Gun Control

Challenging California's Absurd Ban on Signs in Gun Store Windows

Second Amendment supporters file First Amendment lawsuit

|

In a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case involving a movie-theater owner convicted of an Ohio law banning the showing of obscene movies, Justice Potter Stewart famously said he could not "intelligibly" define obscenity, "but I know it when I see it." People still use that line to showcase the imprecision and irrationality of many laws.

How do we convict someone of something so hard to define? We often know when we see other absurdities, also, including an archaic statute now subject of a gun-related lawsuit filed this month in federal court. California Penal Code 26820 bans gun stores from displaying signs — visible from outside the premises — picturing handguns. They aren't allowed to display words-only signs that advertise the sales of handguns, either.

Rifles can be pictured. Stores may show images of handguns in advertisements that are not on their premises. And opponents of gun rights are free to display photographs and placards depicting handguns. Defenders of gun rights often rely on the Constitution's Second Amendment to protect gun ownership, but in this case the plaintiffs are relying on the First Amendment.

"The sale of handguns is not only legal — it is constitutionally protected," according to the brief filed on behalf of four Central Valley gun dealers. "The First Amendment protects truthful, non-misleading commercial speech promoting lawful products or services, but especially when the products or services are themselves protected by other constitutional rights, such as the right to abortion or the right to buy contraceptives …"

Those latter rights are not specified in the Constitution — but have been detailed in later court decisions. The plaintiffs argue that what's clearly protected for such "unenumerated" rights "must be at least as true for the enumerated right to bear arms … ."

The law was passed in 1923, as part of California's first package of serious gun-control laws (including restrictions on concealed carry and waiting periods). Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, told me his group had been looking to challenge this law for years given its obvious First Amendment implications.

The state Department of Justice's recent enforcement actions against these businesses provided the opportunity to sue given that he couldn't find similar laws being enforced in other states. The California attorney general's office has not yet responded to the complaint — and told me it can't comment on pending litigation.

Authored by Sacramento attorney Bradley Benbrook and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, the complaint says the state can argue two ideas. The first is handguns are so offensive to some people that the sight of them on a sign warrants a ban. The second possible argument is the government doesn't want people to buy handguns and hopes the ban will discourage sales.

It's hard to understand exactly how sign limits would effectively advance either aim.

Lindsey Zwicker, attorney for the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, argues the law is about "protecting vulnerable populations like children." She hasn't looked closely yet at the complaint, but notes commercial speech is not protected by the Constitution and the courts at the same level as political speech.

I can't fathom, in our current world with its barrage of TV, movie and Internet images, how a ban on gun-sale signs would protect kids. Her point is right about commercial speech, as far as it goes.

"Commercial speech gets less protection," Volokh agreed, "but it still gets substantial protection." In 1975, he added, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a ban on advertising abortions and contraceptives. It also has struck down bans on advertising booze and gambling. If the product is legal, the court offers wide protections for advertising it.

Volokh hopes the attorney general recognizes the law, enacted 50 years before the nation's high court detailed commercial-speech protections, is archaic and decides not to defend it. That would make sense. The law is neither intelligible nor sensible — and encourages officials to clamp down on other types of speech it doesn't like.

Most of us know an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment when we see it.

Advertisement

NEXT: America's 3 Most Fee-Ridden Cities

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 44 Liquormart and STFU, bitches.

  2. “Lindsey Zwicker, attorney for the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, argues the law is about ‘protecting vulnerable populations like children.’ ”

    Thank goodness someone is thinking of the children.

  3. Justice Potter Stewart famously said he could not “intelligibly” define obscenity, “but I know it when I see it.”

    The American Justice System, everybody.

    1. As opposed to who else’s?

      1. Russia?

  4. “The First Amendment protects truthful, non-misleading commercial speech promoting lawful products or services,

    Ask Joe Camel if that’s true?

    1. Legal principles often have to take a back seat to popular hystrerias. In general, it coles out in the wash. Personally I suspect that the irrational attacks on Joe Camel did more to enhance the reputation of the brand than the ads ever did.

      1. I always thought the only reason people smoked Camels was that they had read Still Life with Woodpecker.

  5. The law is neither intelligible nor sensible

    In other words, perfect.

    1. Exactly. I think that is by design.

    2. We can all thank evolution for this.

  6. but notes commercial speech is not protected by the Constitution and the courts at the same level as political speech.

    Hmmmm.

    Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…

    I guess I’m reading it wrong.

    1. Penumbras, sir. It’s in the penumbras of the Constitution. Once you get your black robe, they’ll appear as clear as day.

      1. What you do, see, is you get a prism. Then you take that prism, attach it to an NVG mount, and align it with your eyes as you would a set of binoculars.

        With this prism in your eyes, you now begin to read the constitution. As you can see at this point, the words become fragmented and colorful. It is quite difficult to read at first, but soon your mind begins to fill in the gaps your vision cannot.

        In this way you learn to “interpret” the law. You can still claim to be reading it, because you technically are, but you fill in what you cannot read with what is in your heart.

        Once you have successfully learned to do this without the prism, you are ready to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Congratulations.

        1. Always wondered how they did it.

      2. It’s the robe? I thought they had some of those special decoder glasses like Nick Cage had in National Treasure.

      3. You are quite right, sir. Once the black robe goes on, images of Das Kapital, the Communist Manifesto and Quotes From Chairman Mao magically appear. Just ask Justice Roberts.

  7. It was recently pointed out, I forget by whom, that the events in Ferguson perfectly illustrated the motives for gun control.

    Communists showed up in Ferguson to protest and called for A) A communist revolution and B) the targeting of various businesses and white neighborhoods that had nothing whatsoever to do with the events in Ferguson. Neither of these things happened because the rioters knew that those people are armed.

    Until they take our guns away they cannot use the terror of the mob to bully their political enemies. Make no mistake, this is exactly why they want gun control.

    Fuck the political class, and fuck the political class in California twice as hard.

    1. This brought a tear to my eye.

      Black residents protect white-owned store in Ferguson

      At times, Jordan and his friends were joined on Tuesday night by other men from the neighborhood, also armed. None of the men was getting paid to be there. They said they felt they owed it to Merello, who has employed many of them over the years and treats them with respect.

      “He’s a nice dude, he’s helped us a lot,” said a 29-year-old who identified himself as R.J. He said he, like the other volunteers, had lived a short distance away from the store for most of his life.

      He carried a Taurus 9mm pistol in his sweatpants and drew it out to show another customer, an older man at a pump who was brandishing a MAC-10 machine pistol.

      Missouri allows the open carrying of firearms. State lawmakers recently passed a law overriding any local ordinance that banned the open carry of firearms by people who have concealed-weapons permits.

    2. Must I really? I don’t even want to touch them with my HANDS.

  8. California Penal Code 26820 bans gun stores from displaying signs ? visible from outside the premises ? picturing handguns. They aren’t allowed to display words-only signs that advertise the sales of handguns, either

    Isn’t animism grand? It has to be the stupidest, most irrational thing ever.

    1. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

      1. Especially not one in the shape of a penis.

        8—–

        1. I have been assured that guns are phallic symbols, so, yeah.

          1. Yep. The only, and I mean only reason these bitter clingers own guns is to make up for their tiny penises. The bigger the gun, the smaller the penis.

          2. IIRC, you’ve got a .45, right? And sloopy has a .22, while I have a .38. So of the three of us, sloop’s got the biggest dick, with me second, and you are left with the shortest… uh, straw. Oh well, sucks to be you.

            1. *headsmack*

              Dammit!

              1. Now before I bought the .38, all I had was an air gun in .177 caliber. Soon as I bought the .38 my dick visibly shrank. It was like taking a dip in a cold lake. I’ve considering selling the .38 to get my manhood back, especially since I no longer have the air rifle. But my wife is happy with my tiny dick, so I think I’ll keep the gun.

                1. She and I laid in our sweat and laughed hysterically when she told me she said that to you.

                  1. ah, the mutual transmission of STDs…gotta love it

              2. It’s okay Suthen…..it’s all in how you use it,

  9. Authored by Sacramento attorney Bradley Benbrook and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, the complaint says the state can argue two ideas. The first is handguns are so offensive to some people that the sight of them on a sign warrants a ban. The second possible argument is the government doesn’t want people to buy handguns and hopes the ban will discourage sales.

    My response to the first is a question: Why should society be responsible for legislating according to the personal tastes or prejudices of “some people”? As to the second, what, if any, legitimate interest does the government have in preventing, burdening, or discouraging the purchase of handguns by non-government actors?

    1. Why should society be responsible for legislating according to the personal tastes or prejudices of “some people”?

      Because tolerant people have a right not to be offended. That right does not extend to intolerant people, like gun owners.

      As to the second, what, if any, legitimate interest does the government have in preventing, burdening, or discouraging the purchase of handguns by non-government actors?

      That’s pretty obvious. Armed citizens make oppressing the people complicated. And if you haven’t figured it out by now, the government of California has a solemn duty to oppress the people. At least the intolerant ones, like gun owners.

  10. I think the ban makes total sense. I mean, you don’t want some cop to see a picture of a gun in a window, freak out and scream “Drop it drop it!” before shooting up the store, do you?

    1. Until they also ban supermarkets from advertising banana sales, I think your theory has a few holes in it.

      1. Advertisements where the bananas are pointed at the camera aren’t banned? I’m surprised.

  11. DANGER, DANGER – IDIOTIC ENTITLEMENT COMPLEX AHEAD.

    As you will have observed, an increasing number of your neighbors have been keeping company with their pets in human-only establishments, cohabiting with them in animal-unfriendly apartment buildings and dormitories, and taking them (free!) onto airplanes?simply by claiming that the creatures are their licensed companion animals and are necessary to their mental well-being.

    Licensed Companion Animals. Necessary For Mental Well-Being.

    In June, a miniature Yorkie caused a smaller stir, at a fancy Manhattan restaurant. From a Google review of Altesi Ristorante: “Lunch was ruined because Ivana Trump sat next to us with her dog which she even let climb to the table. I told her no dogs allowed but she lied that hers was a service dog.” I called the owner of Altesi, Paolo Alavian, who defended Trump. “She walked into the restaurant and she showed the emotional-support card,” he said. “Basically, people with the card are allowed to bring their dogs into the restaurant. This is the law.”

    The writer goes on to mention that no such law exists and that ’emotional-support cards’ can basically be bought by anyone and have no force of law.

    Why on Earth does this exist?

    1. It’s all about the feelz.

    2. Because people like Trump are essentially the equivalent of a special interest group. They actually care enough about having their fucking rat with them that they will make all kinds of trouble for a business who kicks them out. Whereas the non-special interest person who just thinks bringing the rat into the restaurant is gross won’t usually expend the same amount of energy; they just want to eat in peace.

      This is actually a small, harmless example of how ridiculous policies are successfully pushed by a small number of people, because they are the most obsessed and loudest, and normal people just want them to shut the fuck up.

    3. The emotional support animal has become pretty common for ptsd patients. I won’t speculate on their medical necessity in that community.
      I guess it has filtered out to other self entitled assholes.

    4. I can’t find a good guy in that story.

      Anyone so emotionally fragile that they can’t walk around in the world without an emotional support animal probably has no business walking around in the world. (sans genuine ptsd sufferers)

      Anyone who can’t tolerate the presence of a dog can’t have my respect either. I would find that dude and Ivana Trump’s presence more offensive than her dog’s.

      1. I can tolerate animals and I can tolerate children. Doesn’t mean either belongs in every single place. And what sort of dog owner lets the animal on the table?

        1. And what sort of dog owner lets the animal on the table?

          The kind that doesn’t have to clean up after themselves.

          1. The kind with so little class she was willing to marry Donald Trump.

            Wassa matter, sweetheart? You so dead-arsed in bed you didn’t think you could get it out of him on a fee-for-service basis?

    5. Someone should write a law I say.

      1. There already is a law, as the article makes clear. It just isn’t obeyed.

        Gee…the fact that laws don’t magically self-enforce is kind of a flaw in your retarded worldview, isn’t it American Socialist?

    6. Dogs are more intelligent than 99% of the people who post comments on this site.

      1. ……and YOU are the other 1%, correct, Solomon?

        1. His mom said so…

          1. only cause his dad paid her…

    7. Does this mean I can finally bring my black mamba, my death adder and my king cobra to the church recital?

    8. The first time I saw one of those “emotional support dogs” in an airport, I was so… astonished, I took a photo. I didn’t bother the next three times. The one thing they all had in common was that they were attached to blonde high-maintenance women.

      I have vowed to get that certification for my 120 pound Great Pyr.

  12. This comes as no surprise to me. I remind everyone again that L.A. city council woman Fiona Ma is on video saying “We found out that the constitution does not allow us to ban certain kinds of music.”

    This is the quality of California progressive pols. In the sentiment of another famous progressive, it sure would be easier to rule a country like China.

  13. OT:

    Good News: outgoing Maryland governor is going to legalize fracking in his state.

    Bad News: most crushing regulations in the country.

    Good News: Incoming GOP Governor says he will review every single regulation and can probably modify them if he wants.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. Bad News: cytotoxic is still posting on the Reason comment boards.

      1. You’re almost at P Brooks level of insipidity and pettiness.

        1. I’m much less insipid and far more petty than P Brooks, thank you so very fucking much.

          And I meant to capitalize your name in that post, but my shift key is starting to die on me. Sorry about that.

        2. Oh look! The brave Canadian is hurling insults from the safety of his keyboard!

          *swoon*

          1. Cytotoxic is Canadian?

            That would explain all this gravy. . .

          2. Oh look it’s a duo of puny minds. Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

            1. So, you’re sitting here discussing us.

              Welcome to the small mind club, Cyto.

              Get out.

              1. You came on to me. I didn’t ask for you or sarc to make vapid pointless insults.

                1. I insulted you? I thought I was simply making an observation, you brave troll you! Launching all those harsh words onto the interwebs! It just turns me…

                  *swoon*

                  1. love it, love it, love it, when people *swoon*…that’s code for?

    2. Bad News: Maryland is still blue as fuck, and the last time we had a Republican governor the Democrats in the state spent every waking moment thinking of ways to neuter him.

      Then they elected O’Malley.

      1. Agnew?

  14. I called the owner of Altesi, Paolo Alavian, who defended Trump. “She walked into the restaurant and she showed the emotional-support card,” he said. “Basically, people with the card are allowed to bring their dogs into the restaurant. This is the law.”

    I’d have more respect for the restaurant owner if he said, “She’s rich and stupid, and she eats here all the time. Who the fuck are you?”

    1. I thought that is what he did say.

      1. The emotional-support card was her American Express Centurion?

    2. I’ll bet he did, and that’s just a paraphrase. We don’t want that stupid cunt to sue him out of business, do we?

  15. Police crackdown on Oath Keepers in Ferguson

    They are volunteers affiliated with a 35,000-member national organization called Oath Keepers. Yale Law School graduate and libertarian Stewart Rhodes said by telephone from Montana that he founded the group in 2009 to protect constitutional rights, including those of protesters confronted by what he described as overly militarized police.

    Police questioned group members early in the week and allowed them to stay. But Saturday, after media inquiries, St. Louis County police officers ordered the Oath Keepers to leave the rooftops.

    Threatened with arrest for operating without a license, the volunteers argued but eventually left their positions early Saturday, Rhodes said.

    Rhodes stressed that Oath Keepers is not anti-government. He said the volunteers handling rooftop security in Ferguson were current or former government employees and first responders, many who have intense military, police and EMS training.

    “We thought they were going to do it right this time,” Rhodes said of government response to the grand jury decision released Monday in the Michael Brown case. “But when Monday rolled around and they didn’t park the National Guard at these businesses, that’s when we said we have got to do something.

    1. “Guarding those businesses is our fucking job! And since we’re not going to do it, no one is!”

      /FPD

      1. Lots of people seem to,assume that Wilson is resigning from the Ferguson force out of fear. Suppose it’s out of disgust?

        1. Doubt it.

    2. “Threatened with arrest for operating without a license,”

      Huh?

      1. FREE. COUNTRY.

      2. Since when do you need a license to be on top of a roof?

  16. OT:

    Has anyone else tossed mango into their guacamole? I had the ingredients on hand the other day, figured wtf, and dang it’s good.

    1. Pomegranate seeds are a good finishing touch as well.

      1. Thanks! The kid hasn’t tried pomegranate before (I bought the mango because she’d never tried one) so I think I’ll do that next time. Making guacamole burgers for dinner. Yum.

        1. OK, that sounds fantastic. We definitely need to set up a local Reason commentariat gathering.

          I almost said “share the wealth!”, but the very turn of phrase left a bad taste on my brain.

  17. ” “The First Amendment protects truthful, non-misleading commercial speech promoting lawful products or services, but especially when the products or services are themselves protected by other constitutional rights, such as the right to abortion or the right to buy contraceptives ?”

    Someone should put a gigantic blinking sign advertising gun stores in front of mr. Greenhut’s house. Politicians who think people should have say in how their neighborhoods are organized clearly been reading a bit too much of Comrade Mao’s Little Red Book. Zoning laws are too much Cultural Revolution chic for me.

    I’m essentially a pragmatist. As someone who is sympathetic to libertarianism I don’t really want legislators to outlaw the ownership of firearms– even while acknowledging that such laws would reduce crime in the areas where enacted. But should I really care if the citizens of my community adopt zoning laws so that guns can only be sold in non-descript black box buildings and that people buying them be subject to licensing requirements and thorough background checks? I think there’s a reasonable middle ground between laws that strictly prohibit and a market that is unfettered by considerations of what a businesses’ neighbors think.

    1. As someone who is sympathetic to libertarianism I don’t really want legislators to outlaw the ownership of firearms– even while acknowledging that such laws would reduce crime in the areas where enacted.

      John Lott would beg to differ, and he’s got numbers to back him up. It’s pretty simple. People who don’t follow the law, people who commit murder and rape and robbery, will not be affected by laws that ban firearms. Only their now helpless victims will. Criminals understand this. Looks like the average street thug is smarter than you.

      1. You mean the guy who got paid by the NRA and FoxNews for his “research”?

        There’s plenty of peer-reviewed research on this subject and I’m all for honestly derived information– even in instances where it conflicts with my personal ethics– so why go with the guy who Glenn beck is using as a citation? I go with academic research. One such paper– and there are several– can be read here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/…..7&from=gun control laws and gun violence

        But you can relax. As I said, I’m not a prohibitionist. I’m for dealing with the issue of gun violence as a medical issue and not something that law enforcement should deal with.

        1. I go with common sense, but that’s just me.

        2. An oversimplified study designed to get a desired outcome.

        3. I go with academic government funded research.

          ftfy

        4. Did you actually read that study? It only uses American states and doesn’t account for two problems: 1. Gun crime in different states can very easily be based on culture which cannot be quantified in such a study. 2. It ignores differences in crime internationally, and looking at international impacts of gun crime gives us a vastly larger sample size. Since you want large sample sizes, only looking at states is a bad study design.

          Here is a study from the University of Chicago arguing that the primary driving factor behind differences in violence is the way in which drugs are prohibited and controlled.

          Here is a Harvard study which concluded that gun laws have no impact on violence. The Harvard study actually looked internationally, rather than your flawed study which only looked at states.

          See what happens when you look at a large array of research papers rather than picking only the one that aligns with what you want? The argument is hardly settled, and your claim to the contrary is a lie.

        5. I’m for dealing with the issue of gun violence as a medical issue

          Which is retarded of course. Guns aren’t a pathogen. Gun violence is not a disease.

        6. Also, your post is littered with fallacies.

          1. You mean the guy who got paid by the NRA and FoxNews for his “research”? This is an idiotic argument because most anti-gun articles are produced by people with some sort of bias or vested interest as well. This is true of virtually all studies on political issues, which is why they should be taken with a grain of salt rather than treated as unvarnished truth. Furthermore, the authors of that article have no actual expertise in gun issues and there is minimal evidence that any of them have seriously studied the issue.

          Michael Monteaux is one of the authors. His expertise? An assistant professor of pediatrics. Robert Mannix is a research fellow at a children’s hospital. I can’t even find EW Fleeger’s information online, but all of his other papers are related to things like, ding ding ding!, pediatrics. If Lott is untrustworthy because of who pays him, then surely using three pediatric researchers as your sources on the impact of gun laws suffers from an equally egregious flaw, namely that none of them show any expertise in the subject they are discussing.

          1. 2. There’s plenty of peer-reviewed research on this subject and I’m all for honestly derived information– even in instances where it conflicts with my personal ethics– so why go with the guy who Glenn beck is using as a citation?

            This is an example of an ‘ad hominem’ fallacy. It’s a particularly bizarre ad hominem though, since you aren’t even going after Lott’s character, you’re going after the character of someone who simply cited Lott! This would be like saying we should disregard everything James Madison said because one time Alex Jones quoted him. It’s idiotic to argue we should disregard someone’s research because an untrustworthy third party cited them – by that logic virtually all research should be disregarded because at some point it will be cited by an individual of ill-repute.

            1. 3. One such paper– and there are several– can be read here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/…..7&from=gun control laws and gun violence

              This is an example of cherry picking. There are also a large number of studies which found the exact opposite. Moreover, the biases of researchers at Universities often tilt left. There is something called ‘confirmation bias’ wherein an individual allows their personal biases to impact their work. This is why we have double blind studies – because even in the case of something as objective as the effects of drugs, the biases of researchers often impact their research.

              Pointing out one article, or even several, while ignoring the articles that say the opposite is therefore an example of cherry picking and is also very possibly going to be impacted by the biases of the researchers.

              I’d also point out that if Fox News paying Lott is evidence of a conflict of interest, then surely government paid researchers would also have a conflict of interest when agitating in favor of more government power.

              Why is it that this conflict of interest is never considered? Could it be because people like American Socialist refuse to acknowledge the obvious conflict of interest which exists between government funded researchers and the desires of the state?

              1. Jaysus! Cuff him, slap him about, fine. But to completely undress and flog him is painful for us all.

                1. Harvard, I believe the term you looking for as to Mr. Irish’s treatment of American Socialist is sodomy.

                  1. Well, as American Socialist did the intellectual equivalent of sashaying into a San Francisco bath house, de-pansing, then greasing up his butt before bending forward and waiting in front of everybody there I don’t see a lot of blame for the response he got.

          2. See Sir Humphrey Appleby’s guide on Reasons to Not Publish Studies.

            “….He used to be consultant to a multinational company.
            “He WANTS to be consultant to a multinational company.”
            “He wants a knighthood.
            “He wants a Chair.
            “He wants a Vice-Chancellorship…”

            and so on, and on.

            1. give him a Chair…the electric one!

        7. american socialist|11.30.14 @ 4:23PM|#
          …”I’m for dealing with the issue of gun violence as a medical issue and not something that law enforcement should deal with.”…

          Are you for paying your mortgage yet?

    2. This, of course, is the opposite of the truth – “….even while acknowledging that such laws would reduce crime in the areas where enacted.”

    3. As someone who is sympathetic to libertarianism I don’t really want legislators to outlaw the ownership of firearms– even while acknowledging that such laws would reduce crime in the areas where enacted.

      The historical crime rates of Chicago and Washington D.C. have something to say about that.

    4. I’m essentially a pragmatist.

      This is a lie. No one who calls themselves a socialist is a pragmatist. In order to be a legitimate socialist you need to forgo pragmatism in service to the cause.

      As someone who is sympathetic to libertarianism I don’t really want legislators to outlaw the ownership of firearms– even while acknowledging that such laws would reduce crime in the areas where enacted.

      This is proof that you’re not a pragmatist. There is no evidence that the outlawing of guns decreases the crime rate. Mexico has very strict gun laws, as do Brazil and Venezuela. Go check their crime rates some time. Then compare them to the crime rates of nearby Chile, which has looser gun laws and one of the lowest crime rates on Earth. This is despite the fact that Chile, while currently growing at a much faster rate than Brazil, is only slightly wealthier. That implies that crime is primarily cultural rather than a function of gun laws or even poverty. If you were a pragmatist, you would consider this rather than making wild statements that support your preferred narrative while providing no evidence for those claims.

      1. Irish|11.30.14 @ 4:39PM|#
        I’m essentially a pragmatist.
        “This is a lie.”

        1. Correct. He’s a lying pile of shit.

    5. AS is actually using ‘pragmatist’ in something close to its actual meaning: it means being devoid of any principles and just making it up as you go to indulge your feelings.

    6. reasonable middle ground

      1A, 2A, and their State equivalents beg to differ.

  18. Because a sign with a word and a pic of a gun is going to trigger someone to go into the gun shop, purchase a gun, then go shoot up the Starbucks across the street.

    1. To be fair, have you seen how much those fucks at Starbucks charge for a cup of coffee?

  19. trigger someone to go into the gun shop, purchase a gun, then go shoot up the Starbucks across the street.

    Or, worse, go into Starbucks with that newly purchased handgun, sit quietly drinking a cup of coffee and then leave without shooting anybody or anything. Because that really confounds the “guns are always and everywhere a deadly menace in the hands of civilians” narrative.

  20. Anna Gunn is quite hot: Skyler White is even hotter.

    1. Though she’s not my type, I’ve always admired Anna’s gunns.

  21. “But what about the chil-dren?”

  22. When you have no real argument, just say “But the children!”

  23. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start…

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  24. Sounds like a good plan to me dude.

    http://www.Anon-Rocks.tk

  25. Since I started with my online business I earn $42 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    Best Family Deal IS ……… http://WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

  26. Since I started with my online business I earn $42 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    Best Family Deal IS ……… http://WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

  27. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.
    For information check this site. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  28. I love the “gun violence” angle, as if dying by bullet wound is better or worse than being murdered some other way. Statistics show the USA’s murder rate to be 111th in the world.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.