical cause/effect. But with guns ... again ... people don't murder BECAUSE they have a gun, or any other weapon; they choose to murder, and then they find a weapon.
I'm done here. I'm impressed you've expanded an idiotic post to 36 comments and counting, but in doing so you've impressed no one and changed no minds.
And the hysterical part is ... you think you're one of the smartest ones on the anti-gun side ... and it overjoys me to say you might be right. LOL.
Drivel on, dude, drivel on!
Again, Anon, simply hasn't read the study. If he had, he'd learn how wrong he is.
ReplyDeleteBut let's just demonstrate how much he doesn't know about statistics.
Whenever you do a study about the population, as a whole, you have to include what is a reprsesentative sample of that population. That's why if you were to do a study on, say, teenage pregnancy--it would be a poor idea to pull your sample from a convent.
"Normal folks" means every kind of person. It means those with criminal backgrounds and those without. It means your sample includes rich and poor. Well-eduacted and poorly-educated. Had Anon been able to read the study, he'd know over 30 factors--including criminal background, drug/alcohol problems/domestic violence--were controlled for.
Again, Stevie has not read the report.
ReplyDeleteThe study does not say guns cause murder. BTW, there isn't a proven medical cause/effect for smoking and cancer, either. What there is a preponderance of evidence; a correlation, a plausible mechanism that strongly associates smoking with certain cancers.
Guess what? Almost all of today's modern medicine is based on strong ccorrelation rather than cause and effect. When a doctor diagnoses you, he is relying on correlation; the medicine he may prescribe is based on correlation. Even when you take an aspirin, scientists don't understand why or how it works just that it does most of the time.
In fact, most all of everyday life is based on correlation. Airliners are repaired based on correlation.
I guess you won one after all ... I'm commenting again. Congratulations on that.
ReplyDeleteIf there is no proven cause/effect relationship of smoking to cancer, so be it. I thought there were studies proving some aspects of cigarette smoke were carcinogens, but whether there is or isn't doesn't matter, because that's not our debate.
When you're doing a study on whether something has an effect on something else, you have to test in both directions.
i.e. if everyone with lung cancer has chemo drugs in their home, and you didn't know what chemo drugs were, you might write a study claiming that having chemo drugs in your house makes you 40 times more likely to have cancer than not having chemo drugs in your house. And if you wrote such a report you'd be an idiot, because you didn't look at other reasons for having chemo drugs; i.e. the fact that you have cancer to begin with.
So when you see a study that says that people in a home with guns are more likely to be shot with a gun, you have to consider the fact that people who intend to kill someone or do violence go out and buy a gun specifically for that purpose. And as guns are easily available in this country, and you intend to do violence, of course you're going to bring a gun into the house. And as soon as you do ... you become a gun owning house.
There are many other valid criticisms of the Keller report whether you want to accept them or not.
But since you think you *chuckle* are the person to redefine the anti-gun movement, let me give you a little advice:
Ignoring the facts and trying to push thoroughly debunked studies with blinders on does not win over hearts and minds of those on the fence. Except for a few die-hard anti-gunners everyone reading this gets my point, and now holds you in as much disdain as I do for pretending not to.
One reason the anti-gunners lose is that for every pro-gun law we get passed they go into hysterics screaming "blood in the streets," "gunfights over parking spots," "the sky is falling," etc. ... and when those things don't come to pass people remember that and doubt the next claims that group makes.
Carry on. You're now at 39 comments and counting. Most of them pro-gun and intelligent -- except for yours. LOL.
Still wrong, Stevie.
ReplyDeleteSo when you see a study that says that people in a home with guns are more likely to be shot with a gun, you have to consider the fact that people who intend to kill someone or do violence go out and buy a gun specifically for that purpose.
Actually, the study says a gun in the home carries a murder risk *from all causes not just guns* is 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. It also says a gun in the home carries a murder risk *by gun* is 4.8 times greater than not keeping one.
One reason the anti-gunners lose is that for every pro-gun law we get passed they go into hysterics screaming "blood in the streets," "gunfights over parking spots," "the sky is falling," etc. ... and when those things don't come to pass people remember that and doubt the next claims that group makes.
Actually, it has come to pass. We're the most powerful, most successful nation on earth and, yet, our homicide rates are those of third world countries. Gotta be proud of that.
And guess what? We (the taxpayers and consumers) all get to pay for this gun violence. Annually, we pay around $400B for gun violence. We also get to pay more for healthcare as a result of gun violence. Don't know about you, but I can easily think of better uses for that money.
And this doesn't address how gun violence affects families. All of which tends to have economic costs down the road.
So, if you think you're "winning" by making this country a poorer and more dangerous place--enjoy!
Jadegold: “And guess what? We (the taxpayers and consumers) all get to pay for this gun violence. Annually, we pay around $400B for gun violence. We also get to pay more for healthcare as a result of gun violence. Don't know about you, but I can easily think of better uses for that money.”
ReplyDeleteYou are sounding a lot like a libertarian who doesn’t want to pay for poor people’s health care. How do you feel about paying for drug abuse?
TS: Really?
ReplyDeleteSo, are you seriously suggesting only poor people have healthcare issues? Just a reminder that many middle-class and upper middle class folks have healthcare issues as well. Pre-existing conditions? Dropped coverages?
Not to mention most of the poor not getting healthcare are children.
OTOH, gun violence can be significantly reduced were it not for gunloon cranks.
No, I was suggesting that’s what libertarian’s complain about. Reading comprehension, Jade.
ReplyDeleteHow do you feel about paying for drug abuse- rich, poor, and middle class?