50 Shot dead in Orlando nightclub and dozens injured

[bigguy]

those democrats are the most stupid people i have ever seen. They think you can get on the internet and buy a gun and have it shipped straight to your house. They are morons, the gun has to be shipped to a licensed FFL dealer. Then that dealer does the background check, you pay his fee, usually around 30 bucks then you can have your gun. These stupid politicians cant get that through their stupid thick heads. it's like they have tunnel vision and can only process one thing at a time. Gun control, gun control, gun control. Morons

I disagree. I think that when the spout that crap, they know damn well they are lying. They have been called out on this too many times to still be honestly under the false impression that it's that easy. They count on the ignorance, or ambivalence of their followers.

[Serk]

Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican was pushing for the government to maintain a secret list of people, with no way of knowing who's on it, how you get on it, no way to get off of it, no due process involved whatsoever, a list that you could piss off a low level bureaucrat and be put on (Or bribe to get removed from), and that anyone on that list would be deprived of the right to vote and their right to free speech?

Sounds absolutely ridiculous, doesn't it?

Wasn't it started by Bush after 9/11 ?

It was wrong then, and it's more wrong now.

It was one thing to deny a "privilege" (The ability to board a plane) with no due process, but now they're wanting to expand that list to also deny a civil right, with no due process.

If any good might come from this, maybe, if there's still a speck of sanity left, if they push forward with this it MIGHT totally get rid of the "watchlist" BS once and for all via judicial review...

Maybe...

[Jess from VA]

Let's see if any new law proposed would actually have done anything to prohibit THIS GUY from getting a gun.  After being looked at twice, THIS GUY was not put on the no-fly list.

As a violently conflicted gay man, he reportedly beat his wife on many occasions.  She never filed a complaint.  If she had and he was convicted of even a misdemeanor domestic assault, he would have been on the barred-to-firearms list.  (Even so, do you suppose he would have been unable to obtain any firearms?)  Perhaps we should make it a crime to not report your spouse for beating you.

Congress will spend a great deal of time on this............ and it is way, way down the list of actual formidable problems we have in this country.  Congress is circle-jerk-central.  

[..]

Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican was pushing for the government to maintain a secret list of people, with no way of knowing who's on it, how you get on it, no way to get off of it, no due process involved whatsoever, a list that you could piss off a low level bureaucrat and be put on (Or bribe to get removed from), and that anyone on that list would be deprived of the right to vote and their right to free speech?

Sounds absolutely ridiculous, doesn't it?

 

[bigguy]

Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican was pushing for the government to maintain a secret list of people, with no way of knowing who's on it, how you get on it, no way to get off of it, no due process involved whatsoever, a list that you could piss off a low level bureaucrat and be put on (Or bribe to get removed from), and that anyone on that list would be deprived of the right to vote and their right to free speech?

Sounds absolutely ridiculous, doesn't it?

Wasn't it started by Bush after 9/11 ?

It was wrong then, and it's more wrong now.

It was one thing to deny a "privilege" (The ability to board a plane) with no due process, but now they're wanting to expand that list to also deny a civil right, with no due process.

If any good might come from this, maybe, if there's still a speck of sanity left, if they push forward with this it MIGHT totally get rid of the "watchlist" BS once and for all via judicial review...

Maybe...

Serk, you said what I was going to say, only better.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican was pushing for the government to maintain a secret list of people, with no way of knowing who's on it, how you get on it, no way to get off of it, no due process involved whatsoever, a list that you could piss off a low level bureaucrat and be put on (Or bribe to get removed from), and that anyone on that list would be deprived of the right to vote and their right to free speech?

Sounds absolutely ridiculous, doesn't it?

Wasn't it started by Bush after 9/11 ?

It was wrong then, and it's more wrong now.

It was one thing to deny a "privilege" (The ability to board a plane) with no due process, but now they're wanting to expand that list to also deny a civil right, with no due process.

If any good might come from this, maybe, if there's still a speck of sanity left, if they push forward with this it MIGHT totally get rid of the "watchlist" BS once and for all via judicial review...

Maybe...

So then why throw out the devisive statement about Republicans being morally superior ?

[Serk]

Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican was pushing for the government to maintain a secret list of people, with no way of knowing who's on it, how you get on it, no way to get off of it, no due process involved whatsoever, a list that you could piss off a low level bureaucrat and be put on (Or bribe to get removed from), and that anyone on that list would be deprived of the right to vote and their right to free speech?

Sounds absolutely ridiculous, doesn't it?

Wasn't it started by Bush after 9/11 ?

It was wrong then, and it's more wrong now.

It was one thing to deny a "privilege" (The ability to board a plane) with no due process, but now they're wanting to expand that list to also deny a civil right, with no due process.

If any good might come from this, maybe, if there's still a speck of sanity left, if they push forward with this it MIGHT totally get rid of the "watchlist" BS once and for all via judicial review...

Maybe...

So then why throw out the devisive statement about Republicans being morally superior ?

Uh... I must have missed something. Where was I claiming Republicans are morally superior?

[Oss]

Always thought Serk was a libertarian

No party has high ground in a mud fight

[The emperor has no clothes]

Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican was pushing for the government to maintain a secret list of people

Sounds absolutely ridiculous, doesn't it?

It may not have been your intent. But that statement implies it.

[Serk]

Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican was pushing for the government to maintain a secret list of people

Sounds absolutely ridiculous, doesn't it?

It may not have been your intent. But that statement implies it.

I was pointing out the bias of the media and the populace in general, the things they'll let the leftists get away with while accusing the other side of doing it.

The Democrats are actively pushing to deny American citizens of their civil rights with no due process.

I was pointing out that if it was the other side pushing to deny civil rights with no due process there would be marches, protests, rioting in the streets going on.

And while the creation of the no-fly list was a bad thing, it doesn't rise to the level of denial of civil rights when used just to stop someone from boarding a plane.

[Moonshot_1]

A guy, for whatever reason, gets a high powered semi auto weapon and kills 50 people in a night club.

Doesn't matter the religion.
Doesn't matter the sexual orientation of the victims.
Doesn't matter where.

What would have stopped this slaughter?

Background Check laws?  The guy passed them.

Even if he didn't could he have purchased the weapon illegally? Of course.

If we really and I mean really made that nightclub an ABSOLUTE Gun Free Zone would that have discouraged the guy? Probably not. I'm sure he would have felt real bad breaking the gun free zone law before he slaughtered 50 people though.

Gee, I wonder what would have worked to stop this guy or at least lessen the carnage?

More background check laws?
More waiting periods?
More and larger gun free zones?

or

If just a handful of those 50 people that were killed had been carrying a personal firearm and were able to put that guy down after his 1st or 2nd shot there would be at least 48 - 49 people still alive.

That's the facts Jack.

My vote is to strengthen laws that promote and encourage safe and legal gun ownership.

[Roadog]

Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican was pushing for the government to maintain a secret list of people

Sounds absolutely ridiculous, doesn't it?

It may not have been your intent. But that statement implies it.

THAT is your opinion MH.  Not everyone else's  .  Opinions are neither right nor wrong ,..there just opinions.   

Britman,   ...chip, chip, chip...drip,  drip,  drip....as you so rightfully pointed out.

Roadog

[The emperor has no clothes]

A guy, for whatever reason, gets a high powered semi auto weapon and kills 50 people in a night club.

Doesn't matter the religion.
Doesn't matter the sexual orientation of the victims.
Doesn't matter where.

What would have stopped this slaughter?

Background Check laws?  The guy passed them.

Even if he didn't could he have purchased the weapon illegally? Of course.

If we really and I mean really made that nightclub an ABSOLUTE Gun Free Zone would that have discouraged the guy? Probably not. I'm sure he would have felt real bad breaking the gun free zone law before he slaughtered 50 people though.

Gee, I wonder what would have worked to stop this guy or at least lessen the carnage?

More background check laws?
More waiting periods?
More and larger gun free zones?

or

If just a handful of those 50 people that were killed had been carrying a personal firearm and were able to put that guy down after his 1st or 2nd shot there would be at least 48 - 49 people still alive.

That's the facts Jack.

My vote is to strengthen laws that promote and encourage safe and legal gun ownership.

I don't think anybody has said that background checks would have stopped the Orlando shooter. Also I believe there was an off duty cop there doing security that engaged the guy right away.

[..]

Can you imagine the outcry if a Republican was pushing for the government to maintain a secret list of people

Sounds absolutely ridiculous, doesn't it?

It may not have been your intent. But that statement implies it.

THAT is your opinion MH.  Not everyone else's  .  Opinions are neither right nor wrong ,..there just opinions.   

Britman,   ...chip, chip, chip...drip,  drip,  drip....as you so rightfully pointed out.

Roadog

Don't let a serious crisis go to waste...........................

And for those with deliberately selective bad memories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

[Moonshot_1]

A guy, for whatever reason, gets a high powered semi auto weapon and kills 50 people in a night club.

Doesn't matter the religion.
Doesn't matter the sexual orientation of the victims.
Doesn't matter where.

What would have stopped this slaughter?

Background Check laws?  The guy passed them.

Even if he didn't could he have purchased the weapon illegally? Of course.

If we really and I mean really made that nightclub an ABSOLUTE Gun Free Zone would that have discouraged the guy? Probably not. I'm sure he would have felt real bad breaking the gun free zone law before he slaughtered 50 people though.

Gee, I wonder what would have worked to stop this guy or at least lessen the carnage?

More background check laws?
More waiting periods?
More and larger gun free zones?

or

If just a handful of those 50 people that were killed had been carrying a personal firearm and were able to put that guy down after his 1st or 2nd shot there would be at least 48 - 49 people still alive.

That's the facts Jack.

My vote is to strengthen laws that promote and encourage safe and legal gun ownership.

I don't think anybody has said that background checks would have stopped the Orlando shooter. Also I believe there was an off duty cop there doing security that engaged the guy right away.

There was this one guy. Reply #107 of this thread. An excerpt.


Here is YOUR chance.  PLEASE tell us EXACTLY what gun laws you want to see passed, that will keep guns from getting in the wrong hands, while still honoring the Constitution of the United States. allowing good U.S. Citizens to exercise their rights.

Meathead---
Background checks


One "security" guy does not a handful make.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

A guy, for whatever reason, gets a high powered semi auto weapon and kills 50 people in a night club.

Doesn't matter the religion.
Doesn't matter the sexual orientation of the victims.
Doesn't matter where.

What would have stopped this slaughter?

Background Check laws?  The guy passed them.

Even if he didn't could he have purchased the weapon illegally? Of course.

If we really and I mean really made that nightclub an ABSOLUTE Gun Free Zone would that have discouraged the guy? Probably not. I'm sure he would have felt real bad breaking the gun free zone law before he slaughtered 50 people though.

Gee, I wonder what would have worked to stop this guy or at least lessen the carnage?

More background check laws?
More waiting periods?
More and larger gun free zones?

or

If just a handful of those 50 people that were killed had been carrying a personal firearm and were able to put that guy down after his 1st or 2nd shot there would be at least 48 - 49 people still alive.

That's the facts Jack.

My vote is to strengthen laws that promote and encourage safe and legal gun ownership.

I don't think anybody has said that background checks would have stopped the Orlando shooter. Also I believe there was an off duty cop there doing security that engaged the guy right away.

I believe there was. In my opinion one of the things that made this so bad is that the killer apparently was fairly accomplished in firearms usage since he was a trained security guard. That makes him different than the criminals citizens would normally encounter who are generally poor shots with poor firearms handling ability and frequently trying to operate a stolen gun for the first time. Even if the first four out of five armed citizens were unsuccessful at stopping him, the fifth would still have saved lives. And at least the first 4 would have died on their feet instead of cowering in terror.

My understanding is the armed security officer was at the entrance. The club it's self was a gun-free zone. Which means the law-abiding people were required to be unarmed victims. They were required to wait to be shot or saved by good guys with guns. Seemingly most were shot.

In retrospect, the only change in the law which could have resulted in less people being killed would have been if this club wasn't a gun-free zone. A background check was done and made no difference. Gun-free zones kill.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Frye, there were many changes in the law that could have lessened the carnage. You just don't agree with them.

[Serk]

Frye, there were many changes in the law that could have lessened the carnage. You just don't agree with them.

Such as?

(And yes, I'm sure I'll disagree with them, and also show how they'll easily be circumvented as well.)

[Bighead]

Meathead going back a page to where you said I was Stupid and you still refuse to answer a simple question. Do you hava an answer? Thought not. Another law as I said will do ZERO TO DETER A CRIMINAL. Why is that so hard for someone to understand?  Are you going to feel good about yourself if you cant protect you and yours?  Yeah you probably will since all will be well since Law abiding people cant buy guns yet the Ciminals has a endless supply.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Frye, there were many changes in the law that could have lessened the carnage. You just don't agree with them.

Such as?

(And yes, I'm sure I'll disagree with them, and also show how they'll easily be circumvented as well.)

Serk, as you well know nothing is 100%

[Serk]

Frye, there were many changes in the law that could have lessened the carnage. You just don't agree with them.

Such as?

(And yes, I'm sure I'll disagree with them, and also show how they'll easily be circumvented as well.)

Serk, as you well know nothing is 100%

If some proposal is going to infringe on American citizen's civil rights, it cursed well be worth it and not just a feel good measure that won't actually accomplish anything other than infringing the rights of citizens and making legal firearm ownership more legally encumbered, complex and expensive.

[The emperor has no clothes]

In your opinion is $30 and 15 minutes too much ?

[Serk]

In your opinion is $30 and 15 minutes too much ?

Would you be okay with requiring a $30 poll tax and a 15 minute background check on every voter, every time they voted?

[The emperor has no clothes]

In your opinion is $30 and 15 minutes too much ?

Would you be okay with requiring a $30 poll tax and a 15 minute background check on every voter, every time they voted?

Then I take it your answer is no ?

[Serk]

In your opinion is $30 and 15 minutes too much ?

Would you be okay with requiring a $30 poll tax and a 15 minute background check on every voter, every time they voted?

Then I take it your answer is no ?

Assuming you're referring to the mandatory background check system then no, not only should it not be expanded, it should be eliminated, but I know that's an unpopular opinion.

But more germane to the discussion here, we already have mandatory background checks! I've had to pay $20 to a local FFL (Discounted because I have my CHL) and do the paperwork whenever I've bought a firearm over the internet.

You're pushing for a system that's already in place (And has proven ineffective anyway).

So I don't see any advantage to expanding a system that's done nothing to help reduce violence in the first place.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Yes that's what I was referring to. Boy you really are a Libertarian . I appreciate your honesty in a unpopular situation .  so then if we play that scenario out, are you okay with felons purchasing weapons legally ?

[MP]

In your opinion is $30 and 15 minutes too much ?

Would you be okay with requiring a $30 poll tax and a 15 minute background check on every voter, every time they voted?

Then I take it your answer is no ?

How about answering the question, instead of dodging it with another?

Are you OK with a $30 poll tax, and a 15 minute background check to be sure you are eligible to vote?  Yes or no.

Progressives are LIVID that Conservatives want people to produce a picture ID, provided FREE OF CHARGE WITH NO WAIT TO VOTE, to prove they are citizens. 

[Serk]

Yes that's what I was referring to. Boy you really are a Libertarian . I appreciate your honesty in a unpopular situation .  so then if we play that scenario out, are you okay with felons purchasing weapons legally ?

From a hypothetical point of view, if a person has shown they can't be trusted to be a member of society, they should be removed from society, not have the rest of society brought down to their level.

We've already established that if a person has criminal intent there's nothing to stop them from acquiring the weapons they want, background check or not.

So what's the advantage of encumbering the whole of society for something that doesn't deter crime anyway?

Besides all that, technology is quickly going to make this all irrelevant anyway. You can already print your own "high capacity" magazines, AR15 lowers, and such capabilities are only going to get easier, cheaper and more widespread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q10Jz2qIog8

You can even buy a dedicated CNC machine to make AR15 lower receivers all day long for around $1500...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjasSGZd40s

https://ghostgunner.net/products/ghost-gunner

And as we've already established, criminals don't care about breaking the law, so passing more laws isn't really going to deter them.

[The emperor has no clothes]

In your opinion is $30 and 15 minutes too much ?

Would you be okay with requiring a $30 poll tax and a 15 minute background check on every voter, every time they voted?

Then I take it your answer is no ?

How about answering the question, instead of dodging it with another?

Are you OK with a $30 poll tax, and a 15 minute background check to be sure you are eligible to vote?  Yes or no.

Progressives are LIVID that Conservatives want people to produce a picture ID, provided FREE OF CHARGE WITH NO WAIT TO VOTE, to prove they are citizens. 

2 completely different scenarios MP. No First Graders were slaughtered by a voter.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Yes that's what I was referring to. Boy you really are a Libertarian . I appreciate your honesty in a unpopular situation .  so then if we play that scenario out, are you okay with felons purchasing weapons legally ?

From a hypothetical point of view, if a person has shown they can't be trusted to be a member of society, they should be removed from society, not have the rest of society brought down to their level.

We've already established that if a person has criminal intent there's nothing to stop them from acquiring the weapons they want, background check or not.

So what's the advantage of encumbering the whole of society for something that doesn't deter crime anyway?

Besides all that, technology is quickly going to make this all irrelevant anyway. You can already print your own "high capacity" magazines, AR15 lowers, and such capabilities are only going to get easier, cheaper and more widespread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q10Jz2qIog8

You can even buy a dedicated CNC machine to make AR15 lower receivers all day long for around $1500...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjasSGZd40s

https://ghostgunner.net/products/ghost-gunner

And as we've already established, criminals don't care about breaking the law, so passing more laws isn't really going to deter them.

Then why have any laws at all ? You are sounding more like an Anarchist than a Libertarian .

[Serk]

Yes that's what I was referring to. Boy you really are a Libertarian . I appreciate your honesty in a unpopular situation .  so then if we play that scenario out, are you okay with felons purchasing weapons legally ?

From a hypothetical point of view, if a person has shown they can't be trusted to be a member of society, they should be removed from society, not have the rest of society brought down to their level.

We've already established that if a person has criminal intent there's nothing to stop them from acquiring the weapons they want, background check or not.

So what's the advantage of encumbering the whole of society for something that doesn't deter crime anyway?

Besides all that, technology is quickly going to make this all irrelevant anyway. You can already print your own "high capacity" magazines, AR15 lowers, and such capabilities are only going to get easier, cheaper and more widespread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q10Jz2qIog8

You can even buy a dedicated CNC machine to make AR15 lower receivers all day long for around $1500...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjasSGZd40s

https://ghostgunner.net/products/ghost-gunner

And as we've already established, criminals don't care about breaking the law, so passing more laws isn't really going to deter them.

Then why have any laws at all ? You are sounding more like an Anarchist than a Libertarian .

Libertarian - Buy what you want, sell what you want, own what you want, do what you want as long as is follows the NAP (Non Aggression Principal.)

Anarchist - Steal what you want, rape what you want, destroy what your neighbor has.

The libertarian view is you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't directly impact another person against their will.

The anarchist view is you can do anything you want.

See the difference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Yes that's what I was referring to. Boy you really are a Libertarian . I appreciate your honesty in a unpopular situation .  so then if we play that scenario out, are you okay with felons purchasing weapons legally ?

There would have to be quite a change in the law to allow felons to legally buy or possess firearms unless of course they've had their records expunged. And as a general point of law, I am not in favor of allowing either, nor am I in favor of allowing them to vote, is anyone? Are you saying you are or am I misunderstanding you?

Also, as a point of firearms law, it's a felony to knowingly sell, give or loan a firearm to a felon for private citizens as well as FFL holders.

As has been mentioned, a private seller can always ask to see the buyers carry permit or foid card to be reasonably certain they are not selling to a criminal. The problems inherit with forcing all private transfers to go through an FFL holder are numinous. Number one, private transfers include loaning your buddy a firearm when his breaks or he just wants to try out yours. If you're hunting on Sunday afternoon in your hunting camp, you would have to drive or hire a bush plane to make the loan, pay the transfer fee and do the same when he gives it back.

If your parent, uncle or grandfather died and left you a firearm it would go into government custody until it could be transferred to you. If you were under 18 for a rifle or 21 for a handgun it could not be transferred to you and would become government property. Since a parent could not loan a child a firearm without doing a transfer and an FFL can't do a transfer to anyone under 18 for a long gun or 21 for a handgun it would effectively end the family hunting tradition and make it nearly impossible for responsible adults to teach kids proper firearms handling and safety. It is currently legal federally to buy a firearm to give as a gift. If they give you money to do so, it's a straw purchase, but gifts are legal. Most kids in my area seem to get their first firearms (usually a family heirloom) for Christmas at around age 13. A private transfer law would also outlaw those Christmas gifts.

Since it's already illegal to sell, give or loan a felon a firearm the only people such a change in law would affect would be, as always, good law-abiding people.

If I was a private citizen (I'm an FFL holder) I would never sell or loan a firearm to anyone without either knowing them very well or asking to see their permit and ID.

And, let's make it clear, nothing I just said should be interpreted as legal advice and I take no responsibility if someone thinks that it is. Do your own research!

[Bighead]

Avoiding the real question once again I see.
I find it very funny but sad that some are so Butt Blind that they think a $30 fee and 15 minutes will keep a gun from a criminal

[The emperor has no clothes]

Yes that's what I was referring to. Boy you really are a Libertarian . I appreciate your honesty in a unpopular situation .  so then if we play that scenario out, are you okay with felons purchasing weapons legally ?

From a hypothetical point of view, if a person has shown they can't be trusted to be a member of society, they should be removed from society, not have the rest of society brought down to their level.

We've already established that if a person has criminal intent there's nothing to stop them from acquiring the weapons they want, background check or not.

So what's the advantage of encumbering the whole of society for something that doesn't deter crime anyway?

Besides all that, technology is quickly going to make this all irrelevant anyway. You can already print your own "high capacity" magazines, AR15 lowers, and such capabilities are only going to get easier, cheaper and more widespread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q10Jz2qIog8

You can even buy a dedicated CNC machine to make AR15 lower receivers all day long for around $1500...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjasSGZd40s

https://ghostgunner.net/products/ghost-gunner

And as we've already established, criminals don't care about breaking the law, so passing more laws isn't really going to deter them.

Then why have any laws at all ? You are sounding more like an Anarchist than a Libertarian .

Libertarian - Buy what you want, sell what you want, own what you want, do what you want as long as is follows the NAP (Non Aggression Principal.)

Anarchist - Steal what you want, rape what you want, destroy what your neighbor has.

The libertarian view is you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't directly impact another person against their will.

The anarchist view is you can do anything you want.

See the difference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Yes I see the difference. I was being satirical (or at least trying to be).
So if I understand your position on Felons owning weapons, it is that a person commiting a crime should be put to death or locked up until it is deemed they are no harm to society and then they may own weapons ?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Avoiding the real question once again I see.
I find it very funny but sad that some are so Butt Blind that they think a $30 fee and 15 minutes will keep a gun from a criminal

Just avoiding you not the question. You and I don't seem to be able to engage in civil discourse. So I am doing my best to make Willows life just a wee bit less stressful .

[Bighead]

Yadda Yadda yadda ,if anything on this topic you have stated made any sense it might be different.
And how kind of you to think of others

[The emperor has no clothes]

Yadda Yadda yadda ,if anything on this topic you have stated made any sense it might be different.
And how kind of you to think of others

Actually it's purely just thinking of myself. I really enjoy the Valkyrie community that we have here. I don't want to be part of its degeneration.

[Gavin_Sons]

Yadda Yadda yadda ,if anything on this topic you have stated made any sense it might be different.
And how kind of you to think of others

Actually it's purely just thinking of myself. I really enjoy the Valkyrie community that we have here. I don't want to be part of its degeneration.

But by continuing  to make ignorant comments and questions you are contributing  to its degeneration. We all know you would vote to have our guns taken away, so why stay here and comment on this subject? You're  not changing any minds.

[Serk]

you would vote to have our guns taken away

[Bighead]

you would vote to have our guns taken away