Gun Rights

Self-Defenseless

Leftist politicians work to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

|

What might have happened if a few of the 1,500 concert attendees in Paris' Bataclan theater had guns? The terrorists had time to kill, reload and kill again. The police unit didn't come for more than a half hour. If a few people in the theater were armed, might they have killed the killers?

We'll never know.

France's guns laws say you may not carry a gun unless police certify that you are "exposed to exceptional risks of harm" to your life. Few people even bother to apply.

Fortunately, in America, laws in every state now allow adults to carry guns. Some predicted this would lead to more crime, but the opposite happened. Crime is down.

Yet some towns, such as Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New York City, where I live, still make it nearly impossible for people to legally carry a gun.

I know because I tried to get a license.

People sometimes threaten me. One made a "Kill John Stossel" website. So I'd like the option of carrying a gun to protect myself.

First, I had to read and say I understood 50 pages of New York weapons laws and fill out a 17-page form. We had to call the police department six times just to clarify what questions meant.

Then I had to go to police headquarters in person. They fingerprinted me and told me to list reasons why I should be allowed to have a gun.

Gun instructor Glenn Herman says the bureaucracy is intentional. New York politicians want "to deter people from following through the process, which can take a year."

It took me eight and a half months. That included returning for another in-person interview.

This time, they told me that they'd discovered an old lawsuit against me and said I couldn't get a permit unless it had been "resolved." I explained that it had been dropped. They wanted "proof." I showed them a New York Times story that reported that the case was dropped. They told me that wasn't sufficient; I had to produce original court documents.

They also told me I had to "document" threats against me. The "Kill John Stossel" website and other Internet threats weren't sufficient, they said, because I hadn't reported them to the police at the time.

Fifty-two days later, they sent me a letter—rejecting my application. They said I "failed to demonstrate a special need."
But why must I show a "special need"? The Supreme Court says that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

The court allowed cities to impose reasonable regulation. But New York's leftist politicians have strange ideas about what's reasonable.

Gun instructor Herman told me that I applied "the wrong way." Permits routinely go to "friends of the ruling class," he says. "Everyone else is out of luck." Sure enough, I notice that Donald Trump, Howard Stern and Robert De Niro got permits.

I wish bureaucrats worried more about what can happen when people don't have guns.

Mass killers often deliberately target gun-free zones. Criminals don't care about breaking rules—but they know their potential victims will probably follow the rules and be unarmed. According to the United Nations, the nation of Mali, where terrorists killed 20 people in a hotel, has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world.

Back in the U.S., people with guns often do stop violent criminals.

When Andrew Wurst killed a teacher at a middle school dance and shot at other people for 20 minutes, it wasn't cops who got him to stop. It was the owner of the banquet hall pulling out his shotgun. People use guns to ward off criminals all the time. Often just showing the gun is enough to stop the crime.

Criminals themselves seem to understand this better than anti-gun activists do. A survey of convicted felons found that half said they fear armed private citizens more than they fear cops.

Guns make some people uncomfortable, but so what? As gun ownership skyrockets, America's crime rate continues to fall.

COPYRIGHT 2015 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

NEXT: Watch: Chicago Police Officer's Fatal Shooting of Laquan McDonald

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. “What might or might not have happened if a few of the 1,500 concert attendees in Paris’ Bataclan theater had guns?”
    FTFY

  2. There’s a difference between owning a gun and a carry permit. I found this article misleading. You can own a gun. So you can’t carry it in the street? I think it’s fine you have to learn 50 pages of weapons laws. Fine even if there’s a test. After all it says, ‘well regulated’.

    1. The term “regulated” in the context of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it seems you think it means.

      As for keeping a gun strictly for home use, who wouldn’t agree with that? Those Parisians should have stayed home if they didn’t want to be shot by terrorists in the street.

      1. Naw, fist, it totes means that regulations on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, even if the rest of the amendment states the exact opposite.

        1. Well-regulated refers to the militia. As used in the 1700s, well-regulated meant in good working order, functional. To be functional, a militia (army comprised of armed civilians) must have the right to bear arms. Thats all the first part of the second amendment meant. Well regulated does not mean under the control of the government. Indeed, the amendments to the Constitution were meant to enumerate individual rights, not government rights.

          1. …because a government does not and can not have rights. A government has powers and authority.

          2. Spot on. “Well-regulated” in the 1700s in regards to the military and militias of the time meant what “up to military standards/specifications/regulations” does today.

            When the Founding Fathers wrote or said “well-regulated,” they meant that the people joining the militia could not show up for service with junk equipment and arms–they had to show up with the minimum items required to be carried by all soldiers and meet or exceed the condition that their equipment and arms were required to be in. Soldiers back then had to privately buy or make their own gear–it was not supplied by the military as it is today.

            In today’s context, that means that civilians joining a militia SHOULD be allowed to privately purchase, own, and bear full-auto assault rifles like the Colt M4 or M16, because that is the minimum rifle US troops are required to carry.

    2. I think it’s fine you have to learn 50 pages of weapons laws.

      Do you think mass shooters or gang bangers stop to read those laws before they go out and kill somebody?

      1. Don’t they? And don’t mass shooters, after they realize they’re not allowed to carry a gun into designated “gun free” zones just give up and go home? Afterall, carrying a gun into those places would be against the law. It’s not like killers want to break the law or anything…

      2. If you’re going to carry a gun then you better learn the laws about it. It is not as simple as people might want think it is, especially in NYC. In fact, there really should be a test. Will some people skip the test and carry a gun anyway? Sure, there will always be lawbreakers. But at least the people protecting me from them will have given serious thought for how to act in their presence, and not just whatever superhero fantasy they dreamed about before falling asleep.

        1. What made you an expert on the minds of private citizens who choose to carry guns? And how did you manage to construct the delusion that the police are any better?

        2. Generally speaking the rules are pretty simple and limited to places off limits.

          Even the pertinent information for Illinois which has some of the more byzantine rules could be printed on a 3X5 card.

        3. Weird how several states get by with absolutely no permitting or test at all required to carry concealed. Vermont’s been doing it for decades.

        4. I’m sure John Stossel is capable of learning the law, and even passing a hypothetical test, but he still didn’t get the permit did he?

          So the article isn’t about the inability to learn 50 pages of law to exercise your civil rights, or about the difference of owning a gun and carrying one.

          It’s about who gets to exercise their civil rights and the capriciousness of that decision. Especially in the face of a clearly written historical document that we are supposed to base all laws on, and a Supreme Court decision upholding that clearly written language.

          1. Who gets gun permits? Party members in good standing. That’s who.

        5. Actually, it’s very simple.

          Fuck off, slaver.

        6. Where did you get the idea that there are people protecting you? The Supreme Court has expressly ruled that police to not have a duty to protect individuals. I suppose you could take the matter up with them and see if they might change their minds on that one.

        7. Your use of the term “superhero fantasy” is quite stupid, if you think about it.

          Superheroes don’t need guns. Superman was impervious to bullets after all. A person with a true superhero fantasy would go put on a cape and jump off the nearest building because he thinks he can fly.

          It’s ordinary people that need guns to protect themselves and others, precisely because ordinary people can’t bounce bad guys’ bullets off their chests. Guns are the great equalizer that allows a 5ft 0in 110lb woman to defend herself against a 6ft 180lb would-be rapist. That’s not superheroic, that’s leveraging a commonly-available tool to level the playing field.

          1. Heroic is that in a man which resists (and answers) the aggression of attackers and looters. The left is a swarm of coercers and looters, that they crave to disarm independent men is no accident.

    3. If this is an example of Poe’s Law then well done. If serious, then go fuck yourself.

    4. The “bear” in “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” means “carry.” Statist.

    5. well,what DOES the Second say there?
      “A well-regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state”.
      Hmm,it does NOT say that militias must be “well-regulated”,it does NOT say arms must be “well-regulated”,it does not restrict arms to militias. it really does not say anything,nor imply anything.
      it says militias “are necessary to a free state”,nothing more.
      IOW,just ONE of many reasons why “the right of the People to keep AND BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
      Now that second part DOES say plenty,it makes specific prohibition -on government- to keep their hands off peoples arms.
      it says that people have a RIGHT to own and to CARRY arms,….naturally,in a lawful manner.

      So,WHY is this so hard for people to comprehend?
      I blame it on a leftist education system that turns out cretins.

      1. I blame it on people who view themselves as “saviors” to the “savages.” The education system only tells you that the left or the right (Depending on your area of the country) is the “savior” versus the other that is the “savage.”

        That is why it’s hard to comprehend: People don’t want to. They WANT to “help” and they see that when they first read the 2nd Amendment, it says “well regulated” and “well regulated” in today’s language means “government has rules!”

        When you tell them they are wrong, they don’t care because they are “saving” people.

        1. Is this a good time to discuss my plan to euthanize all the progressives?

          1. … with wood-chippers?

            1. That can be part of the deal. Definitely not opposed to it.

      2. it starts off by saying that a state can’t really be free if it’s citizens aren’t well armed

    6. After all it says, ‘well regulated’.

      I love it when the ‘tards self-identify.

      1. Problem is, the tard also vote.

    7. “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment simply means well staffed, as in a large number of armed citizens that would be in the militia if and when needed.

  3. Who in their right mind would think that John Stossel would do something unlawful with a gun? This is the level of ridiculousness that government oversight creates. These laws merely keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens because criminals, by definition, don’t mind breaking the gun restriction laws to begin with.

  4. I detect some naivety here, or an unwillingness to state the obvious.

    The political class wants to have a monopoly on force. They are armed and want the rest of us unarmed. That way they can enact whatever policies they see fit without serious resistance. Knowing that they need a defenseless population before they can enact their preferred policies should tell us everything we need to know about those policies.

    Never forget that no one wants to make you helpless for your own good.

    1. Also, fear is a favorite tool of governments. We have to be reminded why we need them from time to time.

  5. As usual, Stossel gets it right. If every single person had a gun on them at all times, in all places, could you imagine how safe we’d be? Scumbags would always have to worry about someone gunning them down while they try to rob/murder/rape/etc someone else.

    1. Of course he does. Stossel is very reliable when it comes to thinking things out. Even when I disagree with him, I never consider his thinking to be idiotic. Which puts him on a very short list.

      1. Indeed. You can see he truly thought through whatever his view is on a subject. In fact, it’s thanks to his plain facts-only, no over-the-top emotions approach that converted me from conservative to libertarian.

        1. The Stoss is indeed the boss.

        2. Yep, he’s influenced my thinking in this area as well. Although I believe it will come down to some kind of revolution to stop the progs at this point.

  6. The Supreme Court says that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

    Well, you see, that “and” was actually a drafting error on the part of writers of the constitution – who were a bunch of white slaveholders, like, over a hundred years ago or something anyway writing in, like, olde English or whatever – similar to the drafting error in the ACA dealing with exchanges established by a State. It was supposed to say “…the right to keep bear arms.” As in arms from a bear. /sarc

  7. Mr. Stossel needs to come live in Arizona. You raise your elbow too high and a gun will fall out of your armpit. Trust me, where I live we all have guns and there is no shenanigans going on here.

      1. Really just an outlier. Would you like to compare and contrast with all the violent crime in your Marxist run cities like Detroit, Chicago, New York, Baltimore, Washington D.C., etc.. Why don’t you just admit it isn’t about violent crime, and really about suppressing individual rights? You don’t believe in them. Just say so. I might have a shred of respect for you if you were the least bit honest about what a slaving Marxist piece of shit you really are.

      2. Paid that mortgage yet scum bag?

  8. This is the utter BS of “May Issue”. Before my state went to “Shall Issue” I tried applying for a carry permit. To start, they wanted me to fill out the job application for a police officer position, then come to an in-person interview scheduled at their convenience. The officer that called to tell me when my appointment would be also told me the eventual answer would be NO, no matter what I did because the chief only approved his friends and supporters and there were only a handful of those.
    I admit I gave up rather than miss work to go to the interview.

    1. I wonder if racial discrimination is involved.

  9. ” If a few people in the theater were armed, might they have killed the killers?”

    They might have made things worse by joining in the killing of normal people. We’ll never know.

    1. We know they were deprived of the means to defend themselves. That is all we need to know.

      1. They weren’t deprived of anything. Nobody forced them to go to a concert, or to live in France for that matter. If they want to live with a gun on their hip, they could always move to the rural US.

    2. Also, armed citizens *are* normal people.

      1. No no, guns are like The One Ring. They will corrupt your soul by their mere presence. This makes all gun owners like a cross between Gollum and Hitler, which we can all agree is “not normal”. Except for gun owners.

        Now we need to find out if we need special protections for gun owners as a minority, and if buying a gun can be considered cultural appropriation.

        1. Brother Holger, have you forgotten doublethink? We must embrace other cultures, while flogging ourselves for appropriating and exploiting them.

    3. What you project simply HAS NOT HAPPENED in real-life defensive gun uses (DGUs). Lawfully armed citizens have proven themselves safe and trustworthy over several DECADES of concealed carry,and there hasn’t been a single instance of a lawfully-armed ODC wounding or killing a bystander during a DGU.
      That scenario is just your wild imagination,not supported by any facts or real-life experience.

      the gunmen are already out to kill as many as possible,how is it “worse” if a few of the ODCs get wounded or killed(unlikely) during the shootout,as long as the killers are stopped? Whether the citizens are armed or not,that shootout is STILL HAPPENING,but under your preference,it’s just one-sided,with the good guys unarmed and helpless. That is Weapons-Grade Stupid.

      1. Don’t bother, mtrueman is a fucking retard and can’t be bothered with trivial things like “facts”.

        1. He IS an idiot. Still, I didn’t rip into him, as I am really trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that his comment was one of sarcasm.

      2. “Lawfully armed citizens have proven themselves safe and trustworthy over several DECADES of concealed carry”

        Probably because civilians know that if they kill an innocent person while shooting at an attacker, they will be doing hard time, unlike cops, who are free to spray lead indiscriminately with the knowledge that if they kill a bystander, the worst case scenario is paid administrative leave.

        1. we need good samaritan laws for concealed carriers

    4. They might have made things worse…

      That sort of utterly-unsupported-by-reality speculation is asinine in nearly every case it’s offered….but in this one it’s nearly off-the-charts idiocy. ~118 people were killed, one-by-one, at the jihadists’ leisure, as the victims layed there waiting to die. It’s pretty far-fetched to conclude that a couple of armed citizens fighting back from the very beginning could possibly have made it any worse.

    5. Yea, even the write states “We’ll never know.”

  10. So, John, file a suit against NYC for depriving you of your second amendment rights and pursue it all the way to the Supreme Court. It’s the only way things will change in that dump.

    1. If the lower Federal judges were acting in accordance with the Constitution,such a lawsuit should not have to go all the way to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS has already ruled in at least two cases that people have a RIGHT to bear arms for self-defense,and that they need not have a specific reason to obtain a carry permit.

      ALL US states should be “must-issue” by now,or the Federal judges are not upholding the law as established by SCOTUS.

      Every judge that fails to uphold that should be removed from office. Period.

      1. Surely judges would not defy the Supreme Court.

  11. Only the politicians deserve to be surrounded by armed guards. Oh, and their special interests that surround them. Folks nit oart of the elite should not be able to defend themselves. Armed people are a threat to the state’s power and dominance over the people.

    Even when they allow you to carry in certain states, you must register them, unlike people hell bent on doing harm to others who don’t give a damn about the liberty or property of others.

    Many folks shit their pants at the idea of someone armed or carrying openly. The bad part is they want to take away someones own right to protect themselves and their families if they choose to do so.

    Society is so weak in general it’s sad. The state has done a great job instilling a slaver mentality through public education. If folks were really educated, they would reject the violent state, and demand a free and voluntary society. Yet every chance they get, they vote for an ever bigger gov’t and to take away not only their rights, but the rights of others and favoring the illusion of security over liberty.

  12. The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States..

    Second Amendment foes lying about gun control – The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense.Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government. Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jewws, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazzi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

    American Thinker

    1. Are you suggesting that just because they think it is good to take by force things that belong to other people, THAT somehow makes them dishonest?

  13. No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media prostitutes tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

    Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved. The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.
    Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?

    American Thinker

    1. Isn’t it great this lunatic has a right to be armed?

      1. Yes, it is. So do I and so do you.

        Asshole.

      2. As great as it was that your mom had a right to abortion although that one was awesome in theory and not so helpful in practice.

        1. Are you suggesting manditory abortions?

  14. Are those Gun Control prone politicos willing to do without the armed protection they enjoy, which by the way, likely costs the poor taxpayers a pretty penny. I suspect not, but that’s another point, one which the above mentioned likely would rather not discuss, or have raised.

  15. Notwithstanding the hog wash that is New York’s handgun licensing regime, and how it is operated, I find it rather surprising that John Stossel didn’t swing a large enough hammer to overcome the mountain of baloney that comes therefrom..

  16. Texas just passed concealed carry on campus. Some faculty at my college were angry that someone may have a gun in their classroom. My response was that if they believed there weren’t guns in their classrooms *now,* they were positively delusional.

    1. No, no…he was referring to the fact that nuts hell-bent on committing mass murder and going out themselves in a blaze of psychotic glory will no longer be deterred from doing so by the threat of a felony record for having a firearm on campus.

      1. Didn’t stop any of the campus shooters when it was illegal, now did it?

  17. The fact the guns used in Paris were purchased in Belgium? Ignored. And if guns stop crime, why does the US have the developed world’s highest murder rate? No one seems to be able to answer that. We need to repeal the 2nd amendment so we can get logical gun control

    1. The fact that if you remove inner-city (often inter-gang) crime and suicides from the statistics and the US has a lower gun violence rate than Western Europe? Ignored. Gun ownership going up while violent crime going down? Ignored. Fuck off you Fascist asshole.

    2. Re: bpuharic,

      And if guns stop crime, why does the US have the developed world’s highest murder rate?

      First, the US is a BIG place. Liechtenstein it ain’t. Also, saying “developed world’s highest murder rate” is meaningless without providing a number. The US doesn’t have the “highest murder rate in the developed world”.

      We need to repeal the 2nd amendment so we can get logical gun control

      The 2nd Amendment does not confer the right to bear arms, just like the 1st Amendment does not confer the right to worship to people. These amendments to the Constitution purport to limit Congress from making laws that abridge any of those already-existing rights. So your notion that the repeal of the 2nd Amendment will instantly mean people lose their right to bear arms is pure naivete.

      1. “The 2nd Amendment does not confer the right to bear arms, just like the 1st Amendment does not confer the right to worship to people. These amendments to the Constitution purport to limit Congress from making laws that abridge any of those already-existing rights. So your notion that the repeal of the 2nd Amendment will instantly mean people lose their right to bear arms is pure naivety.”

        Well said.

      2. naivete is what makes liberals liberal.

    3. The fact the guns used in Paris were purchased in Belgium? Ignored.

      What does the fact that military full-auto arms were bought in Belgium…where that’s just as illegal as in France…have to do with anything?

      And if guns stop crime, why does the US have the developed world’s highest murder rate?

      That’s what we who have more than two brain cells to rub together will instantly recognize as a “false premise”.

      1. I think the logic is supposed to be that somehow the fact that the guns came from Belgium makes France a safer place. Although it seems more like the strict gun control in both countries just ensures that only criminals and terrorists are armed. It is much safer to commit an armed robbery in Western Europe, so there is that point.

    4. Oh, I get it now.

      Which one of you is sockpuppeting this one?

    5. bp, you do understand that violent crime statistics are not compiled using the same criteria in different countries, right? For example, in Great Britain, unless there is a conviction in a firearm involved crime, it does not count towards gun crime statistics. The FBI, who compiles national gun crime statistics, does not follow that procedure. So you’re comparing apples to oranges, and concluding tangerines.

      What IS proven accurate, is that violent crime, including gun crime, has steadily fallen for decades in the US. And that is with steadily increasing private gun ownership.

      So bottom line, the second amendment works. Hands off my fucking guns slaver.

  18. “What might have happened if a few of the 1,500 concert attendees in Paris’ Bataclan theater had guns?”

    I like anecdotes. I did 10 minutes of google searching where I looked for an example where a person who was not a security guard or a cop that succeeded in preventing a mass shooting in a public place. I couldn’t find an example. Can you help me out? Thanks for your help in this search for the proverbial white elephant.

    1. How do you prove that someone prevented a mass shooting? Depends on how you define “mass shooting” or “public place”. Conveniently for you, they will be defined in any way that confirms your claim that DGU by armed citizens has never stopped a mass shooting, ever. Make sure to keep a firm grip on the goal posts while you peruse these examples that I found in less than one minute of google searching.

      Also, would it make any difference to cite thousands of examples of DGUs against non-mass shooters, or are people only allowed their right to self-defense when shooters are targeting dozens of people?

      Pearl High School Shooting
      Parker Middle School Dance Shooting

      1. Whoa there! I worked construction, studied at UT and lived near the scene in Austin. That altercation was more orderly than the union violence and lockouts commotions in the People’s States. The disputants were evenly matched and the best shot won. I am proud to note the comments section on the incident was as pro-freedom as Reason’s own comments section.

      1. Huh, it seems to have left…

    2. Deadbeat, you do realize that nearly EVERY mass shooting takes place in a ‘gun free zone’ engineered by your like-minded fellow travelers, right? Most mass shooters pick these soft targets on purpose. As they don’t like victims who can fight back. Kind of like the way you want things run in glorious socialist state.

    3. http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanha…..omeone-wit

      1. Pearl HS
      2. Parker Middle School dance
      3. Appalachian School of Law
      4. New Life Church,Colorado Springs,CO.
      5. Trolley Square,Salt LakeCity UT.
      6. Golden Market,VA
      7. NY Mills AT&T store
      8. Clackamas Mall,OR.
      9. San Antonio Theater

      BTW,what difference does it make if the armed defender was a “security guard” or off-duty cop? It still boils down to “good guy with a gun” stopped the mass shooting. Because on-duty police WERE NOT PRESENT. Police are never around when you really need one.
      The sooner a “good guy with a gun” arrives on-site,the fewer people the perp can shoot or kill,and the more people can escape. If one armed ODC is right there when it starts,the shooting doesn’t get very far. In most of these cases,when confronted by an armed person,the shooter either surrenders or suicides,and the killing STOPS.

    4. Okay, I’ll bite on your obvious attempt at trolling.

      This particular citizen (not a cop, not a security guard) stopped a mass shooting. It got a lot of press coverage because the citizen was an Uber driver.

      http://chicago.suntimes.com/ne…..e-sidewalk

      (Note that this article comes from a left-leaning paper, not a right-leaning source. Bias in favor of gun rights is therefore not likely to be present.)

      Clearly, you intentionally don’t want to find or see instances of when persons successfully defend themselves with firearms.

    5. Oh look: the lying commie rat bastard is pretending he couldn’t find something that anyone else could produce in a minute or less. What a precious, clever rhetorical gambit! We’ve never seen anything like that from his ilk before, have we?

      -jcr

  19. Separate country to Dalit goo.gl/NFK0A

  20. Government is purely a sewer of filth and corruption.

    1. And being the sausage king of Chicago, few would know better than you.

  21. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  22. So Donald Trump says on camera that he likes libertarians and and thinks they have a lot of good ideas. Trump then flipped like any other subsidised politician from opposition to support of medical marijuana and recognizes that the 21st Amendment could apply perfectly to hemp–thereby aligning himself more closely to the Libertarian Party position. Now you tell me he also exercises Second Amendment rights?! No wonder the Reason staff is out to lynch him… the rascal is clearly out to poach votes away from our party!

  23. Nice blog..Really meaningful one.Thank you for posting..
    The road to graduate school starts with an exceptionally aggressive application process. Your own announcement is your opportunity to show admissions officers what separates you from different candidates. Try not to abandon it to risk ? give yourself an edge with customized admissions writing direction from the writing essay specialists, including graduates, at admission essay writing service.

  24. Common sense seems removed from society and, especially, liberals today. Well, the voters at least. The rulers know exactly what they’re doing.

  25. Aside from all the bureaucratic baloney involved, which Stossel did outline, how come he omitted any reference to the financial abuse Mr. Law Abiding Citizen is put through, financial abuse that is significant.

  26. Self defense is the paramount human right, and any government that attempts to deny it is a tyranny that should be overthrown.

    -jcr

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.