Guns in bars on the Friday OPEN thread UPDATED
Shot by Dan (not this weekend’s lineup)
“A Tennessee lawmaker who was the lead sponsor of a law allowing permit holders to bring guns into bars has been arrested on charges of DUI and possession of a gun while under the influence.”
USA Today
Update: I just got off the phone with Carroll Bell, owner of The Coffee Pot. He said the picture of his sign with the headline above leaves the wrong implication that there are guns in his bar.
I told him no such implication was intended, and that I disagreed that was a reasonable conclusion — but that I would add this note to the post.
The headline is wordplay based on his sign advertising the band, “Pretty Pistols.”
February 15, 2013 - 11:29 AM
Well, if he could have taken his gun inside the bar he would
not have been driving under the influence.
From CQ Roll Call Daily Briefing email:
**
SNIP
There’s a tiny sliver of certainty about the sequester: The Senate will definitely vote on two competing packages to replace those across-the-board cuts for the rest of the year. But the measures won’t be put to roll call until a week from Tuesday at the earliest, two days before the official deadline. And there’s absolutely not a filibuster-proof majority for either the Democratic plan (a 50-50 formula of tax hikes and spending cuts rolled out yesterday) or the Republican plan (which won’t be unveiled until the last minute, but promises to be all spending cuts).
The bottom line is the perception of progress that Reid and McConnell agreed to create yesterday paradoxically only underscores that no legislation to avoid the sequester is going to get enacted by March 1 — meaning that the truthfulness of all those dire predictions from the Cabinet at yesterday’s Senate Appropriations hearing will have a chance to get tested, probably for at least a month. Both parties are continuing to gamble that either the agencies have plenty of accounting maneuvers up their sleeves to fend off the first month’s $400-million-a-day slice — and that, in the end, no Head Start kids go hungry, no subsidized-housing dwellers are made homeless, no travelers miss their flights in endless checkpoint lines, no vital Pentagon training or maintenance is canceled and no Capitol police are pulled from their posts — or that the pain from just a few weeks of such cutbacks will be sufficient to drive a genuine bargain by March 27, after which the entire government needs new legislative authority to remain open.
The Senate leaders cut their tit-for-tat arrangement yesterday after Boehner made clear that — as part of his evolving “let the Senate go first” strategy for handling so many issues that are ready to split his caucus in the coming year — he would not put his whip organization to work drumming up GOP support for any legislation that had not first proved to have broad bipartisan support on the north side of the Capitol.
Although the Senate Democrats’ plan has no chance of enactment as is, it does make clear the breadth (and the limits) of areas on which the entire 55-person caucus remains at least grudgingly unified. The package would offset the sequester for the rest of the year ($85 billion from cutting all domestic programs 5 percent and all military programs 8 percent) by creating a surtax on income above $1 million (imposing “the Buffett rule,” to create $54 billion over a decade), imposing a new tax on tar sands, ending a tax deduction for the cost of moving corporate equipment overseas, ending many direct agriculture payments right away ($27.5 billion) and locking in $3 to $5 billion a year in defense cuts — but not before two years from now.
SNIP
**
Re: Tennessee lawmaker
Wonder why Dan fails to report all the crimes of the politicians who vote against rights and freedom?
FWIIW, it sounds as if the laws are working.
DUI laws, possession-of-a-gun-while-under-the-influence laws and many similar post-violation restrictions/penalties, either criminal or civil(e.g., murder, maiming, armed robbery, etc; and related civil actions) are alive and well. If he is convicted, he as an individual will pay for the actual crime.
In the meantime, others have not had their Constitutional rights curtailed.
Last I checked (and it has been awhile) 43 states allow handguns to be carried in alcohol serving establishments, with only Montana still requiring “open carry” (if carrying) at these venues.
Guess what. There is no evidence that there is any higher rate of gun related problems in State “a”, which allows legal carry in alcohol serving establishments than there is in State “b”, which denies legal carry in alcohol serving establishments. The blood bath that many predicted has not happened.
OTOH, the blood baths that many hope that their manta might stop sometime in the future are happening, right now, in the “unarmed victim zones” as the “control” folk continue to preach their trust-us-we’ll-take-care-of-you.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/320405
I guess this guy’s house was sort of an “unarmed victim zone”. T
How does the owner of the Coffee Pot know that there are no guns in his establishment?
Leon – After our last conversation I realized who you were and why you don’t like the rules the IRS had implemented. Would not count on them staying that way though.
Pretty Pistols aren’t band, they are a local burlesque troupe!
Everyone should check them out, these girls are awesome!
http://www.facebook.com/PrettyPistolsRoanoke?ref=ts&fref=ts
From the Snopes Facebook page. “Let’s share experiences…. just had a “friend” literally say that they didn’t care that the Dial 112 story we did a couple of days ago was not really true. It’s her first amendment right to say whatever she wants… it doesn’t have to be true.”
Oh come on now Dave Hicks, I think the operative point here is that “A Tennessee lawmaker who was the lead sponsor of a law allowing permit holders to bring guns into bars” was caught DWI with a gun, not that Dan should be all hep to “report all the crimes of the politicians who vote against rights! I mean a legislator who voted against guns in bars who was later charged with DWI while carrying a concealed weapon would only be said to have known himself pretty well…
Kristen, what the sentence in that case says is that if a white kid “from a good home” points a gun at his brother and ends up killing him it was a tragic accident. Who believes a black kid from a “not so good” home would have gotten probation and a $500 buck fine much less have two charges dropped? This is just plain ridiculous IMO. If you own a damn gun, you should have the sense not to aim it at anyone and if not, you need to spend some time in jail, especially if you “accidentally” kill someone!
U-N-B-E-L-I-E-V-A-B-L-E-!
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nurse-banned-neborn-care-race-article-1.1265086#ixzz2KzgLrBUn
Oh how far we have not come.
Maybe the pope health isn’t the only reason he stepped down…
“Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:59pm EST
(Reuters) – Pope Benedict’s decision to live in the Vatican after he resigns will provide him with security and privacy. It will also offer legal protection from any attempt to prosecute him in connection with sexual abuse cases around the world, Church sources and legal experts say.”
“His continued presence in the Vatican is necessary, otherwise he might be defenseless. He wouldn’t have his immunity, his prerogatives, his security, if he is anywhere else,” said one Vatican official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
[...]
“The final key consideration is the pope’s potential exposure to legal claims over the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandals.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-pope-resignation-immunity-idUSBRE91E0ZI20130215
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 6:03 pm
I mean a legislator who voted against guns in bars who was later charged with DWI while carrying a concealed weapon would only be said to have known himself pretty well…
—————-
Ah the truth you speak.
Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his/her own feelings, motivations, self-control, etc. It operate without one’s awareness, so that (s)he don’t have to deal consciously with their personal “forbidden” feelings and impulses. It also creates a world where (s)he perceives everyone else is as they themselves are.
All people have some violent, and even homicidal, impulses. For example, it’s common to hear people say “I’d like to kill my boss”, or “If you do that one more time I’m going to kill you.” They don’t actually mean that they’re going to, or even would, kill anyone; they’re simply acknowledging anger and frustration. Those who really feel that might act out such feeling should get professional help.
OTOH, most people can acknowledge feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy, etc. without having to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways.
Those people, however, who are unable consciously to admit that they personally have such “unacceptable” emotions to the point of acting on them in inappropriate and destructive ways are the problem — whether avoiding professional help or trying legislate failed authoritarian prohibitionists and restrictions on everyone because they themselves might….
The old, “I know how I would….” is not a true view of how “Others would….” nor is it a good reason to deprive others of whatever. Did we learn nothing from The Great Prohibition?
The Cooch is a charitable guy….
From his e-newsletter:
“On Saturday, the Cuccinelli campaign went over to Terry McAuliffe’s office in Rosslyn – which offers a scenic view of the Potomac River and Washington D.C. – and delivered an autographed copy of The Last Line of Defense to the former DNC Chairman for his 56th birthday….Ken Cuccinelli argues in his new book, The Last Line of Defense: The New Fight for American Liberty, that states protect individual liberty against an expansive federal government.”
I had to laugh today when Carroll Bell called me up to complain about this blog post, and that I was trying to suggest his bar was full of guns (which I was not, at all). His first words were, “You really got it in for us, don’t you, Dan?”
The truth is, Carroll is ultra sensitive to the extreme. I guess he’s still steaming over this 2010 column I wrote pointing out how he’s exploiting a loophole in the restaurant-smnoking ban law so that patrons of his place can still smoke.
So far as I know, that’s the only thing I’ve every written that’s even slightly negative about the Pot. I’ve written blog posts promoting shows there, and some years ago, I wrote the best article that’s ever been written on the place.
Carroll liked it so much he had it framed, and it hangs on the wall!
Dave, in all seriousness, I don’t imagine anyone is qualified or capable of legislating to please everyone, probably not even most people. I seldom encounter anyone who praises government, laws, courts, police, politicians, taxes or much else about the US but like many other things, as a whole there is no other place they would want to be.
Legislating as a job IS authoritarian. It is part of what society asks them to do. I don’t consider a one of them qualified, capable or worthy of making restrictions on abortion, speech, privacy, justice, fairness, equality or due process, but damned if I can stop them. Whatever right it is you believe someone has deprived you of, or wants to deprive you of, is also the result of others asking asking for that “deprivation”. It is not nearly as cut and dried for everyone as it is for you.
Dan, did he say why your picture would be misconstrued and his sign wouldn’t? I truly do not get it?
Re Kristen’s link @#4, and Judge Showalter’s decision in the Pulaski gun manslaughter case:
I only know the RT story’s synopis of the facts, but the judge’s decision must have considered close family members bearing direct consequences already. A younger brother shooting an older one means parents and others may suffer double the grief, sudden disruption and loss of increase.
Both shooter and his brother were in adulthood, though, and it was the cliche act of reckless lethal stupidity with a gun, so if manslaughter, it’s clearly aggravated. And beyond the judicial decision, it raises questions of the extent and nature of the brothers’ gun exposure during adolescence.
It also reminds us of the life altering consequences of true accidents on the survivor. One of the most eloquent writers about the very same circumstance, his handling of a firearm causing the death of a brother, is the important poet, writer and teacher Gregory Orr of Charlottesville, a Guggenheim Fellow who founded the MFA program at U.Va.
Orr has given us an important voice about the emotional impact of one’s agency in the gun death of another.
“Some of the poems that deal explicitly with these incidents include “A Litany,” “A Moment,” and “Gathering the Bones Together,” in which he declares: “I was twelve when I killed him; / I felt my own bones wrench from my body.”
http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/218
“Dan, did he say why your picture would be misconstrued and his sign wouldn’t? I truly do not get it?”
Sandi, Carroll didn’t even seem to realize what was on his own sign in the picture. I brought that to his attention.
He said a patron had walked in the Pot and told him I was “wailing on the Coffee Pot” again or something like that.
I’m not even certain he looked at the blog post before he called me. He might have, tho.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 9:27 pm
“Legislating as a job IS authoritarian.”
——————
You might want to rethink that.
http://tinyurl.com/bpp3wde
Merriam/Webster
**
Definition of AUTHORITARIAN
1: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority
2: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
**
—–
From Wake Forest University:
http://tinyurl.com/bmowch5
**
Most simply, authoritarianism denotes the absence of free elections and the presence of unconstrained power. In this form of non-democratic government, the power and authority wielded by the leader(s) is not contingent upon popular support from the citizenry. Authoritarian leadership may be single or group headed. When a single person heads the government, it is known as an autocracy. When an elite group of individuals head the government, it is known as an oligarchy; such an elite ruling group is also sometimes known as a junta. Furthermore, individual leaders may vary substantially in how they govern. Those who are somewhat concerned with the betterment of the public good are known as benevolent autocrats. Those who are concerned solely with advancing their own interests are known as dictators. Those who exhibit great enthusiasm for violence and bloodshed are known as tyrants. No matter which style of leadership is expressed in an authoritarian state, the interests of the rulers will always be paramount to the welfare of the citizenry because the rulers are not accountable to the people.
SNIP
**
—–
Article IV Section 4, of the US Constution reads as follows: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government….”
See: http://tinyurl.com/cn2jwt6
—–
IMHO, the interests of the people and the welfare of the citizenry will always be paramount to interest of the rulers and the rulers are accountable to the people. We are citizens: not subjects.
Typically the citizens will not be successful changing the minds of ideologues — be the issues at question RKBA, abortion, speech, privacy, justice, fairness, equality or due process.
Also there are the faux ideologues. who are in the game for themselves to gain power, prestige, and money from their anti–whatever politics. They are not interested in the facts or the citizens. They know the facts and understand the consequences of their actions, and will happily sacrifice innocent people lives and the citizens rights, freedoms etc — if it furthers their selfish agenda. They only respond to fears of losing the power, prestige and money that they covet.
In the case of ideologues and faux ideologues exist the authoritarian politico of which you speak. It is our job as citizens to vote them out of office or convince them that an authoritarian view of the job of legislating is a sure way to lose the power, prestige and money that they covet.
Seriously Dave Hicks, you take yourself too seriously. Even the damned examples they give show what most people mean by authoritarian:
“Examples of AUTHORITARIAN
Sorry, left this off: Examples of AUTHORITARIAN
“
“
Oh good grief!
“grew up with an authoritarian older sister who thought she was queen of the world”
“an authoritarian coach who runs football practice like it’s boot camp”
Only you and John Wilburn consider authoritarian to be Authoritarian in the that sense.
Sandi, it’s telling that you don’t see that in those examples. I’m not surprised.
This Coffee Pot contretemps could inspire a “Twilight Zone” episode:
Episode titled: “Bad To The Last Drop”.
Person kills their nemesis at work.
Frantic killer hides the gun in empty office coffeepot.
Lengthy questioning by cops at the scene as coffeepot heats.
Killer finally released by cops as coffeepot and gun keep heating.
Cops seen walking to car as coffeepot and gun reach highest temperature.
Killer lunges for coffeepot, bullets explode, striking killer.
Rod Serling voice over:
“Ladies and gentlemen, for your consideration, we give you the worst part of waking up-it’s soldiers in your cup. In the Twilight Zone…”
Dave Hicks, Sandi is not authoritarian. The first few sentences of your Wake Forest definition state:
“Most simply, authoritarianism denotes the absence of free elections and the presence of unconstrained power. In this form of non-democratic government, the power and authority wielded by the leader(s) is not contingent upon popular support from the citizenry.”
In my view, Sandi promotes initiatives that have legislative viability – in other words, initiatives that our democratically elected representatives propose and support in our names. She most certainly does not support “the absence of free elections and the presence of unconstrained power.”
My guess is Sandi likes an environment with identifiable boundaries and clear rules, an environment that promotes fairness and order. Promoting order through establishment of and adherence to a clear set of rules is not
authoritarian.
In the context of gun legislation, if any new restrictions on firearms, magazines, and ammunition are enacted, these restrictions will come to pass because there is popular support from the citizenry to do so. That is not authoritarianism. Frankly, I think your continued reference to Prohibition is off the mark. No one is calling for a total ban on firearms.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 10:34 pm
You were the one talking about “Legislating as a job IS authoritarian.”
So you approve of politico who acts like an authoritarian older sister who thought she was queen of the world? If she passed all the Bills that Suzie would?
So you approve of a politico who acts like an authoritarian coach who runs football practice like it’s boot camp?
I stand by my statement about ideologues and faux ideologues authoritarian politico of which you speak, “It is our job as citizens to vote them out of office or convince them that an authoritarian view of the job of legislating is a sure way to lose the power, prestige and money that they covet” — be they “authoritarian older sister” or “authoritarian coach who runs football practice like it’s boot camp” who have moved up to the larger stage of a legislature politico.
Don’t get me wrong. Authoritarian do have their place. Such as Correctional Officers and DIs. “If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking… is freedom.” — Dwight D. Eisenhower
As to the job of goverment: “If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them and to promote their common welfare – all else is lost [emphasis added].” — Barack Obama
Dave Hicks, in case you missed it, what we “approve” of and what happens in this world are rarely the same thing. I am a realist. Politicians by the very nature of their job do indeed often act just like that big sister or coach who “knows best” and only by showing them the door do we refute that. Look at the Congressional approval rating and then look at the re-election rates. The House has managed to gerrymander power and not much turnover and since parties have the “primary cudgel” to wield, we have the system of power, patronage, earmarks, zeal and overreach. No Dave, I do not “approve” of it in every or even most instances, but I do not spend my time wishing for pie in the sky fixes that will never come or calling people Communists, Marxists, Socialists or Authoritarians for telling the truth.
I do not use not mean authoritarian as you and John Wilburn do and I reject your label.
Thanks Jason, you have it right!
Re: Jason Perdue @ 11:11 pm
“Prohibition is off the mark. No one is calling for a total ban on firearms.”
——————
Some blogger here have done so rather clearly.
As to politicos, see: http://tinyurl.com/a7yc66y
Watch all the way through and pay close attention beginning at 0:27
Don’t tell me that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) really doesn’t wants to take our 2A Constitutional right away — or that she hasn’t called for a total ban on firearms.
Dave you are riding a red herring stuffed with straw down a slippery slope of denial IMO. That you are not alone is small consolation.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 11:23 pm
1) I was addressing your comment, “Legislating as a job IS authoritarian.” I was not claiming that you were authoritarian, although I do believe that you once said you might be — albeit I read that a having a degree of tongue-in-cheek.
OTOH, it has been observed one never really know a person until they have power. I have seen it at work. Good guy Jack or good gal Jill get promoted and their real personality come out.
2) I have not missed “what we ‘approve’ of and what happens in this world are rarely the same thing.” and my whole point was (as you say) “only by showing them the door do we refute” their “authoritarianism and as I said “convince them that an authoritarian view of the job of legislating is a sure way to lose the power, prestige and money that they covet.”
3) I, too, am a realist. I, too, don’t spend my time wishing for pie in the sky fixes that will never come. Nor calling people Communists, Marxists, or Socialists. You might have me confused with some else. However, I do believe that there are ideologues and faux ideologues authoritarian politico that we need to work to get out of office.
You were addressing my comment with your definition of the word. You KNOW (as we have discussed this before) that is not the definition I mean.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 11:47 pm
Back at you and Jason — particularly on the “denial” part.
Do I believe that the Prohibitionist have much chance of winning — in the short run? Nope.
But I do not deny that they exist or deny that some hold important offices.
DH, I watched the clip of Sen. Feinstein, and she indeed intimated that she would have pushed for total gun confiscation some years ago. She is not saying that now. As I said before, if anything is banned or further restricted, I believe the consensus among the citizenry will be clear.
Re: “intimated that she would have pushed for total gun confiscation [emphasis added]“?
How about flat out said?
So, are you now acknowledging that there are people in positions of power who are on record as to their intent / desire to to prohibit or total ban on firearms?
Doing an online health assessment and they tell me I am a “veggie-munching, fruit-unfriendly, whole grain-holdout, big-on-breakfast, calcium-challenged eater”. Think there is any hope?
UNITY IN CONGRESS
http://tinyurl.com/qv3pb
**
Olympics Wrestling Decision Angers Lawmakers
By Niels Lesniewski
Roll Call Staff
Feb. 15, 2013, 3:17 p.m.
Nothing unites lawmakers like sports.
The International Olympic Committee’s vote this week to eliminate wrestling starting with the 2020 Summer Olympic Games is an issue on which even Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld could find common ground.
On Capitol Hill, a broad coalition in both chambers is pushing the IOC to reverse its vote, noting the historic significance of the sport to the Olympic movement — it is an original sport — and the American record of achievement in it.
A group of senators in both parties, including Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown, have introduced a resolution saying the Senate “opposes the recommendation of the International Olympic Committee Executive Board to eliminate wrestling from the Summer Olympic Games beginning in 2020.”
SNIP
**
.
.
.
Dave Hicks, I have no doubt about my own POV being a red herring stuffed with straw down a slippery slope of denial. My problem is that I have yet to find anyone with a better ideology, POV, or reality I can accept.
36.Doing an online health assessment and they tell me I am a “…calcium-challenged eater”. Think there is any hope?
Comment by Sandi Saunders
Sandi, you probably know this already, but there’s an unsettled question whether calcium presents women with a similar challenge to that posed for men by iron: how to get enough without going over and triggering adverse cardiac effects.
Whereas iron is necessary to prevent blood count problems, men tend to have elevated iron levels that are implicated in heart attacks, and women facing the need to bolster their calcium intake apparently must balance those levels against heart disease risks too.
So, are you now acknowledging that there are people in positions of power who are on record as to their intent / desire to to prohibit or total ban on firearms?
Comment by Dave Hicks — February 16, 2013 @ 12:26 am
I acknowledge that Sen. Feinstein said that in the past. She is not saying that now. What she truly believes is not the point. Legislation now proposed does not call for a total ban on firearms. Is it possible that Sen. Feinstein believes we should confiscate all guns? Yes.
#10 Sandy, he points a gun at his brother and pulls the trigger, killing him….and they can sell it as an accident with no jail time? Speight needs this guy’s judge and jury. The argument reminds me of the old saw about the kid who kills both of his parents then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan.
Sen. Feinstein also released info to the press concerning the shoe prints of Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker. She told the media that the police had his shoe-prints, to which Mr. Ramirez promptly threw his shoes away and bought another pair, and continued on his murderous spree. This Feinstein is one STUPID goat.
Re: Jason Perdue @ 8:23
Thank you. We now agree that prohibition is the desire / agenda of some politicos.
Her, “I could not do that. the votes weren’t here….” rings far more true that what she is saying now — IMHO.
As always YMMV.
—–
BTW, how do you read,
http://tinyurl.com/cye5egt
**
#72 Too bad ANYBODY AT ALL had a gun. She might still be alive.
There, fixed it for you, Henry.
Comment by gdad — February 15, 2013 @ 9:16 am
**
Do you think gdad has the the desire / agenda of prohibition?
—-
How about it gdad? If you could would you prohibit private gun ownership?
I realize Feinstein is the new satan to gun advocates, but “One day after Richard Ramirez’s face was made public, the Night Stalker was in custody and behind bars.” Her supposed “giving away” of information had nothing to do with catching the evil monster. And her efforts to remove the guns most prized by mass shooters and anti-government “tyranny-fighters” is hardly the worst thing a politician could ask for.
Sandi Saunders:
“I realize Feinstein is the new satan to gun advocates, but “One day after Richard Ramirez’s face was made public, the Night Stalker was in custody and behind bars.”
Is this how Sandi thinks about us, seriously?
Dave Hicks at 3:07 p.m. I read gdad’s comment to mean that, when guns are present, people have a higher chance of being injured or killed. When they are not present, people will not be injured or killed by a gun. For this very reason, I do no have a gun in my house or own a gun. I do not think having a gun makes me or my family safer. Perhaps gdad takes a similar position.
So, what’s your take on the sentence for the young man in Pulaski whose actions led to the death of his brother?
In general, always, the gunners do not weigh in on awkward gun events. This guy who killer his brother included.
#46 Jason Perdue, congratulations. That’s exactly what I meant.
Kristen:
“In general, always, the gunners do not weigh in on awkward gun events. This guy who killer his brother included.”
I don’t find discussing this or the self defense stories that interesting, honestly. Those infused with gun hatred leave me even less inclined to comment. I’m pretty consistently less intereted on EACH end of the spectrum.
Now legislation, good or bad, I’m more interested in.
Jason Perdue:
“When they are not present, people will not be injured or killed by a gun.”
I chose to intruce guns into my house on my terms before someone else intoduces guns into my house on their terms.
See, Dave H, there are gun fondlers like Henry (and probably John W and Jack) whose first reaction is that it was too bad they weren’t BOTH armed. I think the much more reasonable and sane response is that it’s too bad neither was armed. Blade Runner dude recently threatened to break somebody’s legs over something minor and he also tweeted to friends that he had gone into full “combat recon” mode when the washing machine made a strange noise.
You will not find any place where I have ever proposed taking away all guns. But I also don’t see a solution in stockpiling hundreds of millions more.