Flintlocks and Flop-topsAbout to go stand in line at the 1500, which promises to be like camping out for Aerosmith tickets this time around, since every time Barry open his mouth about guns another 1,000 Hoosiers go stand in line at the fairgrounds and he's been pretty much running his cakehole non-stop on the topic for a month.
And Number Three Russians
Black-powder Mausers
From jackbooted Prussians,
Shiny Smith PC's from limited runs
These are a few of my favorite guns.
Socketed bay'nets
On Zulu War rifles,
Engraved, iv'ried Lugers
That make quite an eyefull
Mosin tomato stakes sold by the ton
These are a few of my favorite guns.
Rusty top-breaks!
Smallbore Schuetzens!
And all of Browning's spawn
I just keep on browsing my favorite guns
Until all m... Oh my God! Does that line go all the way around the building?
As an aside, check the quislings they found to interview in line...
Look, the only way you can have mandatory background checks on private sales is to have a list of all the guns everybody owns so you know when they change hands, and you can't have a list of my guns because #@%$ you, that's why, so you might as well give up on the background check idea.
I have a show next weekend. It should be interesting. The last show they opened 1/2 a hour early because of the lines.
ReplyDeleteYou assume the .gov does stuff correctly. What they will do is to require a background check without a gun registry so they can make more people felons. What better way to drum up support for a failed policy than to make those that oppose said policy criminals?
ReplyDeleteGood luck with the 1500, you're crazier than I. The morning news had someone out there at 6am and the line was around the building. Yesterday people didn't get into the show before it closed.
Backwards, you have it. Pennsylvania bans private F2F sales, requiring everything go through an FFL so they can 4473 & NICS you.
ReplyDeleteThat is what creates the list. According to the PA State Gestapo web page: The Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Division is part of the Bureau of Records and Identification and is charged with maintaining records related to firearms licensing and transfers.
That's why the dot gov is licking its chops over universal NICS checks.
In other words, Pennsylvania has only a cosmetic ban on F2F sales because there's not a thing preventing them. Without knowing who has what, how do they know when they sell it?
ReplyDelete"Oh, this? Had it for years..."
"But I saw the guy in line behind you holding it just a minute ago!"
"He was carrying it for me because it had gotten heavy."
They'll set up stings. It won't hurt the mass of gun owners, but it will end up being a felony, so it will allow them to make us felons, and remove our gun rights. Even if they make it a misdemeanor, it will screw up CCW, and cost $$$$.
DeleteTam - As an aside, check the quislings they found to interview in line...
ReplyDeleteLook, the only way you can have mandatory background checks on private sales is to have a list of all the guns everybody owns so you know when they change hands...
This is how the Law of Unintended Consequences works. It's been suggested that mandating background checks is a Good Thing(TM), and, like all well-intentioned people, these folks go along with it without thinking ahead: "How will this actually work? Who keeps the records? What might they do with them?"
A good example is those schmucks in New York: even their cops can't carry high-cap mags anymore. So, unless they plan to arm the NYC po-po with 1911's and Remington Model 8's, they'll either have to break their own law or else hustle up and pass a new one (which, no doubt, will be a foul-up, too).
The Texas state Attorney General Greg Abbott tweeted today: "In Texas, we have a gun registry - it is called a phone book!"
ReplyDeleteGod bless Texas!
On another note, I keep waiting for the next stanza/verse of the fun show song.
ReplyDeleteYou know, a guy with a big cart carrying a huge coffee vat and a bunch of cups could make a lot of $$$ just wandering up and down that line of ready made, slightly chilled customers......
Kaeghl
I haven't been to a gunshow in several years (they are pretty pitiful out here in the PRK). All of a sudden though, a bunch of my friends and family are new gunowners and now they are inviting me.
ReplyDeleteThese guys are so amped I don't think I'll be able to keep up my gun Yoda persona much longer. Pretty soon most of them will have more guns than I do. One of them has even bought a Dillon reloader!
I am not sure where Anon 7:31 AM, January 19, 2013 got his information from but private F2F sales of long arms are legal (Also, blackpowder firearms do not require a background check). Only pistol sales are required to go through an FFL. You can check that out at http://www.pafoa.org/law.
ReplyDeleteChecked with a FFL Dealer Friend of mine. Since the BATFEIEIO said 3 hours after the Anointed One signed his Imperial edicts that it's okay to run Background Checks through a FFL Holder, it turns out that the LAW still applies, and the 4473 MUST be filled out. So if John Doe wants to sell his Grandpa's 1903 Springfield to Bob Smith, and he wants to run the Check on Bob, fill out the Form.
ReplyDeleteRight now, it's Voluntary, but if the House Republicans Cave......
Our Omaha gun show opened at 5:00 last night with over 1000 people waiting to get in. Most pistols are still reasonably priced, but all the EBR looking guns are priced anywhere from ridiculous to outrageous - and selling fast.
ReplyDelete" #@%$ you "
ReplyDeleteMy sentiments exactly.
OBTW: T-Bolt reported that a couple of guys got busted at a Maryland Gun Show recently for selling 30 round "Magazine Clips," but they were marked as 20 round. Maryland (as of this second) has a 20 round limit on "Magazine Clips". Seems there were UNDERCOVER STATE POLICE at the Show, and they made the Arrests on the Spot.
ReplyDeleteNice to know that LEO Resources are being Diverted from taking out Gangbangers, Rapists, Murderers, et.al., and are being Focused on going after the TRUE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIK OF AMERIKA, THE RKBA.
Yup, 20 rd. limit on mags in the People's Democratic Republic of Maryland. Gov. O'Malley (remember the name, there'll be a quiz later when he runs for Prez.) wants to make it 10. Also, 'restricted class' rifles & shotguns (EBR type stuff) go thru same waiting perjod as pistols. A Governor-appointed Handgun Roster Board decides which a those are oke-doke for peasants to buy, and makers must supply a fired casing for the State Po - Po's lab.
DeleteMy son owns an AK. Any idea how HARD 20 rounders are to find? (least around here...)
A prediction:
ReplyDeleteA mandatory background checks law passes.
(I envision it would be much like PA's law, any transfers of firearms are to be done with a FFL/4473 paper trail, with registration and records maintained (even though they claim they don't) by the .gov)
Shortly thereafter, .gov gets in on the game, setting up stings (very high profile stings--buying or selling a dreaded .50 cal that can shoot down space stations and Death Stars and such), offering to buy or sell a firearm F2F without going through the paper trail.
Someone bites, gets prosecuted (and vilified in the media, naturally).
Several prosecutions later, the majority of Americans who didn't support the law, and were still willing to do F2F transfers will voluntarily stop doing F2F transfers except to their own small circle of friends. It will shortly become common knowledge that if someone you don't personally know is talking about buying or selling a gun without doing the background check, that person is probably a .gov agent. (sort of like right now, if someone talks about blowing up a building or buying/selling a fully automatic weapon without a transfer--that person is a .gov agent, and he is fishing)
Voila, the law accomplishes the majority of what it set out to do, cowing the American public into submission.
Should they actually get the law passed, they will have cemented into the public's perception that all transfers must go through a background check, and anyone who doesn't is a bona fide criminal.
Twenty years on, the next generation will identify it as "just the way it is" and think nothing of it.
(I grew up in PA, and thought nothing of it, until I moved to a state where such things are not verboten. Unlike most, I saw no need to change the law to 'something like where I came from.' Freedom is nice.)
Gun registry? Sure, sounds extremely reasonable, what could go wrong?
ReplyDeleteOh, excuse me, a reporter from the Journal News wants to interview me about something. Yesterday it was that nice lad from Gawker.
PA only requires F2F transfers of short guns to go through an FFL with the Statzpolizie paperwork Longguns are exempt and can be treated like those in free America. Two forms are needed to buy a handgun, but just the 4473 for an EBG. Most FFLs will not transfer rifles for instate private sales, I have a paranoid buddy who insists on having a paper-trail of every gn he trades, and has to go to this one shop since no other ones are willing to put the private sale/trade on their books.
ReplyDeleteTAMARA YOU MAKE MY DAY !
ReplyDeleteYOUR "FUN SHOW SONG SONG" SHOULD ENSHRINE YOU AS THE "JULIE ANDREWS" OF
GOOD FREEDOM LOVING ORDNANCE PEOPLE
EVERYWHERE ! DO YOU THINK YOU AND
ROBERTA COULD CUT A RECORD IT COULD TOP THE CHARTS! SIGN ME UP FOR THE ALBUM
So, will psychotics who murder their parents to steal guns be required to fill out a 4473 for the stolen guns before they go on school-shooting rampages?
ReplyDeleteActually, I heard somewhere that 100% of all guns stolen don't go through a background check.
ReplyDeleteTime to end the Gun Theft Loophole!
What Joseph said at 7:19...
ReplyDeleteFar from innocuous, a law requiring what I've always called P2P and ya'll are calling F2F sales to be 4473'd and NICS'd creates an infraction that will stay on the QT only until you buy a piece from somebody who gets accused of swiping it or you sell one to somebody that does something stupid with it. That other party is gonna have their finger pointed at you so fast it'll make your head swim, not to mention, when's the last time you did a P2P without a written receipt intended to protect you from such claims (and if you haven't been that's teh stoopid), but now will tie you to it and the new felony that it documents?
You're wrong to be nonchalant on this one, Tam. Not at all a bone to be tossed as so many on our side have said, this shit needs to be fought tooth and nail.
PB
"Some of the things the President said about doing background checks and stuff on personal sales, I fully support that idea. I don't want to sell a gun to a felon who would then go and do something that would come back on me. I want to know who I'm selling to," said Jamin Filbrun.
ReplyDeleteBecause until the .gov authorizes/mandates it we can't act for ourselves. Like, I dunno, ADULTS. Ooo...tingly fingers! I love elevated BP.
Shrimp and the pawnbroker:
These are the worries. So many folks think that just sounds reasonable without consideration of the details or consequences.
Universal background checks? No. Emphatically.
Thanks,
JSG
@ Shrimp,
ReplyDelete"(I envision it would be much like PA's law, any transfers of firearms are to be done with a FFL/4473 paper trail, with registration and records maintained (even though they claim they don't) by the .gov)"
Keep in mind the recent list of 23 "gotchas". Requiring agencies to report info to the "background check" function stores the info on those forms, forever. And will be available to all federal, state, local govts, and for sale to special interest groups and significant campaign donor organizations and supporters.
State DMVs already share citizen ownership records, they have at least one working model to follow. Then there is the "personal responsibility" act (where the feds follow child support payors over state lines, via state registries, IRS records, and anything else in any records.
Good point, Brad K. I have a professional certification that is subject to a Driver's License Bureau check when I renew. If a DUI pops up, then it's revoked and I'm out of work.
ReplyDeleteA state by state registry will certainly become a de facto federal one.
Well, the government can't have a list of my guns either. Why? "because #@%$ you, that's why". End of story, nothing to see here.
ReplyDelete-Rob
Dumbasses ND at crowded funshows, and handing ammo to antis in the process...
ReplyDeletehttp://news.msn.com/us/2-hurt-in-accidental-shooting-at-nc-gun-show/
PB
PB,
ReplyDelete"You're wrong to be nonchalant on this one, Tam. Not at all a bone to be tossed as so many on our side have said, this shit needs to be fought tooth and nail."
If I were "nonchalant" about this, I wouldn't have referred to gun owners advocating it as "quislings".
It will shortly become common knowledge that if someone you don't personally know is talking about buying or selling a gun without doing the background check, that person is probably a .gov agent.
ReplyDeleteThat knowledge may end up causing a certain amount of unpleasantness in these "interesting times".
"a law requiring what I've always called P2P and ya'll are calling F2F sales to be 4473'd and NICS'd creates an infraction that will stay on the QT only until you buy a piece from somebody who gets accused of swiping it or you sell one to somebody that does something stupid with it. That other party is gonna have their finger pointed at you so fast it'll make your head swim"
ReplyDeleteYup. That's why it's completely impossible to buy drugs anywhere in America today...
[I wouldn't have referred to gun owners advocating it as "quislings".]
ReplyDeleteyeah, I know, I had to look it up too, as did most of ussnz here.
Tam has singlehandedly resurrected an old name and made it new again. She and others have used the word over the recent past quite effectively.
Rich in NC
What's the term I'm looking for here...
ReplyDelete"Willfully obtuse." Yeah that's it.
"...the only way you can have mandatory background checks on private sales is to have a list of all the guns everybody owns so you know when they change hands..."
Wrong. No lists needed. Just pass a law and poof! P2P NICS is mandatory. And unless you plan to not buy or sell a gun privately ever again, you'll break it.
Of course the drugs comparison is so disconnected it's just dopey.
Anyway, glad Clem didn't cap you when he ND'd at the 500 today.
Seriously, anybody who's read this blog for more than a week and thinks I'm willing to throw out background checks on private sales as a sop to the antis might just as well tattoo "I Can't Fucking Read English" on their forehead.
ReplyDeleteI put up with you after everybody else flushed you down the Pompous Git Shitter, Mister Pwnedbroker, because I'm just amazingly tolerant, but it is ON now, motherfucker.
If it's "ON" you'll need that beautiful sharp snark and razor wit of yours, not drunken crudity.
ReplyDeleteThat your sway in the community and dismissive treatment of the issue might just lead more "quislings" to acquiesce, is my obvious and only point.
Delete my comments, ban me, whatevs; your porch, your rules. Doesn't change anything.
"everybody else"? Cites? Didn't think so. Ain't nary'n.
If the NICS was open to everyone and you could enter info on a web page and get back a "OK" "NOT OK" or "BLOCKED" result, and *no record* was kept afterwards, I'd go for that. (BLOCKED means that you've put a block on your own record so another person can't use the NICS to check you if you don't want to be checked) Also, you can put a contact into your NICS record that will alert you every time a check is run on you.
ReplyDeleteMost FFLs will be glad to conduct the NICS check for your private sale, but be prepared to pay a transfer fee for them to place the weapon on their books.
ReplyDeleteIt would be much easier to keep a list of those who are prohibited from possessing a firearm as public record that could be checked as easily as looking up a phone number. Have you ever notice that your credit card works much quicker at some brands of gas stations? Those gas stations maintain a negative lookup table - a list of known bad credit cards. It is much quicker for the Point of Sale system to query the negative file than to wait for a response from the bank via even a satellite network as to whether your credit card is good for another $75.
The problem is not so much possession of weapon as misuse of a weapon. Many people, including those on the prohibited list, wear shoes everyday but only misuse them when they kick somebody while wearing them. That misuse is a felony. Many people, included those on the prohibited list, drive motor vehicles but it is the rare driver who attempts to run over people with a motor vehicle. That misuse is a felony. Many people, included those on the prohibited list, own sporting goods like baseball bats and golf clubs, but it is the rare sporting goods owner that uses it to beat someone. That misuse is a felony. Hammers... Tire tools... See the trend here? You are more likely to be killed with a blunt instrument than to be killed with a long arm in U.S., but that does not shut down the sporting goods industry with calls for background checks before you purchase a Little League baseball bat for your child.
Answer one question, Mr. Pawnbroker:
ReplyDeleteWould this legislation have been useful to disarm European Jews in the 1930s and 40s?
I have no patience with genocide enablers ... even ones that are merely bone stupid like you.
@ RevolverRob,
ReplyDelete"government can't have a list of my guns "
You know, I wonder whether insurance companies, and claims adjusters, could keep insured resources, like, say, a gun safe and contents, private if a court, or the BATFE, or other agency comes asking. Not to mention private investigators. I haven't heard of the feds authorizing a bounty for reporting private weapons owned . .
The answer has to be to get the government out of the weapons-counting game. Nothing else will preserve the teeth and value of the 2nd Amendment.
@Kristopher:
ReplyDeleteDude, only explanation is that you didn't read or just can't comprehend any of the comments. But hey, it's not your fault; they probably gave you a gold star and a social promotion in grade school.
Illiteracy. It's a terrible thing.
Let's pick up the dope analogy.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bad one for Tam's assertions that a P2P 4473/NICS law would have no effect on her private stash, unless as I said above she never plans to add to or pare it.
She says the WOSD has not stopped the commerce, and she's right. There's a demand and there's profit, and no law is going to interrupt that.
Demand? Profit? Yeah, there's a bit of that in firearms too. So sales will continue, law or no law. And if they're undocumented, they'll probably incur a felony on both sides; again, same as the drug biz, except the majority of those charges are M's of varying.
And yet our jails and prisons are half-full of folks who have committed the victimless crime of buying or selling that which .gov has deemed illegal. This is due to one party or the other ratting out someone, untold gazillions of taxpayer dollars expended on enforcement, stings, etc., or someone who partakes doing something stupid like DUI or robbing a c-store to stay supplied with his poison of choice.
All of those methods will result in charges of breaking the gun law too, and this time they'll all likely be F's carrying serious time and loss of rights. I for one choose to do what I can to prevent the law from taking effect rather than try to keep my transactions at the level of "pssst, hey buddy, wanna buy a Glock?".
And of course the last time I checked, bags, bundles, and bales of dope didn't carry serial numbers and signed, dated receipts. All of which will make it a lot easier to create that database and seizure list that you just know has a lot of *them* licking their chops in anticipation.
Can't let this shit happen, ya'll.
I read your comments, PB.
ReplyDeleteI understood them perfectly. I just considered your opinion to be Fuddist bullshit.
You are making a typical mistake here ... assuming that if someone does not agree with you, then they must either have reading comprehension issues, or are just too stupid to see your point.
No one here is stupid, PB.
We just consider your base assumption, that registration is a public good, to be anathema.
Kristopher there's no "we"; only you that could possibly believe after reading my comments that my "base assumption" is that registration is a public good.
ReplyDeleteSo yeah. To use your own assessment of your own self. either you have reading comprehension issues. or you're just too stupid to see my point.
PB,
ReplyDelete"It's a bad one for Tam's assertions that a P2P 4473/NICS law would have no effect on her private stash..."
You mean Pwndbroker's made-up assertions.
Seriously, though; back to these claims you make that another Assault Weapons Ban would cut gun crime. It's obvious that it would not, since AWBs never have any effect on gun crime, so you advocating it is just rank nonsense. Really, I thought you were smarter than that.
Is that the best you can do, PB?
ReplyDeleteThe "Assault Rifle" bad w3as demonstrated to have no effect on crime during it's existence.
Criminals do not participate in form 4473 gun registration schemes, but they still get guns, regardless.
This might have something to do with criminals not obeying laws.
Restrictions on honest gun owners will never prevent criminals from arming themselves.
Which begs the question, why have these restrictions?
Apparently you don't get this, or you do get it, but are hoping that if you throw the owners of self-loading rifles to the wolves, they will be sated, and won't eat you last.
So, you are either bone stupid, or a quisling.
Wow. I'm getting whiplash trying to figure out what happened here. Everybody has an off day on occasion, but it looks like it's contagious, maybe. Either that, or people are cross-posting from multiple threads, or something.
ReplyDeleteI come here because of the brain-power that shows up to disect the subjects that Tam considers interesting or important. This can lead to a bit of friction, obviously. But, generally, most all of you heavy hitters play by the mostly unwritten rules.
Mis-reading, Mis-understanding, lack of understanding, talking past each other, temper tantrums, imprecise use of language, whatever. I'm seeing a good impersonation of a bunch of children in a sandbox.
Maybe it's just the stress of the political situation getting to us. I know I'm feeling the effects, lately.
Let's try not to eat our own, OK?
Tams,
ReplyDeleteMe advocating anything related to bans, registration, control, or limitation of firearms is indeed rank nonsense; really just more of your adolescent, diversionary, baseless, and citeless fiction in an attempt to disown your words.
While you can't produce a single quote of mine as to this advocating you fabricated, your blindness to the effect and impact of P2P documentation is all right there in your post and comments for anybody with a brain (that lets you out Kristopher) to see.
So again, do you really think that all of our private collections are safe from effect just because you won't provide a list, not seeing that enforcement will be inciden-driven and the results catastrophic, or do you just refuse to admit that you failed to consider that when you said the law would be toothless and harmless?
And if it's "ON", try to leave the freshman debate tactics and schoolyard epithets aside, and address the issue straightup.
Kristopher, I'd say you were retarded if that wouldn't be denigrating all the retarded folks in the world...not sure whose comments you're referencing, or if you're just following Tam's lead in making shit up, but give me a quote if you can find one even remotely supporting what you've said.
PB,
ReplyDelete"Me advocating anything related to bans, registration, control, or limitation of firearms is indeed rank nonsense..."
I agree, so why don't you stop calling for confiscation of so-called "assault weapons", since you yourself just admitted that it's, and I quote, "nonsense"?
Well shit, 5th grade Tamara; that's "ON"? So disappointed.
ReplyDeleteYou are embarrassing yourself. It's funny, but sad.
It's good to see you acknowledge the weakness of your argument.
ReplyDelete"Remember, it's not a lie, if *you* believe it."
ReplyDeleteG. Costanza
Will, from what I am understanding here is what happened;
ReplyDeleteTam said that any law purporting to prevent private sales was unenforceable without registration because the powers that be would have no ability to know who owned what, when.
Pawnbroker mistakes Tam's point about the unenforceable for nonchalance.
Tam corrects Pawnbroker's mistake and addresses Pawnbroker's convoluted point about the legal dangers of breaking the law by pointing out a law involving prohibited substances that is frequently broken.
Pawnbroker completely misses the point of the whole exchange and declares victory.
Tam declares war.
Pawnbroker sticks his fingers in his ear and starts shouting "La lala la."
Did I miss anything?
jetaz,
ReplyDeleteRight in one! :)
'Cause drug laws are unenforceable and nobody ever gets locked up on account of 'em.
ReplyDeleteSad little suckups will soon see about "enforceable" if this shit comes to pass.
But you made Tams happy that her pwns will defend their queen to their death...right or wrong? pffft.
Let's get back to the Fun Show Song...add the next verse with Kumbaya, my gunnies, or something like that.
ReplyDeleteGlad I invested in 22 before the rush started. Like trying to find a matched set of Hen's Teeth.
Couple buds of mine report that when available, bricks are now down to 400 and sometimes even the 250 range, with limits of one per customer and pricing levels approaching the old 500+ size.
Ow.
223/556 pricing makes me reconsider a 401 k.
We have an upcoming "Fun Show", and I'm not sure I wanna go, due to the last time. The place was packed and pushing a stroller through teeming masses of humanity was a chore. The Glenfield Marlin 3030 I picked up at the very end was nice enough to make up for it...
"Tam said that any law purporting to prevent private sales was unenforceable without registration..."
ReplyDelete"Right in one."
Well, they don't want to prevent them, "just" record them. But the fact that this dweeb and untold silent others have taken Tam's snark as legal advice -at great potential peril if her drug enforcement parallel holds- was my caution right along.
And while I know the vast majority of intelligent readers here understand that SINAL, I do find the silence of the esq's on staff here on the porch to be deafening as to the actual enforcement and ramifications of this greatest threat to 2A rights to come down the pike in...well, ever.
Meanwhile, Senaturd Schumer and his like are positively giddy at the prospect of passage of "universal background checks" as the path of least resistance specifically because many on "our" side -whether Tam's quislings or those who have been told and believe that there can be no enforcement- are more amenable to it than restrictions on specific hardware. Yet while the latter would fail miserably again while lining the pockets of makers and sellers of "pre-ban" goods, the former will make criminals of thousands overnight and would likely never be revoked, becoming the new normal as someone from PA said above.
I'm done here; further minions and schoolyard taunts will be ignored...but I would be interested to see the opinions of actual, you know, lawyers, as to the impact of passage and enforcement of universal background checks. Gentlemen?
-30-
PB: If you want to debate the impact of registration schemes with actual lawyers, take this question over to the Volokh Conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteI would like to watch that collection of conservative lawyers draw and quarter you over this.
See, Pawnbroker what you are missing is that no-one here want's p2p or f2f or any other silly acronym to become law. And everyone here will fight to prevent such a thing from occurring on the federal level and in their own states. NOBODY IS SAYING THAT IT IS AN ACCEPTABLE "COMPROMISE."
ReplyDeleteBut to your point that "drug laws are unenforceable and nobody ever gets locked up on account of 'em." It is not just the sale of drugs that is banned. It is also the possession. Almost everybody who is arrested because they are selling drugs was also arrested for having drugs. As long as they don't ban firearms, and they don't build a registration scheme, the powers that be cannot prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you sold a firearm to someone else, unless they catch you in a sting.
The fact that it is a stupid useless law, and we are pointing out the sheer idiocy of thinking that "hey it's illegal, so no-one is going to do it anymore" DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANYONE HERE WANTS TO ALLOW SUCH A STUPID FUCKING LAW TO GET PASSED.
But hey, what do I know, I am just a minion and quisling, right Pawnbroker?
You mean Pwndbroker's made-up assertions.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, though; back to these claims you make that another Assault Weapons Ban would cut gun crime.
The subtle twists and turns of Tam's convoluted mind. That is such glorious poetic justice. And all that follows makes is so much sweeter...
Am I now a minion? I want my minion pay and benefits and somebody better be getting my minion pension ready...
JSG