Since the [proposed legislation makes it a felony to create a database, I guess you dont have a problem then.

The law is that they dont have to do checks at all gun shows. This is different than some story you have about a gun show that did check your background.

laws are different from state to state, and you shouldn't just dismiss somebody's real-world experience because it bothers you. there are a few people in this thread who seem almost blind, and unwilling to learn anything that they disagree with. i've posed this question to you before, but much like anything that you disagree with, you choose to ignore it. here it is again: how many gun shows have you been to? are you familiar with the format, because it sure doesn't seem like it.

i have been to a few, and from my real-world experience, not what tv tells me, this is the general setup: its basically just a series of booths set up by both firearms manufactures and as well as distributors, like local gunshops and websites. both of these groups are required to have an ffl, and thus, are required to do a backround check on all firearms purchases. now, depending on state law, private sales may go down, and they do, but its pretty rare, and they are usually discouraged. its no different than any other private sale in a state in which those sales are already allowed. also, i've addressed the internet sales many times in this thread, but many of you still seem to be sure that you can just buy a weapon no questions asked and have it shipped to your house.

its all not even really worth arguing about for the simple fact that the legislation is dead in the water, and its unlikely to see the light of day for some time. blame it on the evil bloodthirsty nra all you want, but they speak for millions of law abiding americans, despite what some silly poll of a few thousand people might have you believe. the nra does alot of good, they are one of the biggest proponents and financial supporter of firearms safety classes that so many people seem to advocate. if you guys despise the nra so much, the simple solution is to donate some of your own money to the brady campaign or the wet dream organisation of that silly authoritarian dope from nyc, mayors against illegal(all) guns.

What happened in Nazi Germany?

Why did someone in the military tell you that? That doesn't make any sense. The Soviet Union was the only nation with any strategic capability to invade the United States and such an action certainly would be deterred by the US's nuclear capability. Why would even one reason that the Soviet Union declined to invade the US be because of tactical weapons in citizen hands?

the nazi's systematically disarmed an entire race of people and then wiped them out. more than likely it would have happened either way, but at the very least the jews would have been able to take some of them down with them. i'm not going to argue that that's the path that we are going down now, but the gun control argument is the best case imo for the whole "slippery slope" argument. with regards to the gun control debate, that AA saying always rings true with me, no matter what side you are on:"one is way too many, 1000 is never enough." no matter how much all forms of violent crime has fallen, 49% according to the fbi over the last 20 years, there is a certain segment of the population who will never be satisfied with the amount of restrictions, until all of the legal guns are gone.

the reasons for this are many, but a common theme seems to be a lack of education about firearms and the current restrictions already in place, and just not liking guns period. it boggles my mind why someone whouldn't want to have a means of protection independent from the police for themselves and their families these days, just in case. to each his own, but just remember that however unlikely, bad things happen to good people, and it often takes more than a sharp wit to get yourself out of the situation. thank god we still live in a country where people are allowed the common-sense right to self-defense, and i will make full use of mine, thank you!

Oh, I thought your intention was to represent that Nazi Germany disarmed all Germans.

this seems to be a common theme with you. if somebody makes a mistake, and then owns up to it, you still love to hold it above them like some master of knowledge. despite the way some may treat you on here, you are not the master of all things, and i'm sure that you have made mistakes before. with me, my ego isn't so inflated that i'm unwilling to admit a mistake on an an anonymous message board. if i'm wrong, incorrect, or just confused about something and somebody is there to correct me, great i just learned something.

It seems to me that the argument against restrictions comes down to two things:

1. Paranoia - it's a slippery slope that will end when all the guns are taken away, plus people who want more regulations will lead us down the same road that the Nazis led the Jews.

2. Don't take away my fun - it's fun to shoot up stuff.

I would never, ever want to take away someone's right to defend themselves and their property or to hunt for food and/or pleasure. However, there are certain weapons which were developed for use by the military. Their only reason for existence is to wipe out as many human beings as possible in as short a timeframe as possible. Those weapons should not be allowed in civilian hands - be it the actual weapons or high-capacity magazines, for example.

These same arguments can be made over and over and over and over. Nobody is going to listen if their minds are made up, not on either side.

it seems to me that the argument FOR restrictions comes down to 2 things...

#1 nobody is coming for your guns, we believe in the 2nd amendment (at least the constant erosion of it). we are just proposing reasonable restrictions, one step at a time, or as much as we can push for by exploiting whatever tragedy we feel like.

#2 we don't own any guns, so the reality is we don't give a shit if all of the weapons were taken away tomorrow. we only care about the rights that are important to us, rather than having a broader understanding that all rights are important and should be protected equally.


people say they are for your rights to self defense, but then again at the same time will tell you that X, Y, or Z weapons are not needed for self defense, despite not knowing anything about the weapons in question, or your own personal set of circumstances that might make one weapon a better choice for you personally.

there is a huge segment of the population unwilling to look at the big picture: violent crime has been on a steady and substancial decline for a long time now, and the country is safer as a whole than its ever been. i shouldn't lose my rights because of a few random crazy people no matter what we are talking about. for those of you who will counter with the usual "nobody is taking away your guns/rights", here's a newflash: calling for me to not be able to posses a certain class of weapons is most certainly taking away my rights. if we follow that twisted logic, as long as i'm able to own a musket, then my 2nd amendment rights aren't being infringed apon, right? what certain people are unable to grasp is that, much to their dismay, there is no way to legislate away craziness!

And I find that people who bring up the 2nd Amendment often forget these three little words - "Well-regulated militia". Also, while the Supreme Court upheld that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed citizens the right to bear arms, it also said that doesn't mean they can carry any weapon they want for any reason they want. In other words, it doesn't promise that there won't be restrictions on the types of weapons the law allows.

Although I have asked this question over and over again, nobody seems to want to answer it. The US is one of the leaders in the world re: annual number of gun deaths per 100,000 people. Is it because of our gun laws or are we a more inherently violent people? Do we change the psychology of the country or the control on such weapons?

For example, in this chart, it compares the number of gun deaths in the US to those of other countries - France, Spain, Germany, Italy, India, Iceland, The Netherlands, the UK, Sweden, Austria, Australia, Portugal, Sweden, Israel, Czech Republic and several more. If you added up the number of deaths in all the other countries combined, you would not equal the number of gun deaths in the US. So, again, is it because we are a more violent or pathologically ill population, or do these countries have more restrictions? I don't know the answer, I don't even have a hypothesis, but whatever we're doing now is not working.

Gun deaths in the US vs. other countries

some people also forget to mention these few words, "shall not be infringed". people can debate the meaning of the 2nd amendment all day long, and opposing viewpoints are going to be a constant. here it is... "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." notice the comma, a way of seperating different parts of a sentence. we can debate the well regulated part, but its pretty obvious to me that was referring to the militia. we can then debate the whole militia thing, and many are going to claim that constitutes the national guard. i don't see it that way, but whatever.

as for that chart, it would be more accurate if they included all murders. i'm not saying we still wouldn't be right near the top, but people who are so often focused on simply gun violence and murders seem to ignore other forms of violence. it also seems to conveniently leave out every single other country with a high firearms related death rate such as mexico, russia, brazil, south africa ect. they do this under the cover of "civilized western culture", but the sad fact is that the US is hardly a country that isn't severely effected by 3rd world problems common to the other countries i mentioned. crime, poverty and lack of opportunity are still at epidemic levels here, most often effecting the urban communities the most, which is suprisingly where the highest levels of gun violence occur.

our country is a diverse one born and bred on violence, and thats something that is hard to change quickly. our country is also home to the most diverse criminal groups, be it organized or street gangs. my solution to lower the gun violence is pretty simple. first, stop with all of the phony foreign aid until all of our economic and social problems over here are fixed! second, its time to re-evaluate the modern day disaster known as the war on drugs. regardless of your position on the gun debate, i don't think that there is anybody here who would argue that the illegal drugs trade is not responsible for the overwhelming majority of the gun violence, and just violence in general here.

The terms "regulated," "militia" and "firearms" carried different, but specific meanings at the time the Second Amendment was debated, worded, and reworded at the Constitutional Convention. The Amendment bears language from several of the states at the time, reflecting compromise. Some states had language in their constitutions at the time that citizens had the right to own firearms for individual defense, but the Founding Fathers decided not to include this in the Amendment though it had been considered.

Not until the 5-4 decision in Heller in 2008 was it ever considered that the Constitution protected an individual right to gun ownership. Prior to that it was the conservative jurists, who primarily opposed this concept as straying from original intent. In fact, during the Heller litigation the NRA tried to persuade the plaintiff from dropping his suit against D.C. because even though they argued for an individual right, they felt that precedent and historical interpretation of the Second Amendment would result in a bad result and make unwanted law.

But keep in mind that the Heller decision, while finding an individual right to gun ownership, does not extend to any right to own assault style weapons, which had previously been banned.

First, there's no denying that all individual rights are important. Some of us just don't have the interest to champion them all. There's enough people with such interests to do so. I don't see gun ownership having no voice here or in general for that matter in the whole country.

Second, personal freedoms are sacred until it endangers other people's right. For instance, people have the right not to get shot in the movie theater, wouldn't you agree?

Third, there's a national database for cars, all sort of licensing, mandatory insurances and the like. Has it eroded the people's right to drive? Or has it become more manageable and safer? Wouldn't you say that this resistance toward such measures is more about taking advantage of paranoia than anything else? For instance if NRA doesn't cry wolf while undermining the laws that are already in place, would gun owners pour money into their cause?

And finally, even if you have all the guns in the world, you are no match for your government. Don't go about thinking that having the right to bear arms would protect you from your government. What's protecting you from your government is first and foremost the 1st amendment.

Five, you have shown more then once that you know what you are talking about. Great job TRYING to talk about these things in a calm and factual manner.

I am afraid that you are wasting your time with some on here who know very little and are just looking to puff you with dumb statements and personal opinions which are not backed by real facts but by personal feeling.

It seems like we are going around and around on the same facts, with people who bring up the same lame points over and over again...never reading your answers. Then trying weird logic to justify their points. Picking at ever word and twisting things from white to black when someone misstates something.

Giving up millions and millions of great Gun owners rights because of as few bad apples or events.
Major experts have told the public what the real facts are on these issues, but it falls upon deaf ears and closed minds.

Facts, real facts by people who know something, not some trumped up facts. Polls that don't factor in populations and amount of gun ownsership is so misleading. Sure lets load up all the countries that have no guns allowed like the UK and small poor nations with people who don't have crap.
Means nothing unless you like what they say. Compare apples to apples would help more.

Anyway- Five great Job!

I did not mean to imply that privately held guns was the sole reason the were worried about us. Naturally our missiles Etc is a deterrent, but they realized it would be tough getting ambushed by American citizens once here. Why did the military tell me this??? In the Army there are periodic intelligence briefings done to keep us up to date on the international situation and information gained from intelligence operations is shared.

K, you are well repected on many of your thoughts and "law" reviews,

Did it read/have the word STYLE....because as we have talked about hundreds of times before. AUTOMATIC Assult weapons are not the same as the one people are talking about now. But are mixed up by fools and talks of owning cobras and atomic bombs.

and as you well know the last ban expired and was NOT renewed because it was found to have no effect at all.

I guess all those law enforcement types who favor background checks (NOT Gun Control) don't know what they are talking about.

The argument about the 1938 gun law in Nazi Germany appears time and again in these discussions.
In fact, after 1928 gun restrictions had been loosened. So it became easier for radical militia like the SA to get their hands on guns.
In 1938 the Nazis made it easier for every citizen to purchase guns. Jews hadn't been considered citizens anymore. So you could argue that the new law made it impossible for them to initiate a revolt or something similar. But that had become very improbable. In fact, there was hardly any jewish resistance. Anyway, this is the slippery What-if-field in history.
The fact remains that the toughest gun law was in the Weimar Republic between 1918 and 1928.

Well, lets see who they are then. Would love to put an expert name to your statement.

I see you like to keep throwing this up...We already have checks here in NEW YORK STATE and many other states, but it is thrown around like "Checks" are the big crime stopper. More like the answer if they aren't going to ban all those scary rifles....lets feel safe and do background checks.

You do understand that a background check no matter how many you do is not going to keep a gun from a crimal right?

FBI states that 9 out 0f 10 weapons used are stolen or not register to people

Excuse me- to the right people-

Twenty years ago, in the Clinton era, Congress passed two far-reaching gun control bills--mandated Federal background check for handgun purchases, and a 10-year ban on importation and sale of so-called "assault" weapons and large-capacity magazines. The precipitating event--the Reagan and Brady shootings--occurred more than a decade earlier.

This time, with the CT horror still fresh in most people's minds, the Senate failed to pass a much less sweeping expansion of background checks--and another ban on specific weapons didn't even make it into the bill. What happened? First, Obama's no Clinton--he's close to being the most ineffectual president since Carter. Second, probably more Americans have embraced the idea that guns aren't the problem--it's the people who misuse them or shouldn't have them. So, why didn't the background check expansion pass? Probably because, over the past 20 years, far more Americans either have lost faith in their government to solve problems rationally, or are convinced that Big Brother is scheming to take away their rights.

My view: although expanded background checks would not have prevented the CT horror, they might--just might--prevent some people who shouldn't have firearms from buying them. As a law-abiding gun owner and a CCW holder, I would not have objected to submitting to a background check at a gun show.

After the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey background-check bill, and the subsequent demonization of the Senate, Senators Manchin and Toomey are reportedly back at work on bipartisan legislation addressing gun control. John R. Lott, author of the new book At the Brink, who has been researching gun policy for decades, talks about the state of the debate with National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez.


Kathryn Jean Lopez: Gabby Giffords has accused the Senate of being in the grips of the gun lobby. Is there another explanation for the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey bill?

JOHN R. LOTT: Yes, there is. The politicians were simply representing the voters in their districts.

The accusation that politicians were attempting to please the gun lobby at the expense of their constituents, which is based on the oft-repeated assertion that 80 to 90 percent of the public say they favor background checks, is simply not credible. The survey questions on which this statistic is based proved nothing more than that respondents wished to disarm criminals. The questions posed were about a hypothetical, idealized system of background checks, not about the actual legislation facing Congress.

A better survey was recently released by the Pew Research Center. It asked: “What word best describes how you feel about the Senate voting down new gun control legislation that included background checks on gun purchases?” Many voters were upset that the bill didn’t pass, but a very substantial group were relieved. Overall, 47 percent were disappointed and 39 percent were relieved. Not surprisingly, opinions varied drastically across political affiliation. Among Republicans, 51 percent were relieved and 34 percent were disappointed. Among independents, the split was 48 percent relieved and 41 disappointed. In sharp contrast, only 22 percent of Democrats were relieved, while 67 percent were disappointed.

These numbers show that Republican senators were representing their constituents’ views. The Democratic voters who supported the legislation were never going to support Republicans in any event.


Lopez: What’s wrong with the Manchin-Toomey bill?

LOTT: Senator Joe Manchin got it backwards this past weekend when he told Fox News Sunday: “If you’re a law-abiding gun owner, you’ll love this bill. If you’re a criminal, if you’ve been mentally adjudicated through a court, you probably won’t like it.” On the contrary, the current background-check system is one in which law-abiding citizens, not criminals, are delayed needlessly. Expanding background checks and adding millions more names to this system will just make this problem worse. The current system needs to be fixed before being expanded.

Unfortunately, if you believe Senator Manchin, the New York Times, Vice President Joe Biden, and Senator Harry Reid, the Senate will be voting on the Manchin-Toomey bill again before the end of the year.

The bill doesn’t live up to its lofty promises. In the days before the vote, President Obama asserted: “As many as 40 percent of all gun purchases take place without a background check.” He also claimed that “background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from buying a gun.” But both stats are false.

Start with the 40 percent figure. That number (which is actually 36 percent) comes from a very small study covering purchases from 1991 to 1994. Not only are those data two decades old, but they covered sales before the federal Brady Act took effect on February 28, 1994. That act required federally licensed dealers to perform background checks.

And what is more, President Obama conveniently forgets that the researchers included transfers, not just guns sold, in this number. Most significantly, the vast majority of these transfers involved within-family inheritances and gifts. Counting only guns that were sold gives a very different perspective, with only 14 percent of sales not going through federally licensed dealers.

But even that number is much too high, as there were biases in the survey. For example, two-thirds of federally licensed dealers at the time were so-called kitchen-table dealers who sold guns out of their homes, and most buyers surveyed were probably unaware that these individuals were indeed licensed.

The survey also found that all gun-show sales went through federally licensed dealers. If Obama really trusts this survey, he should stop raging about the “gun-show loophole.”

The truth is that the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors. This is the same problem we’ve experienced with the “no fly” list. Remember the five times that the late senator Ted Kennedy was “initially denied” flights because his name was on the list? His name was similar to that of someone we really did want to keep from flying. By Obama’s method of counting, that means the “no fly” list stopped five flights by terrorists.

So do background checks catch many criminals? The answer is: No. Almost everybody the system catches is a “false positive” — somebody who actually has a right to own a gun.

For gun purchases, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped over 94 percent of “initial denials” after just the first preliminary review. The annual National Instant Criminal Background Check System report explains that these cases were dropped either because the additional information showed that the wrong people had been stopped or because the covered offenses were so many decades old that the government decided not to prosecute. At least a fifth of the remaining 6 percent were still false positives.

More here

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-do-about-guns

This post in another forum says some interesting things:

A whole lot of folks don't seem to understand what a Right is. Nor do they understand the function and purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are essentially rules for the government defining what it cannot do. These founding documents do not grant any rights nor do they impose any rules or laws on the People. They are a set of controls on the Federal government.

A Right is not granted by the government or any human. The founders were Christian so they wrote that "our creator" grants rights. If you don't believe in God, a Right is something you have by default of your existence.

For example - you have the freedom worship as you see fit. Not because the governement allows it. The BOR simply states that the governement cannot dictate how people worship. In fact, a Right applies to all humans - not just Americans.

Same thing with freedom of speech, right to due process and the right to bear arms. The Right to bear arms is very specific about what the government can't do - it says "...shall not be infringed". That's pretty strong language compared to the other amendments.

Of course, if it's not mentioned in the Constitution it's left up to the states. Why do you suppose that is?

It is because we have the right to interstate travel. Leaving other issues up to the states keeps the control with the people. Let's say you have a certain set of beliefs and your state's population decides to pass laws that disagree with those beliefs. You can simply move to a state where the populace is like minded.

However, if the Federal government makes laws that apply to all the states, the populace would have no way to escape it. This is why state rights is so critical to freedom.

Every law pertaining to regulating guns is unconstitutional. Period.

Let me preempt the gun grabbers by disecting their inevitable arguments with regard to this fact.

1. "The BOR says a 'well regulated militia' so that means regulations and an organized government run military".

Nope. Further reading of a variety of sources from the founders including the Federalist Papers expand greatly on what that language means and the purpose of the 2nd amendment. When the BOR was written, "regulated" did not mean "controlled by government". It meant "properly trained and disciplined". The word "militia" does not refer to a government entity - in fact, it means exactly the opposite. A militia is made up of volunteer citizens working together independent of the government.

2. The Heller Decision maintains that the right to bear arms has limitations"

While the SC did rule this way, one must understand the way the SC's role has "evolved" over time. The Supreme Court was created to ensure the Constituion was upheld. However, in the last 50 years or so, we have seen the rise of a politically driven SC that "interprets" the Constitution.

Since the SC is completely in the wrong to even rule on whether or not a Right can be limited (remember, by definition, a Right is not granted by humans or governement - therefore a Right cannot be regulated, limited or otherwise abridged by any court) the use of the Heller decision to defend limits on freedom is null.

The framers were not perfect, nor were they omnipotent. They were brilliant men who came from a place of government oppression. This intimate knowledge of how governments become dictatorships was first hand knowledge. They were also very studied in the ways of history.

This is how they could, in a sense, see the future. The concepts in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are timeless. While we have many more ways to express ourselves, our Right to free speech is the same as it always has been.

No matter if we are yelling from rooftops or broadcasting by satellite. Our right to defend ourselves from enemies foreign or domestic has no expiration stamp whether we are using rocks tied to bones or modern weaponry.

Get this straight and decisions are simple.

The hubby recently bought a .338 Lapua from the internet. He used one of his fav gun stores as a ffl dealer. They did a check on him just like they always do every time he buys a gun.

"Every law pertaining to regulating guns is unconstitutional. Period. "

Well I guess that settles that. Anyone who believes this doesn't know his or her legal and constitutional history.

Just about every right can be and has been regulated, including the right to bear arms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/opinio...agewanted=print

A Libertarian Case for Expanding Gun Background Checks
By ROBERT A. LEVY

NAPLES, Fla.

LAST week, senators blocked a compromise measure that would have compelled unlicensed sellers at gun shows and online gun sellers to conduct background checks, despite polls that showed that 90 percent of the public supported the idea.

I’m a libertarian who played a role in reducing handgun restrictions in the nation’s capital. In 2008, in a landmark case I helped initiate, Heller v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to bear arms.

But the stonewalling of the background check proposal was a mistake, both politically and substantively. Following a series of tragic mass shootings, public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of reasonable legislation restricting the ownership of guns by people who shouldn’t have them. There was also plenty in the proposal that gun-rights proponents like me could embrace.

The compromise — carefully negotiated by two moderate gun-rights supporters, Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania — should be reintroduced in the Senate. I am convinced that, with some modifications, it could still be passed, because it would add reasonable protections for both gun owners and sellers.

Gun-rights advocates should use this interval to refine their priorities and support this measure, with a few modest changes. If they don’t, they will be opening themselves to accusations from President Obama and others that they are merely obstructionists, zealots who will not agree to common-sense gun legislation.

The focus on background checks should not distract gun owners from the positive provisions in the Manchin-Toomey proposal.

It would allow Americans to buy handguns from out-of-state sellers, which is not allowed currently.

It would explicitly prohibit the creation of a national gun registry, and make it a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, to misuse records from the national database used for background checks.

It would affirm that unloaded guns with a lock mechanism in place can be transported across state lines.

It would immunize private gun sellers from lawsuits if a gun they have sold is used unlawfully, unless the seller knows or should have known that the buyer provided false information or was otherwise ineligible to buy a gun. Extending background checks to unlicensed sellers shouldn’t be cause for alarm. Background checks are already required for purchases from federally licensed dealers, whether at stores or gun shows, over the Internet or by mail. Moreover, gun buyers would be exempt from background checks if they had a carry permit issued within the last five years.

To my mind, the Manchin-Toomey proposal needs additional improvements to satisfy the demands of certain gun rights advocates. These changes might have helped save the proposal, which was supported by 54 senators — six votes short of the supermajority needed to overcome a filibuster.

The proposal prohibits the attorney general (as head of the Justice Department) from creating a firearms registry, but this prohibition should be broadened to cover all government agencies.

The proposal should also exempt certain rural residents who live too far from a licensed gun dealer for a background check to be practicable.

Currently, dealers can charge up to $125 for background checks. If these fees are supposed to promote public safety, the taxpayers — and not just law-abiding gun owners — should foot some of the bill. And more F.B.I. staff members to manage the database would also help expedite the process.

In the current proposal, background checks at gun shows would be given priority over checks at gun stores. The government needs to hire enough staff members to promptly conduct checks at both places.

Current law denies gun permits to anyone who uses, or is addicted to, a controlled substance. The punishment for omitting this information on a background-check form is up to 10 years in federal prison — a penalty that is too harsh for someone who has merely smoked marijuana.

In the days since the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey proposal, advocates of gun restrictions have gone on the offensive. Gun-rights supporters should not stand in the way of reasonable reform. The Manchin-Toomey proposal, with the changes I’ve suggested, would offer substantial benefits while imposing tolerable restrictions, none of which intrude on our core Second Amendment liberties. Gun-rights advocates should get behind it and push for its passage.

Robert A. Levy, chairman of the board of the Cato Institute, is the author, with William Mellor, of “The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom.”

very cool! the .338 lapua is one of, if not the most accurate and flattest shooting cartridges in existence today! is it for hunting, or just for fun?

Wow, now we know who has the $$ around here!

This came across the email today:

Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, but after a shooting, the problem is the gun!

I got that to and seen a pic on FB.