Moms make case for gun control

Moms make case for gun control

There are 9248 comments on the usatoday.com story from Mar 16, 2013, titled Moms make case for gun control. In it, usatoday.com reports that:

Peg Paulson had never beaten a path through the halls of Congress before or met a U.S. senator's staffer or advocated for a controversial issue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at usatoday.com.

Just a thought

Oakland, CA

#1107 Apr 27, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"What are the inalienable and inherent rights that belong to the individual? The first and nearest one is what? The right of enjoying and defending his life. Whether he be saint or sinner, Protestant or Catholic, or what not, the first inalienable right he has, and ought to be protected in, is that of enjoying and defending his life. The next in importance is the right of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of his conscience. The third, the right of seeking and pursuing his safety and happiness. The fourth, the right of communicating his thought and his opinions. Fifth, the right to acquire and protect property. Sixth, the right to meet and consult with his fellows as to what will promote the common welfare. Seventh--and while enjoying all these rights, these six that I have just mentioned, he has the right to bear arms in defense of himself, his family and his state, and no man can take it away. There are seven inalienable and inherent rights of the individual man."
- Mr. C.T. Allen, Oct. 9, 1890.[Official Report of the Proceedings and Debates in the Convention, Kentucky]
Even the most minimal research will show how the word “arms” was used in the 1700s.

In arms -- armed for war; in a state of hostility.
To arms!-- a summons to war or battle
A stand of arms -- a complete set for one soldier, as a musket, bayonet, cartridge box and belt; frequently, the musket and bayonet alone.
Under arms -- armed and equipped and in readiness for battle, or for a military parade.

It clearly refers to people going to war and never about self-defense
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#1108 Apr 27, 2013
Just a thought wrote:
<quoted text>
Even the most minimal research will show how the word “arms” was used in the 1700s.
In arms -- armed for war; in a state of hostility.
To arms!-- a summons to war or battle
A stand of arms -- a complete set for one soldier, as a musket, bayonet, cartridge box and belt; frequently, the musket and bayonet alone.
Under arms -- armed and equipped and in readiness for battle, or for a military parade.
It clearly refers to people going to war and never about self-defense
Meaning of "keep and bear arms"

In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object:“Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances,“bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning:“to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once:“weapons”(as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”[138]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment...

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1109 Apr 27, 2013
Just a thought wrote:
<quoted text>
Even the most minimal research will show how the word “arms” was used in the 1700s.
In arms -- armed for war; in a state of hostility.
To arms!-- a summons to war or battle
A stand of arms -- a complete set for one soldier, as a musket, bayonet, cartridge box and belt; frequently, the musket and bayonet alone.
Under arms -- armed and equipped and in readiness for battle, or for a military parade.
It clearly refers to people going to war and never about self-defense
The Roman politician Cicero supported bearing arms for self-defense of the individual and for public defense against tyranny (in De Officiis).

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/189/History...
spocko

Oakland, CA

#1110 Apr 27, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>
The Roman politician Cicero supported bearing arms for self-defense of the individual and for public defense against tyranny (in De Officiis).
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/189/History...
didn't also wright the US constitution?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1111 Apr 27, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:
Funny how Pinocchio forgets this, from Heller, writing for the majority:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Justice Scalia
Speaking for the SCOTUS majority
this century

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1112 Apr 27, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret
Not really interested in the Wiki punchbowl opinion, Pinocchio.

NOr do we want to go to your for your definitons.

For example...
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
When do you see my posts here during the weekdays?
Which you have now changed to... posted doruing the work week... during normal hours... Monday-Friday... and doesn't count on breaks or days that you are sick.

Cough.

You also have a problem with time: you keep forgetting you insisted the pedophile in this thread only followed Martin for ten seconds.

Ten seconds.

You lie every time you blink.
drinK tHE Hive

New York, NY

#1113 Apr 27, 2013
The Pharisees And The bs Scholar' Have Taken The Keys Of Knowledge And Have Hidden Them - They have Not Entered Nor Have They Allowed Those Who Want 2 Enter 2 Do So...

http://www.occupylosangeles.org/sites/default...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1114 Apr 27, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Justice Scalia
Speaking for the SCOTUS majority
this century
MEANINGLESS CONJECTURE in the face of a written Constitution.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

That is part of the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. And ANYTHING to the contrary NOTWITHSTANDING. The court is NOT permitted to override the SUPREME WRITTEN FUNDAMENTAL LAW:

"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]

"The primary principle; underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law."--Rasmussen v. Barker, 7 Wyo. 117; 50 p 819.

Go away, traitor.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1115 Apr 27, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>... lie every time you blink.
Yes, you most certainly do.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1116 Apr 27, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the man said:
“Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man”
Not quite. Part of the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]

"The primary principle; underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law."--Rasmussen v. Barker, 7 Wyo. 117; 50 p 819.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#1117 Apr 27, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really interested in the Wiki punchbowl opinion, Pinocchio.
NOr do we want to go to your for your definitons.
For example...
<quoted text>
Which you have now changed to... posted doruing the work week... during normal hours... Monday-Friday... and doesn't count on breaks or days that you are sick.
Cough.
You also have a problem with time: you keep forgetting you insisted the pedophile in this thread only followed Martin for ten seconds.
Ten seconds.
You lie every time you blink.
Still following me around I see. I guess you just can't ignore my posts and move on with your welfare life. Go away little doggie, go away. I don't even like your breed; Troll Terrier. Now get boy. Go back under your bridge.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#1118 Apr 27, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite. Part of the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.
"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]
"The primary principle; underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law."--Rasmussen v. Barker, 7 Wyo. 117; 50 p 819.
The best indication of what the 2nd amendment, or any law, means; is what the courts say it means. Our federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have spoken plainly and unanimously on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The legal meaning of the Second Amendment tends to get lost in the hype. The pro-gun forces especially would like to ignore that there is any contemporary jurisprudence on the topic. Most NRA members probably don't know that the organization always bases its litigation on constitutional grounds such as overbreadth and vagueness -- it never argues that a gun control law offends the Second Amendment, because it knows that, under the present state of the law, it would lose.
We are certainly entitled to our opinions. The perniciousness of the pro-gun forces,(particularly the NRA) is not that they disagree with the courts, but that they lie to their members and to the public about what the law says. The success of the NRA and similar organizations in their disinformation campaign is evident in the fact that so many otherwise reasonable citizens believe that the Second Amendment, despite its reference to the militia, guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. No-one seems know that the highest federal courts in the land have consistently held that the Second Amendment is only a right held by the states against the federal government.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/15/guns-seco...
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#1119 Apr 27, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The best indication of what the 2nd amendment, or any law, means; is what the courts say it means. Our federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have spoken plainly and unanimously on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The legal meaning of the Second Amendment tends to get lost in the hype. The pro-gun forces especially would like to ignore that there is any contemporary jurisprudence on the topic. Most NRA members probably don't know that the organization always bases its litigation on constitutional grounds such as overbreadth and vagueness -- it never argues that a gun control law offends the Second Amendment, because it knows that, under the present state of the law, it would lose.
We are certainly entitled to our opinions. The perniciousness of the pro-gun forces,(particularly the NRA) is not that they disagree with the courts, but that they lie to their members and to the public about what the law says. The success of the NRA and similar organizations in their disinformation campaign is evident in the fact that so many otherwise reasonable citizens believe that the Second Amendment, despite its reference to the militia, guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. No-one seems know that the highest federal courts in the land have consistently held that the Second Amendment is only a right held by the states against the federal government.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/15/guns-seco...
Must have skipped over my post:

Meaning of "keep and bear arms"

In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object:“Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances,“bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning:“to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once:“weapons”(as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”[138]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment ...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1120 Apr 27, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The best indication of what the 2nd amendment, or any law, means; is what the courts say it means. Our federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have spoken plainly and unanimously on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The legal meaning of the Second Amendment tends to get lost in the hype. The pro-gun forces especially would like to ignore that there is any contemporary jurisprudence on the topic. Most NRA members probably don't know that the organization always bases its litigation on constitutional grounds such as overbreadth and vagueness -- it never argues that a gun control law offends the Second Amendment, because it knows that, under the present state of the law, it would lose.
We are certainly entitled to our opinions. The perniciousness of the pro-gun forces,(particularly the NRA) is not that they disagree with the courts, but that they lie to their members and to the public about what the law says. The success of the NRA and similar organizations in their disinformation campaign is evident in the fact that so many otherwise reasonable citizens believe that the Second Amendment, despite its reference to the militia, guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. No-one seems know that the highest federal courts in the land have consistently held that the Second Amendment is only a right held by the states against the federal government.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/15/guns-seco...
This is part of the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

And ANYTHING that is contrary to it NOTWITHSTANDING.

"Those then who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions ... It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath, which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions--a written Constitution--would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the Constitution."

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."--Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176.]

Dismissed.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1121 Apr 27, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The best indication of what the 2nd amendment, or any law, means; is what the courts say it means. Our federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have spoken plainly and unanimously on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The legal meaning of the Second Amendment tends to get lost in the hype. The pro-gun forces especially would like to ignore that there is any contemporary jurisprudence on the topic. Most NRA members probably don't know that the organization always bases its litigation on constitutional grounds such as overbreadth and vagueness -- it never argues that a gun control law offends the Second Amendment, because it knows that, under the present state of the law, it would lose.
We are certainly entitled to our opinions. The perniciousness of the pro-gun forces,(particularly the NRA) is not that they disagree with the courts, but that they lie to their members and to the public about what the law says. The success of the NRA and similar organizations in their disinformation campaign is evident in the fact that so many otherwise reasonable citizens believe that the Second Amendment, despite its reference to the militia, guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. No-one seems know that the highest federal courts in the land have consistently held that the Second Amendment is only a right held by the states against the federal government.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/15/guns-seco...
Pure bs.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1122 Apr 27, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The best indication of what the 2nd amendment, or any law, means; is what the courts say it means. Our federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have spoken plainly and unanimously on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The legal meaning of the Second Amendment tends to get lost in the hype. The pro-gun forces especially would like to ignore that there is any contemporary jurisprudence on the topic. Most NRA members probably don't know that the organization always bases its litigation on constitutional grounds such as overbreadth and vagueness -- it never argues that a gun control law offends the Second Amendment, because it knows that, under the present state of the law, it would lose.
We are certainly entitled to our opinions. The perniciousness of the pro-gun forces,(particularly the NRA) is not that they disagree with the courts, but that they lie to their members and to the public about what the law says. The success of the NRA and similar organizations in their disinformation campaign is evident in the fact that so many otherwise reasonable citizens believe that the Second Amendment, despite its reference to the militia, guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. No-one seems know that the highest federal courts in the land have consistently held that the Second Amendment is only a right held by the states against the federal government.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/15/guns-seco...
Your delusional.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1123 Apr 28, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>The best indication of what the 2nd amendment, or any law, means; is what the courts say it means. Our federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have spoken plainly and unanimously on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The legal meaning of the Second Amendment tends to get lost in the hype. The pro-gun forces especially would like to ignore that there is any contemporary jurisprudence on the topic. Most NRA members probably don't know that the organization always bases its litigation on constitutional grounds such as overbreadth and vagueness -- it never argues that a gun control law offends the Second Amendment, because it knows that, under the present state of the law, it would lose.
We are certainly entitled to our opinions. The perniciousness of the pro-gun forces,(particularly the NRA) is not that they disagree with the courts, but that they lie to their members and to the public about what the law says. The success of the NRA and similar organizations in their disinformation campaign is evident in the fact that so many otherwise reasonable citizens believe that the Second Amendment, despite its reference to the militia, guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. No-one seems know that the highest federal courts in the land have consistently held that the Second Amendment is only a right held by the states against the federal government.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/15/guns-seco...
Actually, the best indication of what the second amendment means, is what the authors wanted it to mean. Which can be ascertained by reading many of the authors contributions to the federalist papers.

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#1124 Apr 28, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>That is it ?
Same old crap.
I will give you one challenge.
If you don't think I have any right to own a gun come and try to take it from me.
Talk is cheap.
Typical. Unstable gun nut has only one goal in life. To shoot and kill someone. Just remember that when you do shoot someone, there's now proof on topix that you had every intention of eventually shooting someone in the hopes of killing them.

So glad you are just a big mouth loser, hiding behind your anonymity on topix and not someone in a position of power.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#1125 Apr 28, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>
The Roman politician Cicero supported bearing arms for self-defense of the individual and for public defense against tyranny (in De Officiis).
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/189/History...
You do know that Roman soldiers were essentially citizen soldiers, right son? And their roles were at the behest of the state?

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#1127 Apr 28, 2013
x0x0x wrote:
<quoted text>Typical. Unstable gun nut has only one goal in life. To shoot and kill someone. Just remember that when you do shoot someone, there's now proof on topix that you had every intention of eventually shooting someone in the hopes of killing them.
So glad you are just a big mouth loser, hiding behind your anonymity on topix and not someone in a position of power.
Your comments are fantasy.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Reader Reaction Forum: Will concealed carry mak... (Jun '11) Tue Earl 44
Safe carry Tue javawhey 21
News Secret sting operation by the GAO blows away th... Jan 12 Say What 3
News Malloy: Bump stocks should be banned in Connect... Jan 12 Say What 3
News NJ's new governor could sue feds over concealed... Jan 5 jimwildrickjr 2
News ATF Seeking Public Comment on Proposed Bump Sto... Jan 5 Say What 4
News Military must meet FBI database requirements Jan 4 Watchdog 4
More from around the web