2nd Amendment Discussion



  • How is it that conservative “originalists” and “textualists” have ignored the “well-regulated militia” part of the 2nd Amendment?
    Do they have some theory for why “a well-regulated militia” has been translated into “unrestricted guns for every individual yahoo”?
    Could it be because, in the 1970s, the Supreme Court came up with some bullshit “history” during the Heller case?
    History in which the court basically pretended that everyone walked around with guns at all times back in 1776?



  • @jammyjaybird said in 2nd Amendment Discussion:

    How is it that conservative “originalists” and “textualists” have ignored the “well-regulated militia” part of the 2nd Amendment?
    Do they have some theory for why “a well-regulated militia” has been translated into “unrestricted guns for every individual yahoo”?
    Could it be because, in the 1970s, the Supreme Court came up with some bullshit “history” during the Heller case?

    We do not now and have never ignored the phrase “well regulated militia” and by the way it is not hyphenated. @jammyjaybird can’t seem to even get the simplest things right (see Article the fourth in the linked image): http://billofrightsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/AP_Documents_BillofRights.jpg.

    The term “well regulated” was in common use at the time the first twelve amendments were proposed (ultimately the states only ratified Articles three through twelve, hence the fourth Article becoming the “Second Amendment”) and had been in use long before it. The term would be more accurately defined now as “in proper working order” or “properly calibrated and working smoothly”.

    In terms of the militia or even a standing army (which the framers were pointedly trying to stop), "well regulated" meant "properly trained and equipped". It did not mean regulated in the sense of government control over our unalienable Creator endowed right to keep and bear arms. Hence the clear statement “shall not be infringed” was included. Federal gun control laws such as the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act of 1968 were passed under the auspices of an excise tax since that would pass muster with the Supreme Court. Direct prohibition would not and could not.

    This is an extremely inconvenient fact for those who wish to disarm us prior to the Left’s (i.e. Marxists, communists, “progressives”) planned fundamental transformation of our Constitutional Republic into a Socialistic Democracy. This is one form of tyranny (mob rule and legalized theft thereby) that the framers were attempting to protect us, their progeny, from.

    What @jammyjaybird and his fellow travelers are…ahem…“up in arms” about is the fact that Heller recognized the intent of the framers to protect this individual right. But why? Because they know that if they steal from and oppress enough people we will fight back. So they want to make sure that we are no match for their modern day mask wearing version of KKK thugs: The AntiFa. “Milkshakes”, bike locks, glass bottles and flag poles are no match for AR-15s! Communism is slavery and the AntiFa are Communists. With that in mind, consider this:

    “[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — George Mason at Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention 1788.

    Current United States federal law at 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes, reads:

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    Whether @jammyjaybird likes it or not, he is a member of the unorganized militia. But I strongly suspect that he is neither properly equipped (i.e. “armed”) nor in possession of basic “kit” nor trained. He, like many others, has no desire to do the “wet work” of defending this nation. He undoubtedly prefers to have a standing army manned with professional soldiers (i.e. mercenaries, of which I was one) to protect him (they won’t). History shows us the danger of this approach all too clearly. But that subject is fodder for another day.

    As Samuel Adams stated:

    “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

    Richard Henry Lee stated:

    “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” — From Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

    A “select militia” would be the reserves and National Guard, which is nothing more than a government controlled arm of the standing army with all of its inherent dangers.

    "The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — James Madison from The Federalist, No. 46

    “The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” — Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

    Tench Coxe also wrote the following and it doesn’t get any clearer than this:

    "“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

    “As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

    As I’ve pointed out before, there about 20,000 irregulars holding off the most advanced, well equipped and well trained modern military in the world in Afghanistan. In the event that III% of us had to respond to a tyrannical government by taking up arms, that would amount to more than 9,000,000 private citizens at arms (yes, there are female “threepers”). Much of the military and police are on the political Right. Many would side with We the People. It is probable that at least some commissioned officers, since they are college educated, would lean Left. Many of them would likely have “accidents”. Harsh? Sure, but that’s reality.

    With respect to this nonsense:

    History in which the court basically pretended that everyone walked around with guns at all times back in 1776?

    Well…not everyone, but the majority of responsible men did. Aside from hostile Indians, wild animals, brigands and highwaymen, there were the British troops to contend with. Leftists like @jammyjaybird like to rely on Michael Bellesiles’ paper Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. However, that work was easily debunked by William & Mary scholars James Lindgren and Justin L. Heather, Counting Guns in Early America, 43 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1777 (2002), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol43/iss5/2

    They write in part:

    "Guns are found in 50- 73% of the male estates in each of the eight databases and in 6-38% of the female estates in each of the first four databases. Gun ownership is particularly high compared to other common items. For example, in 813 itemized male inventories from the 1774 Jones national database, guns are listed in 54% of estates, compared to only 30% of estates listing any cash, 14% listing swords or edged weapons, 25% listing Bibles, 62% listing any book, and 79% listing any clothes. Using hierarchical loglinear modeling, the authors show that guns are more common in early American inventories where the decedent was male, Southern, rural, slave-owning, or above the lowest social class-or where the inventories were more detailed. The picture of gun ownership that emerges from these analyses substantially contradicts the assertions of Michael Bellesiles in Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (Arming America). Contrary to Arming America’s claims about probate inventories in seventeenth and eighteenth-century America, there were high numbers of guns, guns were much more common than swords or other edged weapons, women in 1774 owned guns at rates (18%) higher than Bellesiles claimed men did in 1765-1790 (14.7%), and 87-91% of gun-owning estates listed at least one gun that was not old or broken."

    It defies reason to believe that people in 17th and 18th century America weren’t usually armed. It was a frontier. Self defense was essential. What was the common man going to do? Dial 911? This nation was founded on guns and a gun culture we remain. That’s unlikely to change within any of our lifetimes.



  • Now, let’s examine a special kind of stupid. Recently a young man decided to parade around a Walmart store in Springfield, Missouri wearing body armor, a loaded rifle, a sidearm and plenty of ammunition. He was pushing a shopping cart and taking a video of himself and the reactions of other shoppers. Not surprisingly the store manager called the police and pulled the fire alarm. Everyone evacuated the store and an “off duty fire fighter” used the firearm he was carrying to subdue this bonehead and hold him for the police. The 20 year old moron’s name is Dmitriy N. Andreychenko. Now I’m surprised that our resident Russophobe wasn’t all over this one by now. But I guess he just can’t keep up with all the Russia gun related incidents. Actually Dmitriy is Ukrainian, but close enough for the Louis Mensch Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd, right?

    The fact is, with our Constitutional Carry laws here in the Show Me State, our boy Dmitriy didn’t violate any gun laws. But he did cause an evacuation by implicitly “making a terrorist threat” in the second degree. He claimed he was doing a social experiment to see if Walmart would honor the Second Amendment. Well hell, we knew they wouldn’t when they stopped selling handguns and then later, so-called “assault weapons”. Our very real Ukrainian 2A troll is now looking at four years of a social experiment called prison.

    Folks, just because a thing is legal doesn’t mean it’s something one should do! Keeping and bearing arms, armor, ammunition, edged weapons and field kit is your right. In my worldview, if you are a responsible adult American who is genuinely concerned with preserving our Constitutional Republic, it is your obligation to do so! But it is a tremendous responsibility and must be done with the utmost in safety in mind. Unless you are at the range, at the shoot house or another training venue or you’re with other like minded militia members, keep your gear secured and out of sight! Unless you really want to do serious damage to our Liberty, want to lose your gear and want “three hots and a cot” for a few years at Hotel Graybar. Frankly, if I’d seen this douche-nozzle walking around Walmart all geared up like that, I’d have probably stopped him and held him for law enforcement as well. I just might not have been as nice about it, because a mass shooting is not going to happen in my presence if I can help it. He’s really quite fortunate that he didn’t get shot! That shows how self restrained our fellow countrymen are.

    Here’s the local article: https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/crime/2019/08/09/man-charged-felony-after-gun-incident-springfield-walmart/1971037001/



  • FUN HISTORY FACT

    When Colt, owner of the patent on the AR-15, released the first civilian version in 1963 (the AR-15 “Sporter”)…
    …the magazine only held FIVE rounds.
    Why?
    Because Colt thought it was a bad idea for idiots to be able to fire off 30 rounds with no effort.



  • @jammyjaybird said in 2nd Amendment Discussion:

    FUN HISTORY FACT

    When Colt, owner of the patent on the AR-15, released the first civilian version in 1963 (the AR-15 “Sporter”)…
    …the magazine only held FIVE rounds.
    Why?
    Because Colt thought it was a bad idea for idiots to be able to fire off 30 rounds with no effort.

    Actually, many if not most states limited the magazine capacity for hunting rifles to five rounds or less (and still do). More ammunition than that is considered “un-sportsmanlike”. At that time the standard military magazine was a short, straight 20 round box magazine. The original Colt Sporter magazine was a standard 20 round magazine with a “limiter” installed to prevent loading more than 5 rounds. A pop rivet in the floor plate of these magazines could easily be drilled out, the limiter removed and you then have a 20 round magazine. But I caution you: If you have any of these original Colt Sporter magazines, do not do this!

    Why not? Because of legal issues? No, these original Colt Sporter magazines are highly collectible now. Put them up on GunBroker or Armslist and sell them. You’ll make enough off them to buy several modern, highly reliable Magpul polymer 30 round magazines. Or if you are already in possession of some standard 30 round military magazines, you can buy a bunch of Magpul anti-tilt followers for them. This will upgrade them to modern function and reliability with a 5.56x45 round (use the bullet tip to remove the floor plate) and a little elbow grease. Thanks for bringing this up @jammyjaybird. I simply can’t keep up with everything I need to in order to help equip and prepare my fellow militia members for resisting tyranny. Keep up the good work little brother! I could do this without you, but it would be more difficult. *]



  • There’s an article over at The Federalist claiming that the NRA needs to change. I couldn’t agree more. As far as @jammyjaybird’s complaints about the Heller decision go, along with his antipathy toward the NRA, consider this excerpt:

    If the NRA were as extremist as Democrats claim, Americans would be walking into supermarkets and buying fully automatic real-life assault rifles. The NRA, in fact, has always been cautious on policy. (It’s worth remembering, for example, that the NRA had opposed bringing the Heller case forward, believing taking it to a higher court could backfire and enshrine the collective rights theory. It was an idealistic libertarian contingent that can be thanked for the protections of both Heller and McDonald. If it had been up to the NRA, the Second Amendment would not have been codified as the individual right.)

    I support the NRA because they are the 800 pound gorilla of gun rights organizations. But I agree that it’s time for a change. It’s past time to elect board members and to install an EVP that’s more concerned with using the power of our numbers to force the pols to work with us and less concerned with just getting Rethuglicans elected who may well support back-door legislation infringing our Creator endowed rights.



  • I excoriated Bill Mitchell on Twitter for 100% supporting “Universal Background Checks”. I presume Bill had so much backlash he deleted the original Tweet. But before that, some Jammy class douche-nozzle defended this backdoor registration scheme with this:

    0_1565909931159_Mitchell guns 01.jpg

    Why did I say that this was false? Because the Canadian government has most certainly confiscated firearms from law abiding citizens! Check this out:

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20000215/canada-where-gun-registration-equals-c



  • We have a winner folks! Here’s a college professor, of ethics no less, who is a serious free thinker. If the following article cannot persuade @jammyjaybird’s ilk, nothing can: https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/16/im-professor-carry-gun-campus-heres/



  • I just love it when actors and actresses come out emoting about gun violence. Especially when they want to blame it on “white men”. Rosanna Arquette tweets:

    "All of the shooters in America have been White males. White terrorists . The end."
    https://twitter.com/RoArquette/status/1155726430082359296

    And that dingbat’s not the only one spreading this lie:

    “I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country,” Rep. Ilhan Omar claimed on Al Jazeera.
    _
    “We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men,” Don Lemon had previously claimed on CNN.
    _
    “White Men Have Committed More Mass Shootings Than Any Other Group,” Newsweek had argued.

    That’s pure racism on display to be sure! But how does that square with the actual numbers? Not very well at all. So far in 2019, black mass shooters make up 51% of the total, whites come in 2nd at 29%, followed by Latinos at 11%. Here’s the truth of the matter and if anything, whites are underrepresented based on percentage of population. When you take into account that many of the mass shootings that take place in black areas with black victims go unsolved, the numbers are clearly skewed. Here’s some serious food for thought: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274538/51-mass-shooters-2019-were-black-only-29-were-daniel-greenfield



  • The usual suspects are coming back for round 2 of the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban”, more accurately described as the “Disarm the Unorganized Militia Act”. They have apparently learned a thing or two from round 1 and tried to make this bill even more onerous and no sunset clause: https://www.americanpartisan.org/2019/08/they-learned-from-history-the-enacted-1994-awb-and-the-proposed-2019-awb/

    Even a Rethuglican is trying to get in on the act: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/457993-new-york-republican-backs-assault-weapons-ban



  • 0_1566409607464_Redflag_law.png



  • With 94% of American mass shootings occuring in “gun free zones” you’d think even IYIs (intellectuals, yet idiots) could make the correlation. Trouble is, they don’t want to make the correlation.

    Collectivists, authoritarians, “progressives” and any who would rule over us don’t care one iota about “mass shootings”, “the children” or “the rule of law”. They care only about forcing their long disproven ideology on the rest of us. Since history has shown them that normal, rational people will not go along with being silenced, marginalized and stolen from, it’s essential that they disarm us first.

    Hence the big push for “Red Flag Laws”, “Universal Background Checks” and a renewed “Assault Weapons Ban”. All of which are a very clear, concerted and ominous effort to not only infringe the Second Amendment, but to nullify it altogether. Our resident Marxist will probably try to discredit that last statement by calling it a slippery slope logical fallacy. If he does I will happily go down the list of federal gun laws that have been enacted thus far. The long and distinguished list of infringements speaks for itself.

    If the American Marxists were genuinely concerned with reducing “mass shootings” (it’s impossible to completely eliminate them), instead of disarming their political enemies, they’d start by abolishing “gun free” kill zones: https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/457963-red-flag-laws-wont-stop-mass-shootings-ending-gun-free-zones?amp&fbclid=IwAR0ooGV5qj3yu69vPMZBJ78VFzkgZ1faiRSBZJGLdUfDNYDLLXCKiE-iRbM&__twitter_impression=true



  • Here’s the fact of the matter when it comes to personal defense:

    0_1566473179649_fire_ex_guns.jpg



  • These so-called “Red Flag” laws the usual suspects are clamoring for are a serious threat to our individual Liberty and right to due process. Imagine having the same name as a real scumbag and the police mistake you for the thug. Oh that can’t happen with all our technology, right? Wrong! It already has and this man’s life is now hell even though the police know he is the wrong man: https://www.alloutdoor.com/2019/08/20/florida-man-loses-cc-license-guns-mistaken-identity/



  • Over on that other thread, I just got through showing the remarkable ideological similarities between our modern “democratic socialists” and the National Socialist German Workers party (a.k.a. Nazis). But wait! There’s more! Let’s take a look at gun control. Have you ever heard of a Democ-Rat Senator named Thomas Dodd? Probably not since he’s relatively obscure. But he’s the alleged author of “our” (cough) Gun Control Act of 1968. Now this is a pretty extensive infringement of our rights…oops, I meant piece of legislation. So you might be thinking that our boy Dodd was really smart. A real “legislator” in his own right, correct? Well there’s an interesting coincidence that might shed some light on that fallacy.

    You see, Senator Dodd was on the team that prosecuted Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. He was a senior member no less. And Senator Dodd was in possession of an original copy of the Nazi Weapons law, which bears a striking resemblance to the U.S. GCA of 1968, four months prior to Lyndon Johnson signing the GCA into law. It would appear that Senator Dodd came into possession of that Nazi law while he was in Germany. He then had it translated into English at taxpayer expense and managed to get it enacted into U.S. federal law! Although I’m quite sure he had plenty of help along the way. Marxist infiltrators in our government are not a new thing.

    For a glimpse of how tyrannical laws get on the books despite our Constitution and Bill of Rights, check this out: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm



  • TEXAS’ NEW GUN LAWS

    The new laws in Texas are a wish list for the NRA and the gun industry, allowing Texans to carry guns anywhere and everywhere.
    Among the new laws that went into effect on September 1:

    • Senate Bill 535, which allows people to carry firearms in churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship.
    • House Bill 2363, which loosens restrictions on the storage of firearms by foster parents, allowing them to store guns and ammunition in a single location.

    • House Bill 1177, which allows people to carry a handgun without a license during a state of disaster.

    • House Bill 121, which allows people to carry handguns into an establishment that bans firearms as long as they leave if asked.

    • House Bill 302, which prohibits landlords from banning tenants and their guests from carrying firearms in lease agreements.

    • House Bill 1143, which allows people to store guns in cars in school parking lots.

    • House Bill 1387, which allows more armed marshalls in Texas schools.

    Even before these changes, Texas already had some of the weakest gun laws in the country. The Republican-controlled Texas legislature, meanwhile, rejected legislation “to ban bump stocks, pass red flag laws or close the so-called gun show loophole.”



  • WAL MART BANS OPEN CARRY

    It will also stop selling certain types of ammunition.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-bans-open-carry-guns-stops-selling-some-ammunition-2019-9

    I say about time. Depending on the situation, open carry can make it much more difficult for law enforcement to determine who’s the bad guy.



  • @jammyjaybird said in 2nd Amendment Discussion:

    TEXAS’ NEW GUN LAWS

    The new laws in Texas are a wish list for the NRA and the gun industry, allowing Texans to carry guns anywhere and everywhere.

    Actually that’s not true. Texas still isn’t a “Constitutional Carry” state like Missouri or Kansas: http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/constitutional-carry-states/

    Among the new laws that went into effect on September 1:

    • Senate Bill 535, which allows people to carry firearms in churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship.

    Well, if houses of worship aren’t “gun free” kill zones, church shooters will think twice about trying it. No mass shooter trying to make a name for themselves in going to risk getting shot before they even get started.

    • House Bill 2363, which loosens restrictions on the storage of firearms by foster parents, allowing them to store guns and ammunition in a single location.

    And this is dangerous to public safety how exactly? This is long on hype, but short on actual danger. Some folks can’t afford two safes. So your answer is strip them of their rights?

    • House Bill 1177, which allows people to carry a handgun without a license during a state of disaster.

    This makes sense (although Texans should be allowed to carry without a license anytime). After a disaster like a hurricane or tornado, the looters come out. Now you’ve already lost your house and your possessions are scattered. You’re trying to clean up the mess and salvage what you can. Looters come up and start helping themselves. The “authorities” have their hands full and there’s a good bet the cellular networks are busy or completely down. If you point a handgun at them and tell them to leave, there’s a much better chance they’ll comply than if you just ask nicely, now isn’t there? And if they threaten you, like one miscreant did to an acquaintance down in Florida whose house was destroyed, you’re within your rights to shoot them, just as he did. It’s a strong deterrent and zero recidivism.

    • House Bill 121, which allows people to carry handguns into an establishment that bans firearms as long as they leave if asked.

    Good. My rights don’t end because I walk into a place of business. How would you feel if we simply substitute “black man” or “jew” for “gun owner” when it comes to being in a publicly accessible establishment? After all if the business owner can ask me to leave, because I am otherwise lawfully armed, why can’t he ask me to leave because of my religion, ethnicity or political leanings?

    • House Bill 302, which prohibits landlords from banning tenants and their guests from carrying firearms in lease agreements.

    Once again, my right to self defense, which includes possession of the most effective means to do so, does not mean that you get disarm me if you agree to rent to me. Same thing applies here with respect to religion, ethnicity, etc.

    • House Bill 1143, which allows people to store guns in cars in school parking lots.

    So what? I remember when it wasn’t unusual to see shotguns and hunting rifles hanging in the back windows of pick up trucks in our school parking lot. We didn’t have mass shootings back then like we do now. What changed? They took basic Christian morality out of the schools and added psychotropic drugs to the mix. It’s not unusual for SSRIs or SSDRIs to have “black box” warnings that these drugs may cause suicidal or homicidal ideation. In other words, these drugs screw with your brain chemistry and can make you think about killing yourself and or others. Law abiding folks storing guns in their cars, even in school parking lots, aren’t going to be trouble.

    • House Bill 1387, which allows more armed marshalls in Texas schools.

    This will cost the taxpayers more money. But I suspect it will deter mass shooters quite well.

    Even before these changes, Texas already had some of the weakest gun laws in the country. The Republican-controlled Texas legislature, meanwhile, rejected legislation “to ban bump stocks, pass red flag laws or close the so-called gun show loophole.”

    “Bump stocks” are banned at the federal level, Rimshot. Trump took care of that for you. Red Flag laws are merely one more infringement on our right to due process of law. I call them “swatting made easy” laws. The “gun show loophole” is simply our right to freely trade amongst ourselves without government knowledge or interference. The real purpose of Red Flag laws is to build a back door database of gun owners. They’ll need that for confiscation. Because Leftism is so great you have to disarm the populace and force people to accept it at the point of government guns.



  • @jammyjaybird said in 2nd Amendment Discussion:

    WAL MART BANS OPEN CARRY

    It will also stop selling certain types of ammunition.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-bans-open-carry-guns-stops-selling-some-ammunition-2019-9

    I say about time. Depending on the situation, open carry can make it much more difficult for law enforcement to determine who’s the bad guy.

    Walmart just made a “Gillette” move here. This will cost them. The beneficial side effect is that it will push customers to the mom & pop gun shops. I will simply untuck my t-shirt and pull it down over my handgun if I have to darken Walmart’s door for any reason. It’s more difficult to deploy from concealment, but I can handle that. They just lost the bulk of my business. I’m quite sure a lot of other armed men will feel the same way. Welcome to a reality check like Dick’s Sporting Goods got.



  • KROGER BANS OPEN CARRY

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/kroger-joins-walmart-no-more-open-carry-of-firearms-in-our-stores?via=twitter_page

    The grocery store joins Wal-Mart in the new policy.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to A Kings Castle was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.