First off, he points out that"Not a word in the Constitution is intended to be inoperative, and one so significant as the present was not lightly inserted. The United States are therefore bound to carry it into effect whenever the occasion arises, and finding as we do, in the same clause, the engagement to protect each state against domestic violence, which can only be by the arms of the Union, we are assisted in a due construction of the means of enforcing the guaranty. If the majority of the people of a state deliberately and peaceably resolve to relinquish the republican form of government, they cease to be members of the Union. If a faction, an inferior number, make such an effort, and endeavour to enforce it by violence, the case provided for will have arisen, and the Union is bound to employ its power to prevent it."
That reiterates the point I keep mentioning from Marbury v. Madison (It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;–Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 [1803]). So, no matter how much people may want to wish away the Militia from the Second Amendment, it would only make that "mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction".
But I have also pointed out that Rawle said this about the Second Amendment:
In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable;yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion,to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.Rawle then goes on to point out: "The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The word "corollary" means "a proposition that follows from (and is often appended to) one already proved."
Again, that means that both clauses must be interpreted in relation to each other.
And if you want to take the next paragraph to mean personal arms:
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."I would point you to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16, which gives congress the power to arm the militia. It was that power that led to the Second Amendment being written: press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_16.html
But, it isn't so much the Second Amendment pseudo-scholarship that I want to address here as much as the belief that there is some "right" to revolt against the US Government. We also add to the overwhelming evidence that that is silly, something called the Domestic Violence clause:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.This is what Rawle is talking about when he says:
If the majority of the people of a state deliberately and peaceably resolve to relinquish the republican form of government, they cease to be members of the Union. If a faction, an inferior number, make such an effort, and endeavour to enforce it by violence, the case provided for will have arisen, and the Union is bound to employ its power to prevent it.So, if you are going to try and use obsolete and obscure clauses in the Constitution to try and justify your silly "gun rights" position keep in mind you have a few things working against you: history (Shays' Rebellion) and the document itself.
Of course, you could try and say that the we should use the modern meaning of the term "Domestic Violence".
BTW, Rawle wasn't the only one to point out this section of the Constitution addressed insurrection. Here's Joseph Story:
§ 1808. The want of a provison of this nature was felt, as a capital defect in the plan of the confederation, as it might in its consequences endanger, if not overthrow, the Union. Without a guaranty, the assistance to be derived from the national government in repelling domestic dangers,which might threaten the existence of the state constitutions,could not be demanded, as a right, from thenational government. Usurpation might raise its standard,and trample upon the liberties of the people, while the national government could legally do nothing more, than behold the encroachments with indignation and regret. A successful faction might erect a tyranny on the ruins of order and law; while no succour could be constitutionally afforded by the Union to the friends and supporters ofthe government. But this is not all. The destruction of the national government itself, or of neighbouring states,might result from a successful rebellion in a single state.Who can determine, what would have been the issue, if the insurrection in Massachusetts, in 1787, had been successful,and the malecontents had been headed by a Caesar ora Cromwell? If a despotic or monarchical governmentwere established in one state, it would bring on the ruin ofthe whole republic. Montesquieu has acutely remarked,that confederated governments should be formed only between states, whose form of government is not only similar,but also republican.As I like to say, Some people who say they are defending the Constitution need to bone up on what they are claiming to defend.
Instead, they seek to make themselves the "domestic dangers" the Constitution was written to prevent.
Well, Greg, it looks like it's time to re-post Texas's comment.
ReplyDeleteDone. I'll add that Laci apparently can't figure out that one thing can be given as the reason for an amendment without limiting the totat right enumerated therein.
DeleteI'll also add that the pooch's joke about using the modern definition of "Domestic Violence" makes as much sense as his use of the modern National Guard to as a definition of the entirety of the militia when doing his legal analysis.
ReplyDeleteI thought I'd seen this before. You left out the follow on to the "corollary" statement again.
ReplyDeletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-supreme-court-has-made-itis.html
Here, let me supply it for you.
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
You like to use Rawle, but you never seem to pay attention to everything he was saying. That is not surprising, of course, given your well documented bias.
"No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.""
ReplyDeleteSo, from what I read here it seems that the second amendment is an individual right in that it prevents government from infringing on the right to bear arms.
And recently that seems to be supported by McDonald, Heller, and Moore vs. Madigan. As for taking up arms against the government that is dictated by other laws and not really material until those laws are broken, at which time, the judicial branch has its say.
Those that claim that the government is a threat are protected by the first amendment, be they democrats, republicians, tea party, or black panthers.
"If the majority of the people of a state deliberately and peaceably resolve to relinquish the republican form of government, they cease to be members of the Union."
ReplyDeleteSo was the Union wrong to attack the Confederate States that voted to remove themselves from the Union by a majority vote?
"Again, that means that both clauses must be interpreted in relation to each other."
ReplyDeleteThe comma denotes the same.
Google "separation of clauses" the English language.
As requested from Texas:
ReplyDeleteMilitia in its original meaning meant a volunteer force (not paid by tax payer monies or supplied by any government)of an individual who wishes to, if asked, supply himself, his arms, his ammo and his training to defend (insert cause here)as a militia member.
Thus without the right (or the right being infringed upon) of the individual to keep and bear arms there could never be a militia.
Infringed means taxed, charge a fee for, licensed, permitted or otherwise restricted in any way that prohibits or restricts any individual from obtaining and maintaining arms and armament. The exception being an individual who has lost civil rights protections from his felonious actions.
"Regulated" in its original context meant 'Well armed, well stocked, well equipped and well trained'. It does NOT mean controlled. "In order to have a well regulated militia" is just that, a well armed militia. Nothing more.
The second civil right belongs to the individual to protect himself and others from another felonious actions, tyrannical governments and such whether the threat is from an individual or group in an unlawful attack. That means protecting ourselves from an outside force or government or from within.
The second civil right is born with the individual, not granted to by the government, but protect from the government like all civil rights enumerated in the bill of rights.
The second civil right is not about hunting altho hunting was a part of living back then, still now to some extent.
The second civil right was not about recreation, altho competition shooting has been around since the invention of the gun.
The second civil right was about the free arming of the individual who wishes to do so for his own reasons who also could volunteer to be a part of or to form a militia for the cause of protecting a community, county or state of residence.
The Texas Rangers was a militia, first unorganized, then organized and recognized by the state of Texas as a self policing, unfunded organization who protected ranchers. The state of Texas then chartered the Texas Rangers and became a state supplied and funded organization and at that point was no longer a militia. The Texas Rangers jurisdiction is the entire state and have power over the State police, local police and more.
As I understand the National Guard formed much the same way and is no longer a militia but a Federal funded arm of the government.
The militia is NOT the military. The military is NOT the militia.
The military is a paid and supplied force by the government and funded by tax payer monies who are to protect the country as a whole from outside the U.S. borders. The military in active force inside the U.S. borders is a standing army which shall not be tolerated.
Any individual who has chosen to arm themselves is a potential militia member. If the mayor of a city or town, a county sheriff or the governor of the state called for a voluntary armed force to protect and defend said area, a militia could be formed. Unless agreed upon by the leaders of other areas or adjoining states, a militia only operates in their home state or county or town.
Unarmed people cannot form a militia.
Militia has been replaced by National guard; it is the militia of our times. We supply them with arms. It is no longer necessary to ensure individuals come with arms. If necessary, we call on the National guard, not private citizens.
ReplyDeleteThe 2nd amendment mentions nothing about " the individual to protect himself and others from another felonious actions, tyrannical governments" last I read it.
"Infringed means taxed, charge a fee for, licensed, permitted or otherwise restricted in any way that prohibits or restricts any individual from obtaining and maintaining arms and armament. That was directed at the King's powers to stop the colonies from forming an armed force, not the new government against it's own people.
"who also could volunteer to be a part of or to form a militia" There is no such clause in the 2nd amendment.
Militias are extinct. There is no longer a need for them. We saw to that by forming armed forces to take care of any problems; and we communally tax ourselves to pay for that. We have progressed beyond the 18th century; and like many issues mentioned in the Constitution, this militia issue no longer exists and hasn't for 200 years.
Wrong on all counts. The National Guard is not the militia, since the National Guard didn't exist in 1789 and continued not to exist for over a century. The Second Amendment does not require someone to be in the militia to possess firearms. The right is identified as belonging to the people.
DeleteYou can think that people's militias are obsolete, and we'll never ever need citizens to take up arms for national defense (not even 200 years from now), but you are a long way from convincing 2/3rds of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment repealing the right to keep and bear arms. Until then, you can't just wish it away.
DeleteSteve, the second civil right has not been amended or repealed. So the militia statement in the second civil right is still relevant and active. For a time in the past the militia and the military co-existed at the same time so the formation of the military did not make the militia extinct, still doesn't.
DeleteThe tax and license was just a part of the framers explanation of infringements of the right. The explanation did not have any meaning or context to the kings rule.
"who also could volunteer to be a part of or to form a militia" was also explained in the founders documents. "In order to have a well regulated militia" is the clause and is self evident of how a militia comes about, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms".
The National Guard is not a militia even tho its reference to such is cited incorrectly as an example. Again, a militia is an UPAID and VOLUNTARY force of armed individuals who can form either a un-organized or organized party to defend from an unlawful cause. The framers explained this cause as one of a tyrannical government among other examples. The second civil right is still relevant today as a reminder that the government is to be held in check by the PEOPLE its supposed to represent.
You can learn a lot of what the framers meant and intended by reading their papers on all of the civil rights enumerated in the bill of rights. Most who read the enumerated rights understand their meaning up front. If you don't completely understand the entire meaning, the framers papers are still around to read and understand the explanations of those rights.
Until those enumerated rights are amended or repealed, they are still the law of the land.
"That was directed at the King's powers to stop the colonies from forming an armed force, not the new government against it's own people."
DeleteSeriously? Steve, please invest in a good remedial American History course, or at least spend half an hour reading wikipedia articles on the founding of the United States.
The whole purpose of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights was to restrain the US Federal Government. The King was gone; the war was over; the states had been self governing under the Articles of Confederation, and that regime had just been replaced by the U.S. Constitution.
As for the rest of your post, you can't decide whether you want the National Guard to be the militia of the 2nd Amendment or if you want militias to be a thing of the past, and so you make a bunch of poorly thought out, self contradictory arguments.
The one place you probably thought you made a wonderful point, when you attacked a phrase from Texas' comment by noting that it is not part of the text of the 2nd Amendment, you really just embarrassed yourself. Of course his quote isn't in the Amendment. He wasn't quoting the amendment, but was summarizing what militias were in the historical context.
Militias are not extinct. They are not used often, true, but thay have been used.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
The people formed a militia in 1946 to combat corruption and voter intimidation in thier local government. Doesn't sound like it's extinct to me.
What you say is your opinion, not fact. You use examples and wording not found in the 2nd amendment. Gee, excuse me for having a different opinion going by what the amendment says. I did use the rules of the English language to prove how the amendment should be read, so I declare my version more true.
ReplyDeleteYou mean that you used proper rules for deciphering English to tell us that the amendment was aimed at the British King who had given up his claim on us years before?
Deleteha.
You use an example of militia that is 60 years old. I won't even bother to check the truth of that example; is that your normal proof of reality, something that hasn't happened in 60 years? Good luck with a group taking military action, not under military control. I'd love to see what the authorities have to say about that. Make it happen, now> My bet is you will end up in jail.
ReplyDeleteClearly if something hasn't happened in Your lifetime, It can't be important or still valid in any way.
DeleteThe Holocaust hasn't happened in 60 years--why the Hell are Germans so touchy about Swastikas?
And it's been 150 years since the end of slavery--Why do we keep hearing about it? Why does it still influence our politics? Slavery isn't going to happen again, so why are blacks so upset about poll taxes and literacy tests that might prevent fights over "dimpled chads?"
Because you do no effort into checking facts Steve, who are you to say what is an opinion and not fact. You can have an opinion, everyone does and they differ. But opinions do not create facts. You still seem to gloss over the explanations given by the founding fathers of the civil rights that are protected from the government. That's the wording I use to explain the founding fathers intent in the second civil right. So what I said IS fact, not my opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhy is there a bill of rights in the first place? Because the founding fathers knew that they could not trust future governments to hold true to the freedoms of the people. They set this country up to NEVER have a king or dictator. It was so the people could always have a voice in this country. It was set up to be a self governing country, for the people, by the people and of the people. And while we still fight to keep those freedoms from misinterpretations and corruptions of leaders who get power hungry, we still maintain freedoms.
Military action Steve? There isn't anything in the second civil right that includes military action or control. You are confusing the issues by introducing a different set of writings.
Your use of the English language to prove how something "should" read shows your ignorance of proper English language use.
Steve, I know what you are and who you are and what you want to do. Laci, as flawed as his arguments are by the use of mixed context, omissions, inclusion of non American legal writings and so on can make a far better argument than your trying to do. At least Laci does use better worded, better use of syntax of a still failed argument of the actual laws and constitutional rights in this country.
Steve, you are a progressive. You see the Constitution and the bill of Rights as a living, breathing, updateable or outdated and changeable documents at the whims of opinions. They are not or ever will be. These writings are the basis for most every law on the books, how judges interpret the laws and the protections for the people. The documents of our founding is the reason that a representative Republic has survived any other Democracy and built this nation into a strong society that the people of other countries come here to be a part of. Your opinion of the meanings of the civil rights will take apart everything this nation has built upon and stood for. I for one reject that and will fight against it.
A militia action has not been needed for 60 years. But that does not mean that it wont be needed again to correct wrongs done by the government forced on the people. Make it happen now Steve? Why? To what end? I see no current reason to form a militia currently. There wasn't any arrest-able offence 60 years ago from the incident that the militia or the people rose up against a corrupt government, there wont be one if the people should take proper and needed action again against a corrupt government, whether it be local or federal. That's the beauty of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, it belongs to the people not the government. And the people have a right to take it back, forcefully if needed.
Steve, learning from history can help you from repeating history. History will repeat itself if you refuse to learn from it. Are you really that willing to tear down this country just have it remade again? Wars and all? It was a really bloody fight to freedom over 200 years ago. It would be far worse the second time around. The founding fathers had learned the lessons of kings rule back the and were intent on not repeating history in a newly formed country and government. The people, ALL people were meant to be free.
Your interpretations and opinions of the founding documents are a path to removing the freedoms this country hold dear, including your right to an opinion and expressing it here.
Steve, be aware of what your wishing for, you may get it. And then wish you hadn't!
Your "opinion" would lead to the excuse that one can take arms against the government for what? Because you disagree with a lawfully reached decision like ACA, or any other legally arrived at decision? And people kill abortion doctors because they don't think abortion should be allowed, even though the Supreme Court has found it constitutional, like the ACA.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, I have no regard for those who use words other than the words in the amendment, to define the amendment. Or don't even follow the rules of English punctuation on how to read a sentence.
The Constitution is up-datable. It's called an amendment process by which we can change the document. And yes, at the whims of opinions. It was one generations opinion that alcohol should be outlawed, and that same generations opinion that it should be legal again. All you need is a majority that hold the same opinion, like slavery is OK, thus legal.
But the founders didn't allow ALL people to be free. So we changed that based on an opinion, that blacks deserve to be free just like whites. The founders did not include women in their freedoms for ALL, but we changed that also based on the opinion of a majority, that it was discriminatory.
Seems it is you that lacks the facts of history.
Now back to your 60 year old (never used since) examples.
1. The Constitution wasn't reinterpreted to eliminate slavery. It was amended. If you want to remove the Second Amendment, you have to go through the process.
Delete2. I am an English professor. Are you? The well-regulated clause explains why the Founders felt the Second Amendment to be necessary, but the right is named specifically as belonging to the people.
No, the constitution is not updateable, it is however amendable. It has been amended in the past to correct wrong or unfair laws. Amendments have been added and removed for the same. But not at whims, not even close. Two thirds of the states majority is not a whim, it is the will of the people that it should be done.
ReplyDeleteBut the Facts are still in the original Bill of Rights, the civil rights that have never been amended that truly are the protections of all people. The fact remains that the founders explained them at length. Just because you don't want to educate yourself with them or even ignore them doesn't change the facts of what those protections were for. And are still for today.
If the government decided to go full on stupid and take away your rights, are you telling me you wouldn't fight that? Seriously? Are you saying that you would rather be a slave to the government than to take up arms or any other way to fight back and get back your freedom to choose, speak and prosper? Steve, if that's what your saying then you have less intelligence than a door knob. There are plenty of countries you can move to that will accommodate those specific needs of yours to be controlled.
The current government is moving closer to those ideas of total control as we speak, and we are fighting back. We don't need to form militias now, and not likely to in the future for this kind of fight. The government, even tho working on it, hasn't gone full on stupid, yet.
I am not lacking any facts from history, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge other facts in history. You want to cloud the issues we talk about here instead. I would rather stay on the subject at hand.
There are other sites to go to if you want to talk about abortion, slavery, female, race, or sexual preference injustices. None of which I would not likely disagree with you on. This is a place about guns, their use and misuse. This place is mainly about the argument of laws surrounding the ownership of them. Who shouldn't have them and why. And more importantly the freedom to have them if one wishes to for their own reasons. Historical context of the second civil right and what it means to everyone are the subjects discussed here.
I guess you don't get examples very well, except for your 60 year old examples. Rather weak come back to say this site is only about guns, when all I did was to use an example.
ReplyDeleteWord games? You used "updating" so I did, now you want to make out like I don't know what I was talking about. Your arguments are quite childish.
Whim, or not it was done and it took less than ten years to rescind prohibition. By the opinion of the majority, as I stated. You infer there was some other process than the majority vote I stated. Weak.
The government isn't taking away my rights, and now you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist.
You are worse than a door knob, you debate dishonestly.
What facts? That the government is taking away my rights?
Feel sorry for your students NRA lobbyist.
You seem to think that the Constitution grants us our rights and can take them away. No, we are born with rights. The job of the Constitution is to protect those rights. The case of prohibition is an example of when the document was violated to abuse Americans. The fact that goverment repeatedly fail to live up to its ideas only goes to show how people in power yearn for ever more power.
DeleteI did use updating and several other examples that the progressives throw around and also said that its not possible except for an amendment. Words mean things, words have meaning.
ReplyDeleteNot taking away your rights? Your right to be able to choose whether or not you want to buy health insurance, gone. Fines if you don't.
Your right to be able to buy certain guns in some states, gone. And the federal government wants to apply this to all states and are still working on it.
Your right to be able to use any light bulb you wish that would serve your purpose, gone.
Your right to be able to use your own land as you see fit, going and some places gone.
Your right to be able to choose what kind of vehicle you wish to use, going, and some places gone.
Your right to privacy, going and in some ways gone.
Your right to choose which medical doctor you want to use, going away.
Your right to have some elective surgery, going away and some cases gone.
Your right to have elective life treatments after a certain age, gone. Even before a certain age, it took a court to override a decision made in Obama care to get a transplant for a little girl to save her life. A COURT STEVE! What the hell is wrong with you?? The parents and doctors pleaded with those that are now in control of rationing out life saving care and her response was, well she is going to die because that's the law. A court, thank God, overrode her decision and made the transplant possible. Before Obama care this would not have been an issue. Tell me again about not loosing rights?
And the government just exempted themselves from this "affordable care act" Why? Because they personally cant afford it. What makes them think the rest of the country can. Are they now considered the elites? Above you and me?
I can list others still. I have been on this earth a long, long time. I have seen these changes, most are recent. I have a duty to the children I have to preserve the country I was freely raised in. I am fighting to return the freedoms of choice that I had. I have a duty to do the same for my family before me as they fought to keep this country free, some died for it. I will use every last dime I have to contribute my part in the fight to keep this country free. If needed I will fight with arms and freely die for the same.
I fight the likes of you Steve because it is your kind that think this loss of freedoms are acceptable or needed. You feel like some rights are no longer needed. The likes of you are leading this country, or want to lead this country straight into socialism.
You revel in the notions of abortions and the ACA (whatever that is) and stand up for those rights. The other civil rights deserve the same respect. You being selective on them is no different than the DOJ being selective which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore.
I don't debate dishonestly, I am not childish. I am not an NRA lobbyist, and your examples are weak childish. My six year old grandson makes a more comprehensive argument than you.
Lastly, I know who you are, what you are and what your trying to do. And my last word on this thread is this. Your loosing! Go ahead, call me what you want because its no skin off my nose. Throw a fit if you want, show the level of intelligence beyond a door knob. Turn a blind eye to what your loosing and convince yourself that its no big deal. Have a ball. And if it makes you feel better, YOU WIN! Think that if it makes you feel better.
Done.
Light bulbs!
ReplyDeleteHA HA HA HA HA HA
My private insurance company. is telling me which doctor I can, or cannot see, not the government.
How many are some cases, some cases, some cases?
Government is not telling me what kind of car I can drive.
I own 40 acres and the government is not telling me what I cannot do with it.
A screaming, drooling, angry, white, (are you fat also) conspiracy theorist, NRA dupe. You are so indoctrinated you don't even realize how crazy you sound.
Get a life pal, instead of promoting killing with guns, and making sure you oppose every post Mike writes.
Your reply is the classic example childish rant. I laughed so hard I blew coffee on my keyboard. Thanks for the laugh, WE ALL loved that here in the office, especially the part of how I am fat and white. so far you batted a zero.
DeleteOh and this, door knob, talk to me when your dealing with real land issues. 40 acres, please. Thats my dogs back yard. No wonder you don't have problems. When you have to deal with restrictions, limitations, use permits, special tax laws, conservationists and on and on, talk to me then. This on land I own, lease and control. Just a small example, the smallest piece on land I own is 670 square miles.
Until then, don't embarrass yourself.
"Get a life pal, instead of promoting killing with guns, and making sure you oppose every post Mike writes"
DeleteWhere do you find any of my comments promoting killing with guns?
Secondly, you haven't (obviously) read many discussions between Mike and myself. We do agree on some things, I with him on certain subjects, him with me on others. I don't always agree with the "pro gun side" and he knows I don't have a side. Life I got and its well maintained. Why don't you read our conversations before making wild accusations.
I can confirm that, Steve. Texas Colt carry is about the most reasonable "pro-gun" commenter we have around here.
DeleteYou are the one embarrassing yourself, light bulbs HA HA HA HA HA
ReplyDeleteReally? You laugh at light bulbs? That's it door knob? You don't see the impact and implications here? Boy are you lacking in education! Should I educate you in commerce, decisions, economics, safety, hazards, health, environmental impacts and long term effects on just the light bulbs and the CFL replacements?
DeleteAre you in the third grade door knob? Talk about embarrassing oneself, you are a shining example. How about you growing up and getting an education instead of trolling around and failing at making fun of the world we live in and be a part of it instead.
You childish responses prove what gun lunatics are, gun loons. Say anything no matter how stupid you sound, and thanks for proving me correct.
DeleteOh, your quite welcome!
Delete