Gun Control? It's not about guns, it's about Control

[Masada]

You all know it is. You all know that taking guns out of the hands of innocent, peace loving civilians isn't the answer to madness in this world. You all know that guns don't kill people without people using them to kill. You all know that if a crazy man walked into a school with a chainsaw, and murdered 50 kindergarteners, it doesn't make much sense if we outlaw chainsaws. This is about control, and the left's attempt to exploit yet another tragedy in an effort to force a philosophy onto society.

This is why Obamacare was sooooo important, and why, in general, universal healthcare, regulated from a centralized government, is the ultimate CROWN JEWEL of socialism and modern liberalism. Virtually anything and everything can be brought back to a "health issue". What we eat, what we drink, what we drive, what we buy, what we own, what we do. Everything can be related one way or another back to a "health issue". And the left knows that if they can control "health care", they can control behavior. They can control society. Look at the many ways they are already trying to control what you eat, what you drink, what you smoke, what you drive, what kind of gas you put in your car.

Now it's guns again. This debate is being shifted into a "health" debate, just like Obama did today. He is seeking control through his authority through Obamacare. Not Congress, not by law, but through regulatory authority in an already passed law. He can do that, legally speaking, and he will. Guns are now a "health issue", and by their definitions, can be regulated through the health care bill. No law required. And the fools in America who voted for this crap are liable for it.

Now, Obamacare isn't full blown socialized medicine......yet. But it's a giant leap in that direction. Hear the warnings America. Once government controls health care, they control it all, because ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING can relate back to some kind of "health issue". Guns, ammo, salt, sugar, abortion, homosexual relations, heterosexual relations, condoms, birth control, gasoline, carbon emmissions, pollution, oil, gas...anything. You name it, and you can twist it into a "health issue" that will come under regulation of a universal health care bill.

This is why liberals, communists, and socialists try so hard to get socialized healthcare. For the control over their societies and their people. You control their health, and you control them. You control when, where, and if they can go to a doctor, and you've got them. This situation is no different. It's not about guns, it's about control.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Ah yes!

The paranoid ramblings of the far right wing in all it's glory.

 

[Stewart]

Ah yes!

The paranoid ramblings of the far right wing in all it's glory.

I expected as much.

 

[marsden]

Ah yes!

The paranoid ramblings of the far right wing in all it's glory.

Denial and off the cuff dismissal in all it's typicality.

 

[Masada]

lol....perhaps confucious can tell us why socialists spend so much time and effort on "universal health care"?? I'm so ready to travel through Socialism's history of "caring so much for their people, that they granted them free healthcare"......

Please. Save that **** for some other fool. Universal single payer healthcare is the crown jewel of Marxism and Socialism for a reason. Because it's the ultimate tool in societal control. Read your boy Marx, he flat out says it. It's no wonder liberals push so freakin hard for it. Don't tell me it's because Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden care so much for the poor. After all, I gave more money to charity than Joe Biden did the year he was elected VP. Don't tell me it's because liberals care so much, when Conservatives out give them 2 to 1 when it comes to charitable giving to the poor. Don't tell me liberals care about the poor when they force the Catholic Church ministries to STOP FEEDING THE HOMELESS in urban areas because the food hasnt been inspected.

Yes, let's travel through history and examine Socialism's great love for mankind shall we????

 

[Muddy Creek]

You all know it is. You all know that taking guns out of the hands of innocent, peace loving civilians isn't the answer to madness in this world. You all know that guns don't kill people without people using them to kill. You all know that if a crazy man walked into a school with a chainsaw, and murdered 50 kindergarteners, it doesn't make much sense if we outlaw chainsaws. This is about control, and the left's attempt to exploit yet another tragedy in an effort to force a philosophy onto society.

This is why Obamacare was sooooo important, and why, in general, universal healthcare, regulated from a centralized government, is the ultimate CROWN JEWEL of socialism and modern liberalism. Virtually anything and everything can be brought back to a "health issue". What we eat, what we drink, what we drive, what we buy, what we own, what we do. Everything can be related one way or another back to a "health issue". And the left knows that if they can control "health care", they can control behavior. They can control society. Look at the many ways they are already trying to control what you eat, what you drink, what you smoke, what you drive, what kind of gas you put in your car.

Now it's guns again. This debate is being shifted into a "health" debate, just like Obama did today. He is seeking control through his authority through Obamacare. Not Congress, not by law, but through regulatory authority in an already passed law. He can do that, legally speaking, and he will. Guns are now a "health issue", and by their definitions, can be regulated through the health care bill. No law required. And the fools in America who voted for this crap are liable for it.

Now, Obamacare isn't full blown socialized medicine......yet. But it's a giant leap in that direction. Hear the warnings America. Once government controls health care, they control it all, because ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING can relate back to some kind of "health issue". Guns, ammo, salt, sugar, abortion, homosexual relations, heterosexual relations, condoms, birth control, gasoline, carbon emmissions, pollution, oil, gas...anything. You name it, and you can twist it into a "health issue" that will come under regulation of a universal health care bill.

This is why liberals, communists, and socialists try so hard to get socialized healthcare. For the control over their societies and their people. You control their health, and you control them. You control when, where, and if they can go to a doctor, and you've got them. This situation is no different. It's not about guns, it's about control.

Mandatory insurance was proposed by the republican congress in 1996. This is about those who can afford it, getting it, so no one else picks up their tab. Makes sense.

Gun control is about getting military weapons off the streets, requiring background checks for ALL buyers and letting you keep your single shot guns and rifles. Face it, if you need military weapons on the street, then my government needs to spy on you to see why.

 

[Jetboogieman]

that they granted them free healthcare

Universal Healthcare is not free.

You failed before you even started.

 

[Master PO]

Mandatory insurance was proposed by the republican congress in 1996. This is about those who can afford it, getting it, so no one else picks up their tab. Makes sense.

Gun control is about getting military weapons off the streets, requiring background checks for ALL buyers and letting you keep your single shot guns and rifles. Face it, if you need military weapons on the street, then my government needs to spy on you to see why.

don't you mean military style?

 

[Masada]

Mandatory insurance was proposed by the republican congress in 1996. This is about those who can afford it, getting it, so no one else picks up their tab. Makes sense.

Gun control is about getting military weapons off the streets, requiring background checks for ALL buyers and letting you keep your single shot guns and rifles. Face it, if you need military weapons on the street, then my government needs to spy on you to see why.

And if your precious government ever comes against you? The second amendment isn't about hunting my friend. And I don't care "who" proposed what. Progressive, big government, control freaks reside in both parties, I'm well aware, believe me. I'm a Conservative, but don't think for a second I'm a shrill for Republicans, because they're almost as bad as liberals!

And on the health insurance point....and what about those who cant afford it? We're picking up their tab are we not? Why yes, we are. Still make sense?

I don't freaking need a deer rifle "on the street" either brotha....so does that mean the government has a right to take it from me? No. Again, the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. How do I know that? Because the second amendment doesn't even mention hunting. The second amendment is about securing the freedom of the people of this nation. In other words, the second amendment insures the other 9 in the BOR. The Founders acknowledged that truth as well. It's not about shooting a deer out in the woods like a "good ole boy", it's about ensuring that even people like you will not be over ridden by an oppressive government now, or in the future.

You may think that to be impossible, but obviously our founders did not. After all, they had just fought a bloody war overthrowing THEIR government (they also used guns btw, luckily they had them eh?). You see, history still means something to some of us. We understand the importance of the second amendment, and we understand it's not about huntin deer.....

 

[Masada]

Universal Healthcare is not free.

You failed before you even started.

It's free to the ones demanding it now isn't it? But you are right, it's not free. It fulfills the wetdream of socialists though. It's the epitome of wealth redistribution isn't it? The rich pay for it all. Tell me again how liberals are different than socialists?

 

[Masada]

Universal Healthcare is not free.

You failed before you even started.

lol....but I love the way you pick out 6 words from that post to comment on.....doesn't the wise confucious have some sort of defense for the Socialistic love for mankind throughout history? Surely there is some heart warming story to tell of Adolf Hitler loving his people so much that he decided to tax the rich excessively to pay for health care for the poor, and how it all turned out splendidly. Surely there is historical evidence of history's great socialists loving their people so much that they gave up their government power back to the people, granted them more freedoms, and rewarded their individual efforts......errrr....

nevermind......

Typical. You refuse to argue the main points, and elect to "knitpick" your way through posts, pointing out silly things in a cheap effort to score style points with the teacher. tisk tisk....I expected more from someone likeing themself to Confucious.....pfffff

 

[jamesrage]

You all know it is. You all know that taking guns out of the hands of innocent, peace loving civilians isn't the answer to madness in this world. You all know that guns don't kill people without people using them to kill. You all know that if a crazy man walked into a school with a chainsaw, and murdered 50 kindergarteners, it doesn't make much sense if we outlaw chainsaws. This is about control, and the left's attempt to exploit yet another tragedy in an effort to force a philosophy onto society.

This is why Obamacare was sooooo important, and why, in general, universal healthcare, regulated from a centralized government, is the ultimate CROWN JEWEL of socialism and modern liberalism. Virtually anything and everything can be brought back to a "health issue". What we eat, what we drink, what we drive, what we buy, what we own, what we do. Everything can be related one way or another back to a "health issue". And the left knows that if they can control "health care", they can control behavior. They can control society. Look at the many ways they are already trying to control what you eat, what you drink, what you smoke, what you drive, what kind of gas you put in your car.

Now it's guns again. This debate is being shifted into a "health" debate, just like Obama did today. He is seeking control through his authority through Obamacare. Not Congress, not by law, but through regulatory authority in an already passed law. He can do that, legally speaking, and he will. Guns are now a "health issue", and by their definitions, can be regulated through the health care bill. No law required. And the fools in America who voted for this crap are liable for it.

Now, Obamacare isn't full blown socialized medicine......yet. But it's a giant leap in that direction. Hear the warnings America. Once government controls health care, they control it all, because ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING can relate back to some kind of "health issue". Guns, ammo, salt, sugar, abortion, homosexual relations, heterosexual relations, condoms, birth control, gasoline, carbon emmissions, pollution, oil, gas...anything. You name it, and you can twist it into a "health issue" that will come under regulation of a universal health care bill.

This is why liberals, communists, and socialists try so hard to get socialized healthcare. For the control over their societies and their people. You control their health, and you control them. You control when, where, and if they can go to a doctor, and you've got them. This situation is no different. It's not about guns, it's about control.

Governments in general want the civilian population to be disarmed.So you are fooling yourself if you think its just democrats that want the people disarmed. The useful idiots who vote for them genuinely do have a irrational fear or hatred of firearms.

 

[Masada]

Governments in general want the civilian population to be disarmed.So you are fooling yourself if you think its just democrats that want the people disarmed. The useful idiots who vote for them genuinely do have a irrational fear or hatred of firearms.

Dont believe I said a word about "democrats". I said "liberals", and I understand liberals can be in BOTH parties. I don't disagree with you, I think GOVERNMENT would like to see the people unarmed and defenseless. LIBERALS in particular.

I'm not fooling myself in the slightest. I know the truth. I know "why" liberals push Obamacare. I know "how" they use regulations instead of laws. And I see "how" the people have just become conditioned to accept it as normal. I see "how" liberals exploit people and circumstances, and I understand "why" people let them do it. It's hard to argue with a person who surrounds themself with children who have written crayon letters to the White House now isn't it? Yes, because it's too easy for that person to come back at you with, "you just hate children", or "you don't support protecting children". It's a tactic, it's the "how" within a philosophy. Hardly no one recognizes it anymore though, because they have become conditioned to it.

Mark my words. The gun debate will become a full blown "health" debate. Through the regulatory powers granted within Obamacare, liberals will seek a way to regulate guns through the bill without passing a Congressional law. Write it down, bet on it. You will see. It's their plan. It's why UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER is the crown jewel of socialism and modern liberalism. CONTROL!

 

[Napoleon]

And if your precious government ever comes against you? The second amendment isn't about hunting my friend...
You may think that to be impossible, but obviously our founders did not. After all, they had just fought a bloody war overthrowing THEIR government (they also used guns btw, luckily they had them eh?). You see, history still means something to some of us. We understand the importance of the second amendment, and we understand it's not about huntin deer.....

Where were the gun toting armchair generals when the State decided it can strip you of your civil rights by calling you a terrorist? When the Executive Branch engaged in an unprecedented power-grab and declared itself beyond the reach of the Supreme Court? When Congress decided that your right to privacy doesn't exist if the NSA doesn't like the way you talk? There's a lot of chest pounding coming from the NRA side of the debate but when faced with the tyranny they claim they need their own personal arsenals to fight; they're nowhere to be seen or heard. You'll have to forgive me if I don't put much stock in the right wing fantasy of hillbillies descending from the Appalachian Mountains to save us all from the big bad government boogeyman.

The right wing interpretation is also quite off the mark. It was only intended to provide for a means of defense in lieu of a standing army and, as Madison noted in Federalist 46, a militia for, organized by, and at the command of each State in the event that the Federal Government formed its own standing army. The idea that the people have a right to be a unique and unregulated defense force unto themselves is wrong and not supported by the historical stated intent of the founders. Furthermore; the current state of things would render such a position moot. The Federal Government does have a standing army solely at its command and the States do have their own militias solely at their command (the National Guard). The intended need for the second amendment no longer exists.

 

[Moot]

It's free to the ones demanding it now isn't it? But you are right, it's not free. It fulfills the wetdream of socialists though. It's the epitome of wealth redistribution isn't it? The rich pay for it all. Tell me again how liberals are different than socialists?

Universal healthcare was a republican wetdream in 1996 and long before Obama got elected. Almost every proposal in that plan originally came from a Republican, including making it mandatory. The reason being, they didn't want people getting free healthcare off the backs of everyone else who bought health insurance. So if you're one of those who isn't buying health insurance then you're the socialist in the room expecting a handout if and when you get sick.

 

[lemieux]

You are to paranoid to see the fact that there needs to be some gun control otherwise people who do want to kill people will have easy access to ways to kill people. You have this idea that if we have gun control that the Government will begin to control every part of our lives. The problem with your reasoning is that the American people wont let it go to the level of control you are talking about.

In this case the cost does not outweigh the benefit. The idea that the cost will be that the government will control our lives because of gun control is absurd.

It is very true that guns don't kill people but they make it easier for people to kill people.

I agree completely that Obama wants there to be a ridiculous amount of regulation.

 

[joko104]

If this had anything whatsoever to do with protecting children, all the talk would be about spending about 80 cents a day per child to put a police officer in each school.

It's not about the children and its not about us peasants.

It is about the rich and powerful believing they have a right to be defended with weapons and people with them, but not you or I. So, instead, the politicians and the millionaire media people blame we-the-people for the result of the government outlawing protecting our children - and then blaming us for their deaths. Our government increasingly is just a bunch of arrogant, evil rich people who do not care if we or our children live or die. And their pitch is as insulting and bizarre as possible.

It is bizarre. Rather than ANY legislation to actually protect children, instead they want more legislation to only protect themselves and putting us at still greater danger.

They SO MUCH do not care about the children that the mere THOUGHT of any protection of the children is instantly responded to with "we certainly can't afford that! I mean, their just children. There are already more children than we can afford to education given all the important things we have to do - for ourselves. And how could we the government give hundreds of billions to favored super rich people who give us political contributions in return if we spend money protecting children?"

 

[joko104]

You are to paranoid to see the fact that there needs to be some gun control otherwise people who do want to kill people will have easy access to ways to kill people. You have this idea that if we have gun control that the Government will begin to control every part of our lives. The problem with your reasoning is that the American people wont let it go to the level of control you are talking about.

In this case the cost does not outweigh the benefit. The idea that the cost will be that the government will control our lives because of gun control is absurd.

It is very true that guns don't kill people but they make it easier for people to kill people.

Why don't you want children in school to be protected? What do you have against children?

 

[lemieux]

Why don't you want children in school to be protected? What do you have against children?

Having no gun control wont help protect children it will put them in more danger. If you look at the numbers country's with more regulations on guns have less deaths caused by guns then country's with less regulations.

I believe people should be able to own guns but there has to be some regulations on it.

 

[tererun]

You all know it is. You all know that taking guns out of the hands of innocent, peace loving civilians isn't the answer to madness in this world. You all know that guns don't kill people without people using them to kill. You all know that if a crazy man walked into a school with a chainsaw, and murdered 50 kindergarteners, it doesn't make much sense if we outlaw chainsaws. This is about control, and the left's attempt to exploit yet another tragedy in an effort to force a philosophy onto society.

I bet we could make a non-lethal experiment to show just how silly your statement about the chainsaw is. You give some pretty quick guy one of those fake nerf swords soaked in some sort of food coloring. Then you put him into a school with some little kids. Then you have all the teachers and kids in their classrooms and you let him loose. Now since a chainsaw weilding maniac makes a lot of noise you would start lockdown right away. I wonder how many people he gets? I really doubt he will get 50. I am pretty sure without a ranged fatal weapon 10 people would be hard to kill with adults wound to take him down.

the simple fact is guns make killing easier. this is why we don't send our army into afganistan and arm everyone with chainsaws and say "Don't worry they are as good as a gun." So that point is pretty weak, and you should come up with something better. guns are pretty much a primary killing weapon of every armed force for a reason. Even missiles and bombs are often less useful in many combat missions than a good gun is. There is a reason 9 out of ten killers prefer guns over any other weapon. There is a reason we don't see leatherface as much of a threat unless he can take a few shots from a gun and keep coming, and because he seems to have the ability to magically transport himself over great distances making running a ineffective defense.

This is why Obamacare was sooooo important, and why, in general, universal healthcare, regulated from a centralized government, is the ultimate CROWN JEWEL of socialism and modern liberalism. Virtually anything and everything can be brought back to a "health issue". What we eat, what we drink, what we drive, what we buy, what we own, what we do. Everything can be related one way or another back to a "health issue". And the left knows that if they can control "health care", they can control behavior. They can control society. Look at the many ways they are already trying to control what you eat, what you drink, what you smoke, what you drive, what kind of gas you put in your car.

how did you go from killing people with a chainsaw to killing people with socialized medicine made to save people? Calm down and think of where your rant is going. this is almost as bad as limbaugh saying that we could prevent abortions by handing out guns with abortions.

Now it's guns again. This debate is being shifted into a "health" debate, just like Obama did today. He is seeking control through his authority through Obamacare. Not Congress, not by law, but through regulatory authority in an already passed law. He can do that, legally speaking, and he will. Guns are now a "health issue", and by their definitions, can be regulated through the health care bill. No law required. And the fools in America who voted for this crap are liable for it.

I think mixing guns and psychos is an idea most people are against. I am pretty sure even most pro-gun people are for keeping psychos away from guns. Also think about the implications to disability. Now you need to chose between a free ride on disability because you claim your ADD makes you unable to work, and getting a gun. No longer will deadbeats be able to use their social security money to buy firearms because we don't eliminate them from being able to buy them. one that will cause some disabled people to chose to remain off the government dime so they can buy a gun, and the other will be to keep psychos who need [psychoactive medication and supervision because they have psychotic violent episodes from buying legal guns. Sounds great to me, and if you want to keep your ability to own firearms you will need to keep yourself under control.

Now, Obamacare isn't full blown socialized medicine......yet. But it's a giant leap in that direction. Hear the warnings America. Once government controls health care, they control it all, because ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING can relate back to some kind of "health issue". Guns, ammo, salt, sugar, abortion, homosexual relations, heterosexual relations, condoms, birth control, gasoline, carbon emmissions, pollution, oil, gas...anything. You name it, and you can twist it into a "health issue" that will come under regulation of a universal health care bill.

I thought you were whining about guns? Anyway, obama won, get over it.

This is why liberals, communists, and socialists try so hard to get socialized healthcare. For the control over their societies and their people. You control their health, and you control them. You control when, where, and if they can go to a doctor, and you've got them. This situation is no different. It's not about guns, it's about control.

yeah, keep blaming other people and never look at yourself. Way to show us one of the big problems in america, and that is the blame game. republicans, fascists, and conservatives have never ever made huge problems like a drug war that promotes criminal organizations. gun sales and military training to violent terrorists. Lax gun sales that have allowed guns to kill many more people than should be. Then there is the huge tax burden we have for their programs. Then there are the civil rights they love to vote away. then we have the stupification of our children by telling them jesus rode dinosaurs to work in reality.

come on, democrats are not alone, and probably not even the biggest cause of america's failings. Your lack of ability to even look at republicans and conservative fascists is evidence you are not taking an honest viewpoint of things.

 

[tererun]

Why don't you want children in school to be protected? What do you have against children?

What part of guns in our schools would have protected the children of Cleveland high school in san diego california on january 29, 1979 when brenda Ann Spencer opened fire on the children entering the school from her house using a semi auto .22 calliber rifle and 500 rounds of ammo purchased for her and given to her by her father? It took the police 6 hours after arriving to secure and arrest her. She never entered the school. She would have never passed through a metal detector. She would have never seen an armed guard or parent. The only thing that had a chance of preventing her was a law restricting sale to her because of her age and making it illegal for her father to purchase and give the rifle to his daughter, permitting, and perhaps the involvement of the authorities in making the original sale of that gun. Your armed guards they were worthless. They not only were worthless but they would have caused a bottleneck in admitting kids to the school and a huge line of "ducks" as brenda called them.

Now why don't you and the other gun control people want our children to be protected as best as possible from people who would give or sell guns to a person like brenda who has never denied, and who has even bragged about, her desire to go off and kill people because she doesn't like mondays, and it makes the day more interesting. This is a person who clearly would have never passed a psyck exam or been able to purchase a gun with medical records and investigation for gun licensing. This is a psychopath who got access to guns. She has never once to this day stopped being a psycho and is even noted for asking a radio interviewer while in prison to bring her a rifle. This is a person who should never have been sold a gun, yet people want to protect her ability to get a deadly firearm without any attempt to determine her state of mind a a sociopath with major homicidal tendencies. I want to know why you feel there should be no effort to determine these facts about gun purchasers, and every attempt by the sellers and our government to keep these issues from coming to light?

 

[TurtleDude]

Ah yes!

The paranoid ramblings of the far right wing in all it's glory.

for years the anti gun left and even the moderate ambivalent towards guns left have claimed that anyone who noted the true motivation of the anti gunners and the incremental nature of the gun grab were "paranoid"

yet this nonsense from your side is becoming less and less tenable given the egogasm Cuomoturd engaged in in order to trump the man he wants to replace.

A convicted felon using an illegally owned Bushmaster Rifle with a banned under NY law 30 round magazine premeditated the murder of two firefighters and then basically committed suicide. Another nutcase premeditated the murder of his mother-stole her legally registered guns and killed a bunch of innocents and himself

so what does Cuomoturd do-he bans people in NY having more than 7 rounds in their guns as " a response"

he also was on record as saying confiscation was on the table

and you people pretend that the goal isn't complete bans

 

[TurtleDude]

Where were the gun toting armchair generals when the State decided it can strip you of your civil rights by calling you a terrorist? When the Executive Branch engaged in an unprecedented power-grab and declared itself beyond the reach of the Supreme Court? When Congress decided that your right to privacy doesn't exist if the NSA doesn't like the way you talk? There's a lot of chest pounding coming from the NRA side of the debate but when faced with the tyranny they claim they need their own personal arsenals to fight; they're nowhere to be seen or heard. You'll have to forgive me if I don't put much stock in the right wing fantasy of hillbillies descending from the Appalachian Mountains to save us all from the big bad government boogeyman.

The right wing interpretation is also quite off the mark. It was only intended to provide for a means of defense in lieu of a standing army and, as Madison noted in Federalist 46, a militia for, organized by, and at the command of each State in the event that the Federal Government formed its own standing army. The idea that the people have a right to be a unique and unregulated defense force unto themselves is wrong and not supported by the historical stated intent of the founders. Furthermore; the current state of things would render such a position moot. The Federal Government does have a standing army solely at its command and the States do have their own militias solely at their command (the National Guard). The intended need for the second amendment no longer exists.

you silly second amendment scholarship notwithstanding remind me what part of the constitution actually delegated the authority to the federal government to regulate small arms. If your rant about the second amendment is based on what you think the founders said, how can you support the commerce clause being tortured by FDR to allow said regulation

 

[Moot]

If this had anything whatsoever to do with protecting children, all the talk would be about spending about 80 cents a day per child to put a police officer in each school....

Yes, it would have nice and more honest and sincere if the NRA and gun manufacturers had offered a dime for every gun sold to do just that. Instead, they want to increase the size of government and have taxpayers pay for it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, it would have nice and more honest and sincere if the NRA and gun manufacturers had offered a dime for every gun sold to do just that. Instead, they want to increase the size of government and have taxpayers pay for it.

somehow I find your rants and the rants of other left wing gun haters about increasing the size of government to be crocodile tears