California unbans cool guns

  • 94 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
vl4d_l3nin

2896

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#51 vl4d_l3nin
Member since 2013 • 2896 Posts

@LJS9502_basic:And every able-bodied person qualified for the militia (i.e. the people). This training was done on their own accord.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

3993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#52 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 3993 Posts

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.

Richard Henry Lee

No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.

William Rawle

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.

George Washington

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

Thomas Jefferson

To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

George Mason

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

Samuel Adams

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an Americans.

Tench Coxe

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.

Alexander Hamilton

Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense.

John Adams

Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. [...] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

Richard Henry Lee

And people still going to pretend this is about the National Guard or hunting. Give me a break. If you want to disagree with the founders, by all means that is your right to do so. But do not try to twist their words to your meanings, and try to misinform others.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172910 Posts

@vl4d_l3nin said:

@LJS9502_basic:And every able-bodied person qualified for the militia (i.e. the people). This training was done on their own accord.

No. They actually had scheduled training.

Avatar image for pyro1245
pyro1245

7604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#54  Edited By pyro1245
Member since 2003 • 7604 Posts

@eoten Haha those were crazy times, eh?:

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

3993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#56 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 3993 Posts

@pyro1245 said:

@eoten Haha those were crazy times, eh?:

And I'll have to repost those quotes the next time the topic comes up and the same people on this thread now will be pretending again that none of the founders ever said any of that.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#57 TheNation  Online
Member since 2021 • 355 Posts

@eoten: Source that they did.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

3993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#58 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 3993 Posts

@thenation said:

@eoten: Source that they did.

These quotes are from published documents such as the federalist papers, and documents and works published by the individual themselves. You are more than capable of looking them up yourself.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

125280

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#59 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 125280 Posts

@eoten: I am trying find out what is acceptable. Having an automatic weapon with exploding bullets, is that within the law?

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

3993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#60  Edited By Eoten
Member since 2020 • 3993 Posts

@horgen said:

@eoten: I am trying find out what is acceptable. Having an automatic weapon with exploding bullets, is that within the law?

Full auto is protected by the constitution according to the US vs Miller case which ruled that the second amendment applied to weapons in common use with the military. The 34 NFA hasn't been challenged on those grounds yet but if it were, the NFA itself would likely be overturned. Exploding bullets aren't actually a thing.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

15286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 15286 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:

@LJS9502_basic:And every able-bodied person qualified for the militia (i.e. the people). This training was done on their own accord.

No. They actually had scheduled training.

It's amazing how wrong the conservatives posters are ITT at every turn.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
Solaryellow

6203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62 Solaryellow
Member since 2013 • 6203 Posts

@horgen said:

@eoten: I am trying find out what is acceptable. Having an automatic weapon with exploding bullets, is that within the law?

Would be so kind as to expand upon your idea of exploding bullets?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172910 Posts

@eoten : Those quotes are immaterial. None of those people foresaw what weapons would be developed and I can assure you they would NOT be okay with all the mass shootings. You also have to understand the historical context, which you don't. They expected a well regulated militia to defend the country because they didn't trust a standing army. We have a standing army. Armed citizenry isn't defending anything. Including against the military if it goes rouge or follows a wannabe dictator like trump. This is NOT Red Dawn. You're not a wolverine.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

15286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 15286 Posts

@Solaryellow said:
@horgen said:

@eoten: I am trying find out what is acceptable. Having an automatic weapon with exploding bullets, is that within the law?

Would be so kind as to expand upon your idea of exploding bullets?

He's been playing too many video games!

Avatar image for Solaryellow
Solaryellow

6203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 Solaryellow
Member since 2013 • 6203 Posts

@zaryia said:
@Solaryellow said:

Would be so kind as to expand upon your idea of exploding bullets?

He's been playing too many video games!

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

125280

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#66 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 125280 Posts

@zaryia said:
@Solaryellow said:
@horgen said:

@eoten: I am trying find out what is acceptable. Having an automatic weapon with exploding bullets, is that within the law?

Would be so kind as to expand upon your idea of exploding bullets?

He's been playing too many video games!

Next up you're telling me the Phoenix from Perfect Dark isn't a real gun either.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

3993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#67 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 3993 Posts

It's amazing how those who want to pick and choose which guns the rest of us should be allowed to have, know absolutely nothing about them.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172910 Posts

@eoten said:

It's amazing how those who want to pick and choose which guns the rest of us should be allowed to have, know absolutely nothing about them.

Your entire spiel here is assumptions.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

3993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#69 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 3993 Posts
@LJS9502_basic said:

@eoten : Those quotes are immaterial. None of those people foresaw what weapons would be developed and I can assure you they would NOT be okay with all the mass shootings. You also have to understand the historical context, which you don't. They expected a well regulated militia to defend the country because they didn't trust a standing army. We have a standing army. Armed citizenry isn't defending anything. Including against the military if it goes rouge or follows a wannabe dictator like trump. This is NOT Red Dawn. You're not a wolverine.

You're talking out your ass again. The founders were also very concerned about people being able to defend themselves against a rogue government. That risk has not gone away. They also mentioned the aspect of self defense, again, this has not gone anywhere. The historical context is not very different from the modern one. You're trying to fill in blanks that aren't there, and twist their words and tell me what they'd believe today when you didn't even have a clue what they said or believed back then.

It's the law of the land and unless you get 2/3 of the states to agree to change that, it's not changing.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172910 Posts

@eoten said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

@eoten : Those quotes are immaterial. None of those people foresaw what weapons would be developed and I can assure you they would NOT be okay with all the mass shootings. You also have to understand the historical context, which you don't. They expected a well regulated militia to defend the country because they didn't trust a standing army. We have a standing army. Armed citizenry isn't defending anything. Including against the military if it goes rouge or follows a wannabe dictator like trump. This is NOT Red Dawn. You're not a wolverine.

You're talking out your ass again. The founders were also very concerned about people being able to defend themselves against a rogue government. That risk has not gone away. They also mentioned the aspect of self defense, again, this has not gone anywhere. The historical context is not very different from the modern one. You're trying to fill in blanks that aren't there, and twist their words and tell me what they'd believe today when you didn't even have a clue what they said or believed back then.

It's the law of the land and unless you get 2/3 of the states to agree to change that, it's not changing.

Actually it changes if the SC redefines it. FYI it wasn't always the interpretation.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#71 TheNation  Online
Member since 2021 • 355 Posts

@eoten: I’m going to cross check your quotes. I’ve seen words from them twisted before.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

3993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#72 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 3993 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@eoten said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

@eoten : Those quotes are immaterial. None of those people foresaw what weapons would be developed and I can assure you they would NOT be okay with all the mass shootings. You also have to understand the historical context, which you don't. They expected a well regulated militia to defend the country because they didn't trust a standing army. We have a standing army. Armed citizenry isn't defending anything. Including against the military if it goes rouge or follows a wannabe dictator like trump. This is NOT Red Dawn. You're not a wolverine.

You're talking out your ass again. The founders were also very concerned about people being able to defend themselves against a rogue government. That risk has not gone away. They also mentioned the aspect of self defense, again, this has not gone anywhere. The historical context is not very different from the modern one. You're trying to fill in blanks that aren't there, and twist their words and tell me what they'd believe today when you didn't even have a clue what they said or believed back then.

It's the law of the land and unless you get 2/3 of the states to agree to change that, it's not changing.

Actually it changes if the SC redefines it. FYI it wasn't always the interpretation.

It doesn't. What the 2A says is clear. Hoping an activist court will reinterpret it your way in order to circumvent the legal process is exactly the kind of overreach the founders warned us about.

Avatar image for judaspete
judaspete

4745

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#73 judaspete
Member since 2005 • 4745 Posts

Should we be allowed to have tanks to protect ourselves from a rogue government? Cuz I don't think even AR-13s are going to cut it against a modern military.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#74 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172910 Posts

@eoten said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Actually it changes if the SC redefines it. FYI it wasn't always the interpretation.

It doesn't. What the 2A says is clear. Hoping an activist court will reinterpret it your way in order to circumvent the legal process is exactly the kind of overreach the founders warned us about.

If what the 2A says is clear then it shouldn't have changed but it did.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#75  Edited By TheNation  Online
Member since 2021 • 355 Posts

“ A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.”

If anybody wants to see the whole statement by Jefferson. FYI, Jefferson never said or wrote that, it was a passage he included in his book "Legal Commonplace Book”. At least quote it right.

https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/laws-forbid-carrying-armsspurious-quotation

FYI, eoten you need to make your own arguments. The burden is on you to defend and source your own statements. Stop misquoting people and cherry picking statements. It’s not our job to back up your comments. Know provide sources or concede those statements mean nothing. All it took me was 10 seconds to trash one.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#76  Edited By TheNation  Online
Member since 2021 • 355 Posts

http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Quotes.htm

Read. Should provide more context.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

3993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#77 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 3993 Posts

@thenation said:

http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Quotes.htm

Read. Should provide more context.

So you scoured the internet until you find a website that said it is wrong without providing any evidence of the sort? ROFLMFAO!

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

3993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#78 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 3993 Posts
@LJS9502_basic said:
@eoten said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Actually it changes if the SC redefines it. FYI it wasn't always the interpretation.

It doesn't. What the 2A says is clear. Hoping an activist court will reinterpret it your way in order to circumvent the legal process is exactly the kind of overreach the founders warned us about.

If what the 2A says is clear then it shouldn't have changed but it did.

It hasn't.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#79 TheNation  Online
Member since 2021 • 355 Posts

@eoten: lol. You scoured the internet for quotes that agreed with you, provided zero proof of them and got them wrong. Nice try.

And the 2A has changed, as in the interpretation. Even back then the founders disagreed.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

3993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#80 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 3993 Posts

@thenation said:

@eoten: lol. You scoured the internet for quotes that agreed with you, provided zero proof of them and got them wrong. Nice try.

And the 2A has changed, as in the interpretation. Even back then the founders disagreed.

Lmfao, yeah, sure, keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile unconstitutional laws such as those passed by California will continue to get thrown in the trash where they belong and there's nothing you can do about it.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#81 TheNation  Online
Member since 2021 • 355 Posts

@eoten: LMAO. If you say so. Lol

Avatar image for kadin_kai
Kadin_Kai

1646

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#82 Kadin_Kai
Member since 2015 • 1646 Posts

One day Americans will be armed with laser guns and light sabres!

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#83 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172910 Posts

@eoten said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

If what the 2A says is clear then it shouldn't have changed but it did.

It hasn't.

I suggest research but something tells me you're afraid of that.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#84  Edited By TheNation  Online
Member since 2021 • 355 Posts

@LJS9502_basic: Obvious. This ruling will be tossed in the the next 10 years. Thank god the right is fading away.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

3993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#85 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 3993 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@eoten said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

If what the 2A says is clear then it shouldn't have changed but it did.

It hasn't.

I suggest research but something tells me you're afraid of that.

Oh? Tell me, when did it change?

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#86 TheNation  Online
Member since 2021 • 355 Posts

@eoten: You afraid of research? And it’s the interpretation, you are posting in a thread where that literally just happened.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

15286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#87  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 15286 Posts

@thenation said:

@eoten: You afraid of research? And it’s the interpretation, you are posting in a thread where that literally just happened.

He can never refute citation properly, which is why he always loses.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#88 TheNation  Online
Member since 2021 • 355 Posts

@zaryia: He did that to me. I posted two citations, he ignored one and didn’t read the other but still claimed it was bad. Why did you edit this?

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

15286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#89  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 15286 Posts

@thenation said:

@zaryia: He did that to me. I posted two citations, he ignored one and didn’t read the other but still claimed it was bad. Why did you edit this?

I was confused on the quote chain tbh. Wasn't sure if he was completely ignoring the citation or saying it's wrong without proof. Or both.

Either way he's bad at all of this and I do not know why he bothers to post in this section.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#90 TheNation  Online
Member since 2021 • 355 Posts

@zaryia: Both.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

3993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#91 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 3993 Posts

@thenation said:

@eoten: You afraid of research? And it’s the interpretation, you are posting in a thread where that literally just happened.

You said the 2A used to be interpreted differently. So apparently you must know of that previous interpretation and when SCOTUS made that ruling that gun ownership EVER required membership in some kind of state militia. Here, I'll help you out. There have been two major 2A cases in front of SCOTUS. US vs Miller in 1939, and DC vs Heller in 2010.

US vs Miller made ZERO comments about militia, and made no attempt to define it. It was a case in relation to a man owning a short barrel shotgun restricted under the 1934 National Firearms Act. The court ruled that the short barrel shotgun was not protected under the Second Amendment because short barrel shotguns were not a common piece of military equipment. By that same 1939 ruling, regulations against full auto, suppressors, and short barrels can, and eventually will be overturned as all three of the major restrictions of the NFA are now common military equipment.

The second case, DC vs Heller was a case about DC's total ban on handgun ownership which the court ruled they had no authority to do, and is the ONLY case that affirmed that the 2A protects the right of the people. It did not overturn any pre-existing defintions, it didn't create its own either, and the decision was based on publications written by the founders themselves which described what the 2A protects.

That right hasn't changed since the founders wrote the 2A, it isn't different now, and no, it's not going to change in 10 years either. If you're so damn scared of guns, imagine this... if you had $1 for every AR-15 in civilian hands in the United States today, you'd have more money than you will, or will ever earn in your entire lifetime ;-). They're not going away. So if you're so afraid of the millions, and millions, and millions of people who own them, tough shit.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#92 TheNation  Online
Member since 2021 • 355 Posts

@eoten: LMFAO!!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣 Why did you post two cases that said gun regulations were legal? Did you read the entire ruling or just google SCOTUS gun cases and ran with it? That also shows the interpretation has changed….Why own yourself?

Nobody is afraid of gun owners, stop misrepresenting what we stand for. It will change as the country moves left and wants common sense gun laws.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

3993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#93  Edited By Eoten
Member since 2020 • 3993 Posts

@thenation said:

@eoten: LMFAO!!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣 Why did you post two cases that said gun regulations were legal? Did you read the entire ruling or just google SCOTUS gun cases and ran with it? That also shows the interpretation has changed….Why own yourself?

Nobody is afraid of gun owners, stop misrepresenting what we stand for. It will change as the country moves left and wants common sense gun laws.

You have got to be daft, or trolling. And you do realize the country is no more "blue" today than it was 60 years ago, don't you? Not sure where this big change is you're looking for. And it doesn't matter what gun laws the left wants, you're still going to need 2/3 of the states to agree to allow them to exist first.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#94 TheNation  Online
Member since 2021 • 355 Posts

@eoten: Personal attacks? I wish you were better than that. Look it up, each generation as been more left than the last, denying that doesn’t make it false. No more blue? Are you serious? Have you not been paying attention to voting trends? You lost here, move on.

Avatar image for thenation
TheNation

355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#95 TheNation  Online
Member since 2021 • 355 Posts

https://www.aspenideas.org/sessions/not-your-parents-party-how-gens-x-y-and-z-will-shake-up-our-politics?utm_source=google&utm_medium=adgrant&utm_campaign=USA&utm_term=millenials%20and%20politics&gclid=CjwKCAjwtpGGBhBJEiwAyRZX2lY2JUDydEVQwh_3pTIVVvGrYOVgbnP_-UZgrJnENdnZYQLU9-mRTBoCbSMQAvD_BwE

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/01/the-generation-gap-in-american-politics/

Oh I have more…..WAY more! The country is moving left. Deal with it!