And So It Begins: the Begining of the End for the Second Amendment.

[Redleg]

Exaggeration? I think not. There was no real reason to consficate the firearms of the people staying at their homes. There is no chance that they would actually get the guns of someone who had been perfoming criminal acts. Do you think the people who have their guns stolen are going to get their guns back? The gov't is just using this as a chance to take guns.

Indeed it is an exaggeration to claim that this beginning of the end of the 2nd Amendment.

Martial Law has not been declared (LA state law doesn't have it), and the 'emergency situation' does not provide for siezing guns.

You need to check out the Louisana Law there - you might be surprised what you find.

Here I will give you some help

Powers of the governor

A. The governor is responsible for meeting the dangers to the state and people presented by emergencies or disasters, and in order to effectuate the provisions of this Chapter, the governor may issue executive orders, proclamations, and regulations and amend or rescind them. Executive orders, proclamations, and regulations so issued shall have the force and effect of law.

B.(1) A disaster or emergency, or both, shall be declared by executive order or proclamation of the governor if he finds a disaster or emergency has occurred or the threat thereof is imminent. The state of disaster or emergency shall continue until the governor finds that the threat of danger has passed or the disaster or emergency has been dealt with to the extent that the emergency conditions no longer exist and terminates the state of disaster or emergency by executive order or proclamation, but no state of disaster or emergency may continue for longer than thirty days unless renewed by the governor.

(2) The legislature, by petition signed by a majority of the surviving members of either house, may terminate a state of disaster or emergency at any time. This petition terminating the state of emergency or disaster may establish a period during which no other declaration of emergency or disaster may be issued. Thereupon, the governor shall issue an executive order or proclamation ending the state of disaster or emergency.

(3) All executive orders or proclamations issued under this Subsection shall indicate the nature of the disaster or emergency, the area or areas which are or may be affected, and the conditions which have brought it about or which make possible the termination of the state of disaster or emergency. An executive order or proclamation shall be disseminated promptly by means calculated to bring its contents to the attention of the general public and, unless the circumstances attendant upon the disaster or emergency prevent or impede it, promptly filed with the Military Department, state of Louisiana, office of emergency preparedness, and the secretary of state.

C. The declaration of an emergency or disaster by the governor shall activate the state's emergency response and recovery program under the command of the director of the state office of homeland security and emergency preparedness.

D. In addition to any other powers conferred upon the governor by law, he may do any or all of the following:

(1) Suspend the provisions of any regulatory statute prescribing the procedures for conduct of state business, or the orders, rules, or regulations of any state agency, if strict compliance with the provisions of any statute, order, rule, or regulation would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with the emergency.

(2) Utilize all available resources of the state government and of each political subdivision of the state as reasonably necessary to cope with the disaster or emergency.

(3) Transfer the direction, personnel, or functions of state departments and agencies or units thereof for the purpose of performing or facilitating emergency services.

(4) Subject to any applicable requirements for compensation, commandeer or utilize any private property if he finds this necessary to cope with the disaster or emergency.

(5) Direct and compel the evacuation of all or part of the population from any stricken or threatened area within the state if he deems this action necessary for the preservation of life or other disaster mitigation, response, or recovery.

(6) Prescribe routes, modes of transportation, and destination in connection with evacuation.

(7) Control ingress and egress to and from a disaster area, the movement of persons within the area, and the occupancy of premises therein.

(8) Suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles.

(9) Make provision for the availability and use of temporary emergency housing.

E. In the event of an emergency declared by the governor pursuant to this Chapter, any person or representative of any firm, partnership, or corporation violating any order, rule, or regulation promulgated pursuant to this Chapter, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or confined in the parish jail for not more than six months, or both. No executive order, proclamation, or regulation shall create or define a crime or fix penalties.

F. No organization for homeland security and emergency preparedness established under this Chapter shall be employed directly or indirectly for political purposes.

G. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section, except in an imminent life threatening situation nothing herein shall restrict any uniformed employee of a licensed private security company, acting within the scope of employment, from entering and remaining in an area where an emergency has been declared. The provisions of this Subsection shall apply if the licensed private security company submits a list of employees and their assignment to be allowed into the area, to the Louisiana State Board of Private Security Examiners, which shall forward the list to the chief law enforcement office of the parish and, if different, the agency in charge of the scene.

Notice the bolded items the state can force you to leave the area and prevent you from taking your weapons. Futhermore they can take them from you to insure that they are not left behind for some looters to grab hold of.

Have fun digesting the actual laws of Louisiana

Link to the complete act.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=85670

Soon, every liberal city council that hates guns will use a storm or blizzard where any criminal uses a gun to sieze all guns. Its the legitamizing of stealing guns for 'safety'. But I guess you don't care, just as long as they don't take your long guns, huh?

Crazed Rabbit

LOL - I just knew someone would end up saying that. Again Hyperbole is what you are doing. By the way no liberial city council can do this - it comes from the state and federal level only. City's don't have consitutions - they have charters and must comply with State Laws.

[Crazed Rabbit]

(4) Subject to any applicable requirements for compensation, commandeer or utilize any private property if he finds this necessary to cope with the disaster or emergency.

The property is not being used to help cope with the disaster or emergency. It implies that the police could only do this if they needed the extra guns (hence 'commandeer or utilize', not 'consficate'). They don't, and are not claiming that they do.

(8) Suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles.

Taking guns from people who already legally own them is not suspending or limiting the sale, dispensing, or transportation of guns. That would be making sure people with guns aren't moving around the city (which they weren't), giving away guns (which they weren't), or selling guns (which they weren't). None of this provides for taking the guns of people sitting in their homes.

Notice the bolded items the state can force you to leave the area and prevent you from taking your weapons. Futhermore they can take them from you to insure that they are not left behind for some looters to grab hold of.

But the state is not forcing people to leave their homes. They are letting them stay their and just taking their guns.

Have fun digesting the actual laws of
Louisiana

Oh, I did.

LOL - I just knew someone would end up saying that. Again Hyperbole is what you are doing. By the way no liberial city council can do this - it comes from the state and federal level only. City's don't have consitutions - they have charters and must comply with State Laws.

Exageration? Hardly. 100 years ago the stranglehold the government has on us, with social security, taxes for just about everything, regulations on just about everything, would have been unimaginable. No, this one event doesn't mark the end - it is just a step. AG Janet Reno said registration is just a step to consfication, and this is just another way the gov't has found to increase its power. And if cities have to comply with state laws, how do so many get off with banning guns directly against the state constitution?

You've heard the anology about the frog in the water. It applies now.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

The property is not being used to help cope with the disaster or emergency. It implies that the police could only do this if they needed the extra guns (hence 'commandeer or utilize', not 'consficate'). They don't, and are not claiming that they do.

The measure means the government can do many thing in order to cope with the diaster - not that the property must be used.. It does not imply anything - its a clear cut measure based upon the declaration of the governor. The governor made a declaration.

Authorities continued trying to clear the city of holdouts, and also confiscated guns from homeowners. Police and soldiers feared deadly confrontations with jittery residents who have armed themselves against looters.

It seems again that the authority to confiscate weapons is there in the declaration and the Law check out the law a little more carefully. Is measure number 4 again.

Taking guns from people who already legally own them is not suspending or limiting the sale, dispensing, or transportation of guns. That would be making sure people with guns aren't moving around the city (which they weren't), giving away guns (which they weren't), or selling guns (which they weren't). None of this provides for taking the guns of people sitting in their homes.

Correct but you missed part of the measure - which goes along with the diaster declartion. There is a mandatory evacuation. And a declaration of diaster where extra-ordinary measures are authorized by the Louisiana Constitution and their laws.

But the state is not forcing people to leave their homes. They are letting them stay their and just taking their guns.

Goes along item 4 already highlighted now doesnit.

It seems again that the authority to confiscate weapons is there in the declaration and the Law check out the law a little more carefully. Is measure number 4 again.

Oh, I did.

Good

Exageration? Hardly. 100 years ago the stranglehold the government has on us, with social security, taxes for just about everything, regulations on just about everything, would have been unimaginable. No, this one event doesn't mark the end - it is just a step. AG Janet Reno said registration is just a step to consfication, and this is just another way the gov't has found to increase its power. And if cities have to comply with state laws, how do so many get off with banning guns directly against the state constitution?

Yes indeed exageration - and your doing it again. The diaster in no way shape or form is linked to the movement to remove weapons from American homes.

Ask your state legislation that question. Then you might ask your city that question also. However states can make certain laws that go beyond the United States Constitution - so I would image cities can make laws that fall within the State consitution. But then the city is not telling you that you can not own a weapon - its telling you something else. Show a statue from a city that states you can not own a weapon. They most often go into what is allowed to be sold within the city limits - and that weapons need to be registered.

Here did a little more research just for you..

But stopping Ohio cities from passing gun laws is difficult, because home-rule provisions in the state constitution give local officials certain governing rights, said John Mahoney, deputy director of the Ohio Municipal League.

Generally, if the state doesn't regulate something, local governments are allowed to pass laws to fill in the gaps, he said, as long as they don't conflict with state laws.

http://www.knowledgeplex.org/news/103912.html

Oh by the way registration of weapons in no way violate the concept of the 2nd amendment, it falls into the well regulated militia part of the amendment. The military has all its weapons register with serial number accountablity for the weapons maintained. So does the National Guard - a militia in the pure sence of the word.

You've heard the anology about the frog in the water. It applies now.

Crazed Rabbit

Yes indeed and your more then guilty of it.

[Spetulhu]

So when is the UN going to take power there? I've heard they have built concentration camps for American gun nuts in advance, just waiting to round them up. Along with anyone else who makes trouble, of course.

Why is there no smilie with a pyramid tin foil hat?

[Ja'chyra]

Just when you think a thread cannot get any more melodramatic.

Coming to a cinema near you "And So It Begins: the Begining of the End for the Second Amendment."

I for one find this whole thread quite amusing and totally pointless.

[Petrus]

Why do you think Switzerland, land of a assualt rifle (in the real sense of the word) in every home, has the lowest crime in the world?

Crazed Rabbit

I think this is due to the origins of assault rifle possession.

Swiss citizen are conscripts and are given a registered assault rifle by the army so that they can bear arms as soon as mobilization is declared.

Those weapons are not anonymous as their legal owner is registered , so it is not possible to dispose of them freely.

[Xiahou]

When its not a gun debate but a Constitutional authority debate about what the Federal Government can or can not do in an declared diaster or emergancy. Its also a debate about wether or not the state authority can also suspend certain rights within the state for similiar reasons.

Well, if you want to argue that the federal Constitution only applies to the federal gov and not the states, that'd be an interesting discussion. Is this what you're saying?

However those amendments do not supercede the two clauses I referenced.
Those two clause do indeed allow the government to restrict your liberities under certain conditions.

By definition an amendment 'amends' the original text. So yeah, I'd say they do supercede the original Constitution insofar as the specific rights outlined in the amendments.

Sure they can be "legally" violated - that is the nature of the consitution - legislative laws can futher refine what the constitution states.

Constitutional amendments can 'refine' what the Constitution states. Simple legislation should not 'refine' or restrict rights outlined in the Constitution.

Here are some excerpts from the Louisiana Constitution:
From Article1, sec4

Property shall not be taken or damaged by the state or its

sec21.

The writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

I don't think an emergency powers act has the ability to supercede the state Constitution.

Now as to the seizing of firearms from homes in NO... Am I surprised? Not at all. I'm not even particularly outraged by it. I just think it shows the sad fact that citizen's rights that are supposedly constitutionally protected on both state and federal levels aren't worth much anymore. Even looking to the federal 'Bill of Rights'- Amendments 1,2,4,6&7 are trampled on a daily basis.

[Redleg]

Well, if you want to argue that the federal Constitution only applies to the federal gov and not the states, that'd be an interesting discussion. Is this what you're saying?

Nope - that each has its role and place. States can add measures and laws that are not covered in the United States Constitution, they can add measures and laws that are in fact in the United States COnstitution as long as their laws do not violate the Federal document.

By definition an amendment 'amends' the original text. So yeah, I'd say they do supercede the original Constitution insofar as the specific rights outlined in the amendments.

They only supercede the parts of the Original Constitution that they apply to. The 2nd Amendment does not supercede the government's authority to restore order.

Constitutional amendments can 'refine' what the Constitution states. Simple legislation should not 'refine' or restrict rights outlined in the Constitution.

Simple Legislation is what establishes the laws that govern the nation - the laws must fall within the concepts of the constitution.

I don't think an emergency powers act has the ability to supercede the state Constitution.

That would be for the courts to decide - I think the Louisiana legislative process granted it the authority to supercede their constitution. The constitutionality of it would have to be challenged because the act followed the legal process into being.

Now as to the seizing of firearms from homes in NO... Am I surprised? Not at all. I'm not even particularly outraged by it. I just think it shows the sad fact that citizen's rights that are supposedly constitutionally protected on both state and federal levels aren't worth much anymore. Even looking to the federal 'Bill of Rights'- Amendments 1,2,4,6&7 are trampled on a daily basis.

Nor should you be outraged by it - the govenment must systems take extra-ordinary measures to restore order during an emergancy of such scale. An interesting note - were you upset when the government in essence declared Martial Law in Los Angeles in 1992?

[Xiahou]

An interesting note - were you upset when the government in essence declared Martial Law in Los Angeles in 1992?

Federal troops were called in for law enforcement (and rarely used I understand) during the riots to back up the NG and civillian authorities. But I'm not aware of martial law being declared or habeas corpus being suspended. You could argue that the President violated the Posse Comitatus act though by deploying troops without congressional authority, I guess.

But then, I never studied the LA riots in depth so maybe you have more information.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The measure means the government can do many thing in order to cope with the diaster - not that the property must be used.. It does not imply anything - its a clear cut measure based upon the declaration of the governor. The governor made a declaration.

It most certainly implies that the property must be taken in order to help the police cope the disaster. Nowhere in there does it talk about consfication or commandeering to prevent use of objects by looters. Cope in this sense means using something to help you get the job done. The police are not using the guns to help cope witht the disaster.

Yes indeed exageration - and your doing it again. The diaster in no way shape or form is linked to the movement to remove weapons from American homes.

Ask your state legislation that question. Then you might ask your city that question also. However states can make certain laws that go beyond the United States Constitution - so I would image cities can make laws that fall within the State consitution. But then the city is not telling you that you can not own a weapon - its telling you something else. Show a statue from a city that states you can not own a weapon. They most often go into what is allowed to be sold within the city limits - and that weapons need to be registered.

Here you go: Morton Grove IL, where you are not allowed to posess a gun:
http://www.vpc.org/press/9503mg.htm

You don't think anti-gunners are wtting themselves with excitement over the possibility this brings? The NOPD may not be actively trying to dismantle the 2nd amendment, but antis are going to use it as best they can. They'll scream about public safety, the need to keep guns out of criminal's hands during a disaster, etc.

Oh by the way registration of weapons in no way violate the concept of the 2nd amendment, it falls into the well regulated militia part of the amendment. The military has all its weapons register with serial number accountablity for the weapons maintained. So does the National Guard - a militia in the pure sence of the word.

Seeing as registration has next to nil value for bringing in criminals, and that it provides an easy way for the government to find out who has guns, and that some figures in government (Janet Reno) have said that registration is just a step to consfication, and that registration and then consfication has occured in CA and NY, I'd say the only result of registration is making it easier to consficate guns. And the military? Its not like someone is going to advocate disarming them.

Yes indeed and your more then guilty of it.

If anything, I'm the frog who jumps out when the temp increases one degree.

I'm not even particularly outraged by it.

Have you seen the video of the old woman being tackled to the floor by police for holding a revolver by the barrel?

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

Federal troops were called in for law enforcement (and rarely used I understand) during the riots to back up the NG and civillian authorities. But I'm not aware of martial law being declared or habeas corpus being suspended. You could argue that the President violated the Posse Comitatus act though by deploying troops without congressional authority, I guess.

Your close - the general in charge refused to do some missions because of the Posse Comitatus act. The President placed him in a dangerous position declaring an emergency and giving him authority - but not getting Congress to declare it so.

But then, I never studied the LA riots in depth so maybe you have more information.

The similiarities between the two conditions are amazing - in regrads to looting and restoring order.

[Redleg]

It most certainly implies that the property must be taken in order to help the police cope the disaster. Nowhere in there does it talk about consfication or commandeering to prevent use of objects by looters. Cope in this sense means using something to help you get the job done. The police are not using the guns to help cope witht the disaster.

Then we have a difference in opinion - cope to me in the military sense of the word - is to do what you believe necessary to get the task accomplished. Not necessary use the equipment but also prevent others from using it.

Here you go: Morton Grove IL, where you are not allowed to posess a gun:
http://www.vpc.org/press/9503mg.htm

Okay one city that bans the possession of handguns - and the law is being questioned like it should through the courts for its constitutionality. Good it should be questioned.

You don't think anti-gunners are wtting themselves with excitement over the possibility this brings? The NOPD may not be actively trying to dismantle the 2nd amendment, but antis are going to use it as best they can. They'll scream about public safety, the need to keep guns out of criminal's hands during a disaster, etc.

And they would be guilty of the same hyperbole you were in declaring it the beginning of the end. If I heard an anti-weapon screaming in that way and using the crisis to futher their agenda - I would have the same sort of conservation with them. That they are using hyperbole to futher their political point and then I would point out the aspects of the constitution and the law that allows the government to do such a thing, and argue that the government can only do this type of activity under spefic conditions spelled out state by state. The Federal Constitution allows you to keep and bear arms - the Constitution allows the government to establish limited controls via the same amendment.

Seeing as registration has next to nil value for bringing in criminals, and that it provides an easy way for the government to find out who has guns, and that some figures in government (Janet Reno) have said that registration is just a step to consfication, and that registration and then consfication has occured in CA and NY, I'd say the only result of registration is making it easier to consficate guns. And the military? Its not like someone is going to advocate disarming them.

You missed the point - the 2nd Amendment also allows the government to set condtions about accountablity of weapons. Its within the wording of the amendment - a well regulated militia.

If anything, I'm the frog who jumps out when the temp increases one degree.

I wait until I see a pattern of problems - New Orleans is already being used by both groups to promote their cause concerning weapons - and in my opinion both are wrong because they are ignoring the why to promote their own agenda's on the issue.

Have you seen the video of the old woman being tackled to the floor by police for holding a revolver by the barrel?

Crazed Rabbit

Nope I normally stay away from television media - to much hyperbole used to make whatever point the so called journalist is trying to make.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Then we have a difference in opinion - cope to me in the military sense of the word - is to do what you believe necessary to get the task accomplished. Not necessary use the equipment but also prevent others from using it.

That is a valid interpretation of the word, but seeing as the laws do not pertain to a military operation so much as a police action, in which they siphon gas if they need to but don't take cars if they fear people are going to misuse them. The fact is, the relief effort is unlike a military operation in that the soldiers aren't fighting combatants, but trying to help people. Thinking in terms of denying these people access to guns or other things is wrong.

Okay one city that bans the possession of handguns - and the law is being questioned like it should through the courts for its constitutionality. Good it should be questioned.

Unfortunately both state and federal courts found it to be constitutional.

You missed the point - the 2nd Amendment also allows the government to set condtions about accountablity of weapons. Its within the wording of the amendment - a well regulated militia.

I am skeptical of how much controls the 2nd amendment allows, due to the 'shall not be infringed'. A lot of this is infringement. Not only that, one must realize the concept that anti-gunners are just going to use one small control as an excuse for more controls, as I have shown.

I wait until I see a pattern of problems - New Orleans is already being used by both groups to promote their cause concerning weapons - and in my opinion both are wrong because they are ignoring the why to promote their own agenda's on the issue.

I see an ongoing effort by many people, governmental and private groups, to destroy the 2nd amendment. I need not point them out to you.

I'll concede that this alone would not be the end. But it is the culmination of events that is the problem.

Nope I normally stay away from television media - to much hyperbole used to make whatever point the so called journalist is trying to make.

Not a bad idea. But it is worth viewing, just to get an idea of the outrageousness of it all.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

Not a bad idea. But it is worth viewing, just to get an idea of the outrageousness of it all.

Crazed Rabbit

Why when I can come here and hear it from the patrons of the .Org. No need to experience it for myself anymore. The crap done by all the media sources about the Invasion of Iraq has turned me off completely on Broadcast Media. I rather read about it.

[Adrian II]

Why when I can come here and hear it from the patrons of the .Org. No need to experience it for myself anymore. The crap done by all the media sources about the Invasion of Iraq has turned me off completely on Broadcast Media. I rather read about it.

Hear hear!

I kicked the 'habit' for two whole years. I just couldn't bother to replace the old TV when it broke down. Put it out with the garbage. Didn't miss the live footage, the hypes, the uninformed comment, the commercials and all the other junk for one second. The box is back since two years, but I hardly watch tv nowadays, my kids get 1/2 hour max and everybody is a lot more relaxed for it. Our Saturday nights are spent slooooowly cooking and eating, playing games, telling jokes and stories, relating experiences, all without some rectal aperture in the background telling us where it's at. I know the world is going to hell in a handcart, but my family sure isn't, not if I can help it.

[Redleg]

Hear hear!

I kicked the 'habit' for two whole years. I just couldn't bother to replace the old TV when it broke down. Put it out with the garbage. Didn't miss the live footage, the hypes, the uninformed comment, the commercials and all the other junk for one second. The box is back since two years, but I hardly watch tv nowadays, my kids get 1/2 hour max and everybody is a lot more relaxed for it. Our Saturday nights are spent slooooowly cooking and eating, playing games, telling jokes and stories, relating experiences, all without some rectal aperture in the background telling us where it's at. I know the world is going to hell in a handcart, but my family sure isn't, not if I can help it.

Well I am not that far yet. I still enjoy the History Channel, The Soprano's and now Rome on HBO, Law and Order on any of the cable networks and The SciFi channel when I have the chance. Other then that I am normally playing a computer game, swimmng with my son, or just relaxing doing absolutely nothing. Except when I am at work that is. Been working 50+ hours a week for ever.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I rarely watch TV. Hardly ever even watched it when we had it. Just the very rare news, the occasional movie (free HBO in college-so no commercials now!), or the simpsons.

Now...back to the topic(or at least it's cousin, twice removed); the reason America is so violent.

Some contenders:
1) The drug war
2) gang turf wars and the like
3) the culture (I'm against it, seems like an easy way to cop out without getting to the reason).

Anyone have any ideas?

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

I rarely watch TV. Hardly ever even watched it when we had it. Just the very rare news, the occasional movie (free HBO in college-so no commercials now!), or the simpsons.

Now...back to the topic(or at least it's cousin, twice removed); the reason America is so violent.

Some contenders:
1) The drug war
2) gang turf wars and the like
3) the culture (I'm against it, seems like an easy way to cop out without getting to the reason).

Anyone have any ideas?

Crazed Rabbit

The War on Drugs and the Gang Turf Wars are really part of the culture I think. One would have to go futher back then that. One of the main reasons for violence in the United States is our desire and ingrained philosophy of rugged individualism.

I read (or is it red) a book about the Scot-Irish influence on the culture of the United States - and this was one of groups that had a lot of influence on our culture. The rugged individualism is one of the traits the author wanted to place as a benefit of the Scots-Irish immigrants. If its true or not is for each one of us to decide.

Then if one takes a good look at our history - American's have always associated themselve with figures that shapped from that mold for the most part - even if its not completely true of the individual in question.

The United States was also a nation founded on opposition to oppressive government - which would lead one to question the government in everything it does, however the culture of the United States also instilled into us that its okay to use violence to solve our disputes. How many times growing up do you hear your father say its okay to fight as long as you did not start it?

Hell I learned how to pick a fight without throwing the first punch just for that reason alone.

Violence is shown to us everyday - in our media, in our writings, and yes even in our everyday life. When you live in a society that likes violent entertainment - some of its bound to wear off into how the society functions.

Kind of rambling I know - but the thought has only begin to gain formulation in my head - and it takes many monthes of thinking before I could come up with a rational and coherient thought on the magnitude of the question. What is amazing is that no one will ever actually agree on why the American Culture has a tendency to violence - I guess there are just to many factors to agree on any one or even two main reasons for it.

But what the hell its easy to blame Hollywood for pumping us the entertainment that we want to buy. (Hows that for blaming Hollywood and pointing out ourselves at the same time.)

[Claudius the God]

i'm so relieved to be living in a country where no one carries firearms except police. it's so much safer here in Australia, i would never want to travel to the USA.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Wow! How did you guys convince the criminals to not carry firearms?

[Crazed Rabbit]

i'm so relieved to be living in a country where no one carries firearms except police. it's so much safer here in Australia, i would never want to travel to the USA.

Really? I heard murders went up 300% in Queensland after the ban. Seems like the opposite of safety.

Crazed Rabbit

[scooter_the_shooter]

They did go up rabbit.


Wouldn't you feel safer packing Claudius the God