Images: How NRA Supporters React To Moms’ Gun Sense Group Over Open Carry At Kroger
After the NRA posted the following image on their Facebook page of a Kroger manager in Ohio refusing to accept a petition from Moms Demand Action to end open carrying firearms in stores, Bearingarms.com asserted that it’s a ‘basic human right” to carry long guns in a store where families shop with their children.
Ironically and hypocritically, in another post, the site’s author states, “Open carry announces to the world that you are armed. That makes you a primary target in almost any conceivable situation.”
The following are NRA supporters who left messages on the Moms Demand Action Facebook page.
Kangaroo Kevin, an alleged human, writes that he supports Kroger and opposes gay marriage while suggesting that the gun sense group fucks trees and licks dogs.
Donald Donnie Foerch Jr, writes, “God bless Croger.” [sic]
Ricky Walker just wants people to “see” his guns. Ricky has two guns. He’s super-duper-tough and he totally does not look like a gangsta.
Eric supports Kroger. I can tell because he types that thought repeatedly.
Chris Bruster openly carries a firearm because of ‘evil’ people in our country, all of whom he obviously believes meet up at Kroger.
Bill is “rockin out” with his Glock, because clearly that’s why the Second Amendment was created.
People that defend the NRA by keeping their memberships intact, aren’t paying attention. The aforementioned people made their plans clear: They will openly carry guns into Kroger locations across the country with no regard for families who shop there with their children.
A favorite bit of rhetoric from Open Carry activists is that a gun is simply an inanimate object. While that’s true, the people with their hands on the trigger don’t look like ‘good guys with a gun.’
Are these the folks Kroger should be “trusting to be responsible with their guns in stores” as per their statement? You be the judge. As for me, I’ve been spending my delicious dollars elsewhere — until a gun policy is implemented.
Big thanks to my tipster whose anonymity shall be respected here.
All images obtained on social media, thereby making them fair use.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
Sharon Cornett October 11th, 2014 at 02:00
I never spent that much at Fred Meyer, but they’re not getting another penny from me until they take a stand against these nutcases.
Guest October 11th, 2014 at 08:20
So how about hank?
Carla Akins October 11th, 2014 at 08:58
ANd you’ll notice the rest of the community not only disagrees with him but actively engage him into changing his position. There are extremists on all sides of every issue.
Anomaly 100 October 11th, 2014 at 09:30
I have sooo many screen shots on several computers. Wanna trade?
Guest October 11th, 2014 at 08:20
So how about hank?
Carla Akins October 11th, 2014 at 08:58
And you’ll notice the rest of the community not only disagrees with him but actively engage him into changing his position. There are extremists on all sides of every issue.
Anomaly 100 October 11th, 2014 at 09:30
I have sooo many screen shots on several computers. Wanna trade?
Rob October 11th, 2014 at 08:30
Yeah, and Americans have just as many screenshots from you unstable nazis wishing death and destruction on gun owners by gun violence, while crusading against guns because of gun violence.
At least Americans aren’t raging hypocrites. Why are you in this country again?
OldLefty October 11th, 2014 at 11:46
At least Americans aren’t raging hypocrites. Why are you in this country again?
__________
So YOU get to decide who are “Americans”, and which of your fellow Americans should be in this country?
And YOU are calling OTHER people “Nazis”?
Rob October 11th, 2014 at 08:30
Yeah, and Americans have just as many screenshots from you unstable nazis wishing death and destruction on gun owners by gun violence, while crusading against guns because of gun violence.
At least Americans aren’t raging hypocrites. Why are you in this country again?
OldLefty October 11th, 2014 at 11:46
At least Americans aren’t raging hypocrites. Why are you in this country again?
__________
So YOU get to decide who are “Americans”, and which of your fellow Americans should be in this country?
And YOU are calling OTHER people “Nazis”?
James Singer October 11th, 2014 at 08:34
Moms Demand Action are only upset because Kroger and others are NOT caving in to THEIR Extremism.
OldLefty October 11th, 2014 at 08:54
Of course!
Kroger’s should only cave into the extremism of the NRA!
cargosquid October 12th, 2014 at 13:55
The NRA is asking them to merely follow state law.
Anomaly 100 October 11th, 2014 at 09:25
Oh no, a picture of your firearms. I am so askeered.
Carla Akins October 11th, 2014 at 13:02
Is this a thing? To what end?
Anomaly 100 October 11th, 2014 at 13:19
I had one of these open carry advocates email a picture of his firearm. I was so askeered the picture would start shooting me.
Carla Akins October 11th, 2014 at 13:24
Virtual brandishing? Bwahaha.
Anomaly 100 October 11th, 2014 at 13:46
Totally freaked me out. I barricaded the doors in case the picture opened fire on me.
Chinese Democracy October 12th, 2014 at 03:18
well it could have been worse… IF you know what I mean
Chris Carpenter October 11th, 2014 at 11:04
Yeah, when they get “extreme” you might get annoyed by their voices. When NRA members get “extreme” you either go to the hospital or you die. I’ll take their “extreme” over the NRA members.
cargosquid October 12th, 2014 at 13:54
Of course you have evidence to back up that statement, right?
GabeZ October 11th, 2014 at 11:56
Wow, what a BIG MAN!
Jones October 11th, 2014 at 16:13
Do those vibrate.
Chinese Democracy October 12th, 2014 at 03:17
thats one way to look at it.. and then there is the sane rational way
cargosquid October 12th, 2014 at 13:54
Why is following state laws and not wanting to get into politics an extreme position? Please point out the past shootings in Krogers or any other place that allows carry..open or concealed.
Chinese Democracy October 12th, 2014 at 20:11
Wal mart las vegas…. Wal mart allows concealed carry
a shopper in wal mart confronted 2 people with guns with his own gun and they shot him dead.
Google is your friend … try it
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 00:39
Sorry, I see that I phrased that poorly.
Please point out past shooting in Krogers or any other place that allows carry, open or concealed …by the carrier.
Of course, I can find google results showing where lawful carriers shot the bad guys….. in Krogers.
James Singer October 11th, 2014 at 08:34
Moms Demand Action are only upset because Kroger and others are NOT caving in to THEIR Extremism.
OldLefty October 11th, 2014 at 08:54
Of course!
Kroger’s should only cave into the extremism of the NRA!
cargosquid October 12th, 2014 at 13:55
The NRA is asking them to merely follow state law.
Anomaly 100 October 11th, 2014 at 09:25
Oh no, a picture of your firearms. I am so askeered.
Carla Akins October 11th, 2014 at 13:02
Is this a thing? To what end?
Anomaly 100 October 11th, 2014 at 13:19
I had one of these open carry advocates email a picture of his firearm. I was so askeered the picture would start shooting me.
Carla Akins October 11th, 2014 at 13:24
Virtual brandishing? Bwahaha.
Anomaly 100 October 11th, 2014 at 13:46
Totally freaked me out. I barricaded the doors in case the picture opened fire on me.
Chinese Democracy October 12th, 2014 at 03:18
well it could have been worse… IF you know what I mean
Chris Carpenter October 11th, 2014 at 11:04
Yeah, when they get “extreme” you might get annoyed by their voices. When NRA members get “extreme” you either go to the hospital or you die. I’ll take their “extreme” over the NRA members.
cargosquid October 12th, 2014 at 13:54
Of course you have evidence to back up that statement, right?
GabeZ October 11th, 2014 at 11:56
Wow, what a BIG MAN!
Jones October 11th, 2014 at 16:13
Do those vibrate.
Chinese Democracy October 12th, 2014 at 03:17
thats one way to look at it.. and then there is the sane rational way
cargosquid October 12th, 2014 at 13:54
Why is following state laws and not wanting to get into politics an extreme position? Please point out the past shootings in Krogers or any other place that allows carry..open or concealed.
Chinese Democracy October 12th, 2014 at 20:11
Wal mart las vegas…. Wal mart allows concealed carry
a shopper in wal mart confronted 2 people with guns with his own gun and they shot him dead.
Google is your friend … try it
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 00:39
Sorry, I see that I phrased that poorly.
Please point out past shooting in Krogers or any other place that allows carry, open or concealed …by the carrier.
Of course, I can find google results showing where lawful carriers shot the bad guys….. in Krogers.
Fredric_Alan_Maxwell October 11th, 2014 at 08:41
Caving in to Kroger’s extremism? Kroger’s extremism? Not wanting guns, which tend to go off, carried around kids and other people worried about getting shot? Oh, and the racists posts here says it all.
OldLefty October 11th, 2014 at 09:02
Somewhere (?) I heard the idea that if you are in a restaurant, and someone comes in, (open carrying) should you walk out, not in a huff to “make a statement”, but as a precaution to get your family out before it becomes another mass shooting?
Too bad about the bill, perhaps you can go after the gun person, as they created the dangerous situation or the perception of a dangerous situation.
This is how the right gets THEIR cases into court.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 00:38
So far the only posts concerning race have been from the CONTROL side.
Fredric_Alan_Maxwell October 11th, 2014 at 08:41
Caving in to Kroger’s extremism? Kroger’s extremism? Not wanting guns, which tend to go off, carried around kids and other people worried about getting shot? Oh, and the racists posts here says it all.
OldLefty October 11th, 2014 at 09:02
Somewhere (?) I heard the idea that if you are in a restaurant, and someone comes in, (open carrying) should you walk out, not in a huff to “make a statement”, but as a precaution to get your family out before it becomes another mass shooting?
Too bad about the bill, perhaps you can go after the gun person, as they created the dangerous situation or the perception of a dangerous situation.
This is how the right gets THEIR cases into court.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 00:38
So far the only posts concerning race have been from the CONTROL side.
Chuck Larlham October 11th, 2014 at 12:44
I keep reading, mostly in comments under posts on the 2nd Amendment open carry issue, that I’ll be happy people around me are armed when a bad guy with a gun shows up in Krogers, Meijers, A&P (now defunct), ACME, pik-a-grocery, park, movie, church, whutevah. Oddly enough, I find that hard to credit. I’m a 72-year-old Army veteran and I have yet, in 72 years, to have a bad guy with a gun show up and try to
rob any store in which I’m shopping, kidnap my kids or grandkids (or me in the ’40s) or
commit any crime at all. Exactly what are you protecting me from, and
why does carrying guns in the store help with that again?
For the record, I own a couple guns for shooting and a couple antique guns of little particular value for display. I don’t carry either into grocery stores. In point of fact, until President Obama was elected and whole bunches of paranoid lackwits decided he needed to be constantly reminded, “We gots guns!” I had never seen a gun carried into a store except by police.
Walking into a store and coming face-to-face with someone carrying a gun (slung or in hand) is my cue to leave. You can’t protect me from bad guys with guns, but you can get me shot if one shows up. Because such stores usually have mothers, fathers and children in them, I won’t confront the nitwit carrying the gun. I have no way to know whether I’m facing the bad guy with a gun or the good guy with a gun who’ll get his gun taken away by the bad guy. In any case, I don’t want to piss the guy with a gun off, because taking guns away from self-imagined heroes (or away from bad guys) can be dangerous to bystanders.
Just as an aside, boycotts, and the threat thereof, are not generally considered terrorism. Showing up as a group with guns strapped on, and insisting the storeowner has to let you wander the aisles in that condition, could be construed as physically threatening at the least, and domestic terrorism without much stretch.
Carla Akins October 11th, 2014 at 12:58
Thank you for such a well written and reasoned comment. On a side note; I will be adding lackwit to my vocabulary.
Chuck Larlham October 11th, 2014 at 17:03
Thank you for your kind assessment of my comment, and yeah… I’m kinda fond of “lackwit.”
hardoug October 11th, 2014 at 15:52
Chuck I mean not to offend, I am 50 years of age and a Marine Corps vet. I have been hunted, shot at, threatened with my life, witnessed shoot out’s and have been in the presence of death more times than I care to remember all before I joined the Marines at age 18. I grew up in the bad section of town, every state has there bad sections of town. You fortunately have not have had this experience I envy that, however my envy cannot dismiss reality. Please don’t misunderstand me I’m not saying I’m right and your wrong, my point is every one of us is different we all come different walks of life with different experiences. My impression is you don’t feel it necessary for anyone to arm themselves and I would agree if I have lived your life unfortunately for me I have not. There must be some middle ground for all of us, we all live on the same earth the finger pointing, name calling for me is unproductive for either side.
Chuck Larlham October 11th, 2014 at 17:08
No offense taken. I grew up in the ’40s and ’50s on a farm five miles outside a little village in Northeast Ohio. Since then I’ve worked in good places and bad, and lived in the same. But as I said, no one has ever walked into a store I was shopping sporting a gun on display. I had one night of getting shot at in South Korea in 1963, and that satisfied my curiosity on the matter. One night was enough. My point throughout, aside from smacking the truly ignorant, has been that having you in the store if my experience changes and a bad guy with a gun shows up is not likely to be protective. In fact, I’m likely to get shot by accident in that scenario.
Shameless plug – I wrote a book (available at Amazon) about my early life – “The Old Man and Me.” You’d probably enjoy it. Sequel on the way.
MontieR October 11th, 2014 at 22:10
If that is what you choose to believe that is sad. For the record ALL of these possible scenarios were bullets are sprayed and bystanders get shot , the police ARE involved I have been unable to find ONE instance where an armed citizen was defending him/her self and bystanders were shot. Whereas almost every day you can find instanced where armed citizens have defended themselves and no weapon was even fired and if shots were fired 90% of the time the CRIMINAL was injured or killed. Your logic is flawed by anti gun lies and distortions and their pathologic FEAR of guns.
Obewon October 11th, 2014 at 22:40
Google has 700,000 results for you ‘armed citizen defense self where bystanders were shot Violence Policy center’
1. Paper Targets Don’t Shoot Back https://www.vpc.org/studies/uninthree.htm
2. Unintended Consequences: Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense “In 1998, for every time that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 51 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone. Add in suicides and the ratio stretches to 134 to one. (Unintended Consequences, p. 60)” http://www.vpc.org/studies/uninexec.htm
Strike 3. US guns shoot 22-43 more friends and family than any intruder. Australia’s Gun ban & buybacks reduced homicide and suicide rates by 2/3: “Firearm homicide rate fell by 59%, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65%, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness.”-Conservative PM John Howard. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
cargosquid October 12th, 2014 at 13:52
Using the VPC for anything related to gun statistics is like using a politician for honest statements.
The VPC lies. They even invented the fake term “assault weapon” to confuse and scare people.
Obewon October 12th, 2014 at 16:29
I quoted U.S. FBI/CDC stats cited by VPC also proving why U.S. gun owner households dropped from 1970’s 50% to 32% today. It’s you gun slave paranoids who shoot 22-43 times more friends & family than any intruder-CDC/FBI on Gun owner Darwinism!
Plus WaPo citing Australia’s gun registration with Buybacks 2/3 drop in guns reducing all of their homicides, gun-crimes & overall suicides proving less guns always save more lives! USA’s most guns per capita states have the highest gun deaths per person!
You’re correct that GOP TP politicians do most always lie, especially if they ever believe or quote GOP leader Limbaugh “0 True”-Nonpartisan Pulitzer Prize winner Politifact http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/ Vs 12 Pages of Obama campaign promises kept always proves 99%+ of GOP TP politicians are universal liars. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/?page=12 BTW it’s your own 1993 “Assault Weapons Ban”-endorsed by Reagan, GHWB & all other then living Presidents proving your functional illiteracy of today’s CT, CO & many other states banning specifically described “Assault Weapons”-based on specific criteria.
cargosquid October 12th, 2014 at 17:36
The stats cited by VPC are incorrect if they are from the FBI/CDC about households. That comes from the census. And based upon population growth and the changes in households…..you still get an 8 million owner increase. And that is with increased gun control in the growing cities of the 1980’/90’s.
According to the Sydney Herald, gun ownership has returned to previous levels of ownership in Australia. Must not be the guns. Btw…the perception of less guns in Australia has emboldened their criminals, and thus, their violent crime rate has shot up.
Politifact is a known leftist apologist.
My own Assault weapon ban? That was by Clinton. And Reagan was NOT a second amendment supporter. That reality is one of his failings. Regardless, that “ban” actually only banned cosmetic options and did nothing for crime. They could only ban cosmetic options because the term “assault weapon” is an invented term that describes no actual rifle. The “definition” changes with the politician describing it. There is no universal description…as was demonstrated by Feinstein changing it to fit her bill trying to ban and confiscate protected arms.
Obewon October 12th, 2014 at 18:25
You’re very funny! VPC links to cited FBI/CDC proven facts. And here’s GHW Bush’s 1995 letter of resignation as a Life Member of the NRA because of ‘Crazy Wayne’ “LaPierre:”
I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as “jack-booted thugs.” To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as “wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms” wanting to “attack law abiding citizens” is a vicious slander on good people. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bushnra.asp#GD5ebHGDEYXzgdzv.99
Nonpartisan Pulitzer Prize winning “PolitiFact” has a center-right leaning bias. Any well proven Facts burst your bubble because you live in a GOP TV, web & radio fantasyland debunked delusion e.g. Did you buy Glenn Beck’s vacuum packed (DOA) seeds, Limbaugh & jihadi Alex Jones touted ‘Buy Gold’ at $1,800/oz? “Assault Weapons” are real. It’s your sources that are well proven imaginary “0 True”-GOP leader Limbaugh’s actual rating. At least 97% dishonest Canadian Ted Cruz tells the “truth=3%”-PolitiFact Texas! http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/ The entire country of Australia’s well proven 2/3 drop in guncrime, Homicides & suicides are “Peer Review” cited and well proven via required gun registration & universal background checks for any guns or ammo purchases keeping the crazies away from guns: ”Australia’s public health effort to reduce the risk of gun violence led the world,” he said. ”After melting down a million guns, the risk of an Australian dying by gunshot fell by more than half. Plus, we’ve seen no mass shootings in 16 years,” Professor Alpers said. http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html#ixzz3FyScVtgS <-"Sydney Morning Herald."
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 00:37
GHWB didn’t support the AWB. He protested La Pierre’s description of the gun running organization known as the ATF.
Politifact is “right leaning” only in the minds of complete and utter statists.
I will correct one error on my part. Assault weapon was defined by Josh Sugarmann, not Horwitz, of the VPC.
His statement: Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
In other words, he lied. He made the term up. There is nothing different from an AR platform to any other semi-auto rifle.
Yes…. the Aussies did lose their guns to confiscation. They have the numbers back. And crime is still low. Its not the guns. Your link even says that. Australia’s crime murder rate was low to begin with.
Obewon October 13th, 2014 at 01:12
“Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.”-JIMMY CARTER
Published: April 26, 2009 Op-Ed Re “THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27Carter.html
George W’-“BUSH: I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban and was told the bill was never going to move. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks.”-Source: Third Bush-Kerry debate, in Tempe AZ , Oct 13, 2004 Re “Q: You said if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you’d sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage Congress to extend it.” http://www.ontheissues.org/Bush_Kerry_3.htm Video “A prominent GOP supporter of assault weapons ban, background checks? It’s George W. Bush”-S.F. Chronicle http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/04/a-prominent-gop-supporter-of-assault-weapons-ban-background-checks-its-george-w-bush/#11199101=0
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 01:21
Jimmy Carter …. got a link to Bush saying that? We already know that Clinton and Reagan did. Reagan was not the gun rights guy that he pretended to be. One of his few failings.
Carter has been known to…pad…his sayings.
Obewon October 13th, 2014 at 01:27
I linked text & on the record Video for you too! Good luck trying to debunk Nuclear Engineer POTUS Carter Ph.D!
(This is not some Limbaughtomized fool whose Mom said ‘Rusty failed at everything during his one semester at college, even ballroom dancing’-Rush Limbaugh’s Mom Confirmed to me by his brother & Atty David Limbaugh.) BTW> -the federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons will have expired and once again these weapons will begin to flood our communities and threaten our officers.
First passed in 1994, the assault weapons ban required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semiautomatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were also halted.
Since the law was enacted, the ban has proven remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. Since 1994 the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by a dramatic 66%. Public opinion polls continue to prove that more than 75% of the public supports a reauthorization of the current ban. http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=384
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 01:42
“Since the law was enacted, the ban has proven remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. Since 1994 the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by a dramatic 66 percent”
Complete and utter BS.
You do realize that police chiefs are notorious for being gun control people….right.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16549416-was-the-last-assault-weapons-ban-effective
According to the official NIJ assessment:
The share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17
percent to 72 percent for the locations observed in this study
(Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage) during all or some of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.
However, in the jurisdictions studied, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs. The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock that was in place prior to the ban as well as imports, the report found.
The few available studies do, however, suggest that attacks with AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs result in more shots fired, more people hit, and more wounds per victim than do attacks with other firearms.
The ban didn’t do a thing because there were still a couple of million “assault weapons” in private hands. Even the Washington Post had to state that there was no noticiable effect.
Obewon October 13th, 2014 at 16:12
Your ‘opinions’ echoed by PA University NIJ were debunked above long ago by CDC/FBI current data of rising 32,000+ U.S. annual gun deaths plus another 70,000 shot each year costing taxpayers up to $150 Billion+ each year for gun paranoia. Many states with the Federal government ban AWB’s because of the mass murder capability and deaths inflicted. Get a slingshot.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 17:28
Still waiting on these supposed links to the CDC and FBI.
There were 8855 “gun murders in 2012.
The CDC estimates that, at minimum, about 108,000 people protect themselves yearly with defensive gun uses. But, you wouldn’t mind if they couldn’t defend themselves, wouldn’t you?
Your 32,000 includes suicides. Guns do not increase the suicide rate. And justified homicides.
Many states ban AWB’s? Name one that is a successful ban. They ban cosmetics. Even Connecticut banned “Assault weapons.” Even California allows California compliant ARs.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 01:45
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/the-last-assault-weapons-ban-didnt-work-will-the-new-one-be-different/
Didn’t work. So they wanted to try the same thing, only harder.
Obewon October 13th, 2014 at 02:17
“Video” linked from both 2000 and 2004 Presidential debates as linked works just fine. Here again is the embedded “George W. Bush”-S.F. Chronicle” link to http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/george-bush-pushed-gun-background-checks-in-2000-2004-debate
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 03:01
Thanks…You mentioned his father before.
yes…. the moderate GWB did say that he would sign it if passed. Notice…Congress did not. It let it fade away because they knew that gun control was unpopular and the AWB was useless. That allowed GWB to have cover and play the moderate.
I didn’t see it mentioned in the first debate. Just ol’ George being the moderate on gun rights….saying all the right things so the gun phobes wouldn’t get too scared.
Margie Bateman Osgood October 13th, 2014 at 21:39
Sugarman popularized the term, but here is where it originated. You research better than most, but I am finding you seem to stop at the first layer:
In 1985, Art Agnos introduced a bill in the California State Assembly seeking to place restrictions on semi-automatic firearms capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more.[26] In his bill, AB 1509, these guns were categorized as “assault firearms”.[26] Speaking to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Agnos said, “The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people.”[27] The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote.[26]Otherwise, the use of the term “assault weapon” was limited to naming certain minor military weapons systems, for example, the Rifleman’s Assault Weapon, an American grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with theM16 assault rifle[28] or the SMAW in 1984.[29]
Popularization of the term “assault weapon” is attributed by many to the 1988 book “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America”, written by gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann, and to subsequent public reaction to the January 1989 Cleveland School massacre in Stockton, CA.[12]
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 23:44
As I said…. “assault weapon” as used to describe semi-auto rifles was developed by Josh Sugarmann.
The previous uses were for military weapons other than the rifle, such as a grenade launcher.
He even admits that he used it to confuse voters.
I didn’t stop at the first layer. I named the appropriate author of the term for its use to describe a weapon fraudulently.
Margie Bateman Osgood October 14th, 2014 at 22:54
Read my post, it was developed in Art Angus’s bill BEFORE Sugarman’s book. You don’t like facts at all, do you?
cargosquid October 15th, 2014 at 01:02
“assault firearms”
Read it. Different term.
Josh Sugarmann uses “assault weapon”, the popular term bing bandied about now. He used THAT phrase and admits to inventing it to confuse matters. If someone else used a similar term prior to Sugarmann’s use, fine. But its not that term.
Doesn’t take away that the term was used by Sugarmann to confuse people.
But let’s take a look at Agnos’ bill and terminology.
He too is using the term to scare people. An “assault firearm” is not functionally different than any other semi-auto rifle. He’s doing the same dishonest thing that Sugarmann is doing.
Either way, these rifles are protected under the 2nd amendment.
Margie Bateman Osgood October 16th, 2014 at 03:12
I did read it and talking to Congress Agnos used the term “assault weapon”
Speaking to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Agnos said, “The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people.”[27] The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote.[26] Otherwise, the use of the term “assault weapon” was limited to naming certain minor military weapons systems, for example, the Rifleman’s Assault Weapon, an American grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle[28] or the SMAW in 1984.[29]
Popularization of the term “assault weapon” is attributed by many to the 1988 book “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America”, written by gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann, and to subsequent public reaction to the January 1989 Cleveland School massacre in Stockton, CA
Margie Bateman Osgood October 16th, 2014 at 03:22
And if you really want to get nit picky:
The Guns and Ammo article predates Agnos and Sugarman BOTH
In 1982, Guns & Ammo published a book titled Assault Rifles, advertising “Complete Data On The Best Semi-Automatics.”[1] In 1988 Guns & Ammo handgun expert Jan Libourel defined an “assault pistol” simply as, “A high-capacity semi-automatic firearm styled like a submachine gun but having a pistol-length barrel and lacking a buttstock.”[2]
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 10:30
By the way… Just read your links. Those “studies” are merely opinion pieces by an anti-rights group to bolster their positions.
The best, the absolute BEST that can be said about those articles are that they are filled with inaccuracies and spin.
And there were no FBI/CDC links.
Margie Bateman Osgood October 13th, 2014 at 21:29
You do know the VPC does more for gun policy and is a non-profit group that advocates. That is what they do, they are very serious about their studies and do much research, if it is theirs, it is certainly NOT an opinion piece
Margie Bateman Osgood October 13th, 2014 at 21:32
ANd here are the experts that helped them prove their study, all pro-gun: http://www.vpc.org/studies/uninapa.htm
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 23:45
I do know that the VPC works to develop gun policy. It seeks to infringe on the rights of Americans, has sought gun bans and confiscations, and been caught in spinning data so hard it is tantamount to lying. And Josh Sugarmann is a known liar.
Larry October 12th, 2014 at 21:12
Chuck, I found you getting verbally attacked in the United airlines article and was for the “other guy” until the racist terms got thrown around then followed your link. Even though I disagree with some of your beliefs your shameless plug worked (kindle edition only). Thanks for providing opposing but very well thought out and spoken opinions/facts.
Chuck Larlham October 12th, 2014 at 22:39
Thank you, Larry. I’m out of this thread (except for this response). Glad the plug worked. Hope you enjoy the book.
Carla Akins October 11th, 2014 at 12:58
Thank you for such a well written and reasoned comment. On a side note; I will be adding lackwit to my vocabulary.
Chuck Larlham October 11th, 2014 at 17:03
Thank you for your kind assessment of my comment, and yeah… I’m kinda fond of “lackwit.”
hardoug October 11th, 2014 at 15:52
Chuck I mean not to offend, I am 50 years of age and a Marine Corps vet. I have been hunted, shot at, threatened with my life, witnessed shoot out’s and have been in the presence of death more times than I care to remember all before I joined the Marines at age 18. I grew up in the bad section of town, every state has there bad sections of town. You fortunately have not have had this experience I envy that, however my envy cannot dismiss reality. Please don’t misunderstand me I’m not saying I’m right and your wrong, my point is every one of us is different we all come different walks of life with different experiences. My impression is you don’t feel it necessary for anyone to arm themselves and I would agree if I have lived your life unfortunately for me I have not. There must be some middle ground for all of us, we all live on the same earth the finger pointing, name calling for me is unproductive for either side.
Chuck Larlham October 11th, 2014 at 17:08
No offense taken. I grew up in the ’40s and ’50s on a farm five miles outside a little village in Northeast Ohio. Since then I’ve worked in good places and bad, and lived in the same. But as I said, no one has ever walked into a store I was shopping sporting a gun on display. I had one night of getting shot at in South Korea in 1963, and that satisfied my curiosity on the matter. One night was enough. My point throughout, aside from smacking the truly ignorant, has been that having you in the store if my experience changes and a bad guy with a gun shows up is not likely to be protective. In fact, I’m likely to get shot by accident in that scenario.
Shameless plug – I wrote a book (available at Amazon) about my early life – “The Old Man and Me.” You’d probably enjoy it. Sequel on the way.
MontieR October 11th, 2014 at 22:10
If that is what you choose to believe that is sad. For the record ALL of these possible scenarios were bullets are sprayed and bystanders get shot , the police ARE involved I have been unable to find ONE instance where an armed citizen was defending him/her self and bystanders were shot. Whereas almost every day you can find instanced where armed citizens have defended themselves and no weapon was even fired and if shots were fired 90% of the time the CRIMINAL was injured or killed. Your logic is flawed by anti gun lies and distortions and their pathologic FEAR of guns.
Obewon October 11th, 2014 at 22:40
Google has 700,000 results for you ‘armed citizen defense self where bystanders were shot Violence Policy center’
1. Paper Targets Don’t Shoot Back https://www.vpc.org/studies/uninthree.htm
2. Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense http://www.vpc.org/studies/uninexec.htm
Strike 3. US guns shoot 22-43 more friends and family than any intruder. Australia’s Gun ban & buybacks reduced homicide and suicide rates by 2/3: Firearm homicide rate fell by 59%, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65%, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
cargosquid October 12th, 2014 at 13:52
Using the VPC for anything related to gun statistics is like using a politician for honest statements.
The VPC lies. They even invented the fake term “assault weapon” to confuse and scare people.
Obewon October 12th, 2014 at 16:29
I quoted U.S. FBI/CDC stats cited by VPC also proving why U.S. gun owner households dropped from 1970’s 50% to 32% today. It’s you gun slave paranoids who shoot 22-43 times more friends & family than any intruder-CDC/FBI on Gun owner Darwinism!
Plus Australia’s gun registration with Buybacks 2/3 drop in guns reduction in all of their homicides, gun-crimes & overall suicides proves less guns always save more lives! USA’s most guns per capita states have the highest gun deaths per person!
cargosquid October 12th, 2014 at 17:36
The stats cited by VPC are incorrect if they are from the FBI/CDC about households. That comes from the census. And based upon population growth and the changes in households…..you still get an 8 million owner increase. And that is with increased gun control in the growing cities of the 1980’/90’s.
According to the Sydney Herald, gun ownership has returned to previous levels of ownership in Australia. Must not be the guns. Btw…the perception of less guns in Australia has emboldened their criminals, and thus, their violent crime rate has shot up.
Politifact is a known leftist apologist.
My own Assault weapon ban? That was by Clinton. And Reagan was NOT a second amendment supporter. That reality is one of his failings. Regardless, that “ban” actually only banned cosmetic options and did nothing for crime. They could only ban cosmetic options because the term “assault weapon” is an invented term that describes no actual rifle. The “definition” changes with the politician describing it. There is no universal description…as was demonstrated by Feinstein changing it to fit her bill trying to ban and confiscate protected arms.
And really… your linking to a Politifact article on Rush Limbaugh to talk about Obama’s “promises” and gun control. That’s just sad.
Obewon October 12th, 2014 at 18:25
You’re too nutty, but very funny! VPC links to cited FBI/CDC cited facts. Here’s GHW Bush’s 1995 letter of resignation as a Life Member of the NRA because of ‘Crazy Wayne’ “LaPierre:”
I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as “jack-booted thugs.” To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as “wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms” wanting to “attack law abiding citizens” is a vicious slander on good people. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bushnra.asp#GD5ebHGDEYXzgdzv.99
Did you buy Glenn Beck’s vacuum packed (DOA) seeds, Limbaugh & jihadi Alex Jones touted ‘Buy Gold’ at $1,800/oz?
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 00:37
GHWB didn’t support the AWB. He protested La Pierre’s description of the gun running organization known as the ATF.
Politifact is “right leaning” only in the minds of complete and utter statists.
I will correct one error on my part. Assault weapon was defined by Josh Sugarmann, not Horwitz, of the VPC.
His statement: Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
In other words, he lied. He made the term up. There is nothing different from an AR platform to any other semi-auto rifle.
Yes…. the Aussies did lose their guns to confiscation. They have the numbers back. And crime is still low. Its not the guns. Your link even says that. Australia’s crime murder rate was low to begin with.
Obewon October 13th, 2014 at 01:12
“Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.”-JIMMY CARTER
Published: April 26, 2009 Op-Ed http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27Carter.html
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 01:21
Jimmy Carter …. got a link to Bush saying that? We already know that Clinton and Reagan did. Reagan was not the gun rights guy that he pretended to be. One of his few failings.
Carter has been known to…pad…his sayings.
Obewon October 13th, 2014 at 01:27
I linked text & on the record Video for you too! Good Luck Debunking POTUS Carter Nuclear Engineering Ph.D!
(This is not some Limbaughtomized fool whose Mom said ‘Rusty failed at everything during his one semester at college, even ballroom dancing’-Rush Limbaugh’s Mom Confirmed to me by his brother & Atty David Limbaugh.) BTW> -the federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons will have expired and once again these weapons will begin to flood our communities and threaten our officers.
First passed in 1994, the assault weapons ban required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semiautomatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were also halted.
Since the law was enacted, the ban has proven remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. Since 1994 the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by a dramatic 66%. Public opinion polls continue to prove that more than 75% of the public supports a reauthorization of the current ban. http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=384
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 01:42
“Since the law was enacted, the ban has proven remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. Since 1994 the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by a dramatic 66 percent”
Complete and utter BS.
You do realize that police chiefs are notorious for being gun control people….right.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16549416-was-the-last-assault-weapons-ban-effective
According to the official NIJ assessment:
The share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17
percent to 72 percent for the locations observed in this study
(Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage) during all or some of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.
However, in the jurisdictions studied, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs. The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock that was in place prior to the ban as well as imports, the report found.
The few available studies do, however, suggest that attacks with AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with LCMs result in more shots fired, more people hit, and more wounds per victim than do attacks with other firearms.
The ban didn’t do a thing because there were still a couple of million “assault weapons” in private hands. Even the Washington Post had to state that there was no noticiable effect.
Obewon October 13th, 2014 at 16:12
Your ‘opinions’ echoed by PA University NIJ were debunked above long ago by CDC/FBI current data of rising 32,000+ U.S. annual gun deaths plus another 70,000 shot each year costing taxpayers up to $150 Billion+ each year for gun paranoia. Many states with the Federal government ban AWB’s because of the mass murder capability and deaths inflicted. Get a slingshot.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 17:28
Still waiting on these supposed links to the CDC and FBI.
There were 8855 “gun murders in 2012.
The CDC estimates that, at minimum, about 108,000 people protect themselves yearly with defensive gun uses. But, you wouldn’t mind if they couldn’t defend themselves, wouldn’t you?
Your 32,000 includes suicides. Guns do not increase the suicide rate. And justified homicides.
Many states ban AWB’s? Name one that is a successful ban. They ban cosmetics. Even Connecticut banned “Assault weapons.” Even California allows California compliant ARs.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 01:45
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/the-last-assault-weapons-ban-didnt-work-will-the-new-one-be-different/
Didn’t work. So they wanted to try the same thing, only harder.
Obewon October 13th, 2014 at 02:17
“Video” linked from both 2000 and 2004 Presidential debates as linked works just fine. Here again is the embedded link http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/george-bush-pushed-gun-background-checks-in-2000-2004-debate
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 03:01
Thanks…You mentioned his father before.
yes…. the moderate GWB did say that he would sign it if passed. Notice…Congress did not. It let it fade away because they knew that gun control was unpopular and the AWB was useless. That allowed GWB to have cover and play the moderate.
I didn’t see it mentioned in the first debate. Just ol’ George being the moderate on gun rights….saying all the right things so the gun phobes wouldn’t get too scared.
Margie Bateman Osgood October 13th, 2014 at 21:39
Sugarman popularized the term, but here is where it originated. You research better than most, but I am finding you seem to stop at the first layer:
In 1985, Art Agnos introduced a bill in the California State Assembly seeking to place restrictions on semi-automatic firearms capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more.[26] In his bill, AB 1509, these guns were categorized as “assault firearms”.[26] Speaking to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Agnos said, “The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people.”[27] The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote.[26]Otherwise, the use of the term “assault weapon” was limited to naming certain minor military weapons systems, for example, the Rifleman’s Assault Weapon, an American grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with theM16 assault rifle[28] or the SMAW in 1984.[29]
Popularization of the term “assault weapon” is attributed by many to the 1988 book “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America”, written by gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann, and to subsequent public reaction to the January 1989 Cleveland School massacre in Stockton, CA.[12]
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 23:44
As I said…. “assault weapon” as used to describe semi-auto rifles was developed by Josh Sugarmann.
The previous uses were for military weapons other than the rifle, such as a grenade launcher.
He even admits that he used it to confuse voters.
I didn’t stop at the first layer. I named the appropriate author of the term for its use to describe a weapon fraudulently.
Margie Bateman Osgood October 14th, 2014 at 22:54
Read my post, it was developed in Art Angus’s bill BEFORE Sugarman’s book. You don’t like facts at all, do you?
cargosquid October 15th, 2014 at 01:02
“assault firearms”
Read it. Different term.
Josh Sugarmann uses “assault weapon”, the popular term bing bandied about now. He used THAT phrase and admits to inventing it to confuse matters. If someone else used a similar term prior to Sugarmann’s use, fine. But its not that term.
Doesn’t take away that the term was used by Sugarmann to confuse people.
But let’s take a look at Agnos’ bill and terminology.
He too is using the term to scare people. An “assault firearm” is not functionally different than any other semi-auto rifle. He’s doing the same dishonest thing that Sugarmann is doing.
Either way, these rifles are protected under the 2nd amendment.
Margie Bateman Osgood October 16th, 2014 at 03:12
I did read it and the first time it was used in the bill was “assault weapon” The term “assault firearm” was coined for the military weapons
Margie Bateman Osgood October 16th, 2014 at 03:22
And if you really want to get nit picky:
The Guns and Ammo article predates Agnos and Sugarman BOTH
In 1982, Guns & Ammo published a book titled Assault Rifles, advertising “Complete Data On The Best Semi-Automatics.”[1] In 1988 Guns & Ammo handgun expert Jan Libourel defined an “assault pistol” simply as, “A high-capacity semi-automatic firearm styled like a submachine gun but having a pistol-length barrel and lacking a buttstock.”[2]
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 10:30
By the way… Just read your links. Those “studies” are merely opinion pieces by an anti-rights group to bolster their positions.
The best, the absolute BEST that can be said about those articles are that they are filled with inaccuracies and spin.
And there were no FBI/CDC links.
Margie Bateman Osgood October 13th, 2014 at 21:29
You do know the VPC does more for gun policy and is a non-profit group that advocates. That is what they do, they are very serious about their studies and do much research, if it is theirs, it is certainly NOT an opinion piece
Margie Bateman Osgood October 13th, 2014 at 21:32
ANd here are the experts that helped them prove their study, all pro-gun: http://www.vpc.org/studies/uninapa.htm
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 23:45
I do know that the VPC works to develop gun policy. It seeks to infringe on the rights of Americans, has sought gun bans and confiscations, and been caught in spinning data so hard it is tantamount to lying. And Josh Sugarmann is a known liar.
Larry October 12th, 2014 at 21:12
Chuck, I found you getting verbally attacked in the United airlines article and was for the “other guy” until the racist terms got thrown around then followed your link. Even though I disagree with some of your beliefs your shameless plug worked (kindle edition only). Thanks for providing opposing but very well thought out and spoken opinions/facts.
Chuck Larlham October 12th, 2014 at 22:39
Thank you, Larry. I’m out of this thread (except for this response). Glad the plug worked. Hope you enjoy the book.
Mark McCauley October 11th, 2014 at 16:21
This article is the best case for increased funding for public schools I’ve seen yet…..I’m seriously surprised that any of these paranoid grocery-store open carry freaks can even use a computer.
grendal113 October 12th, 2014 at 14:57
Rofl and we are surprised that all of your Priuses don’t smell like pee.
Mark McCauley October 13th, 2014 at 11:55
If ANYTHING smells like pee, it’s the pants of those so skeert they can’t go out in public without carrying a gun.
Mark McCauley October 11th, 2014 at 16:21
This article is the best case for increased funding for public schools I’ve seen yet…..I’m seriously surprised that any of these paranoid grocery-store open carry freaks can even use a computer.
grendal113 October 12th, 2014 at 14:57
Rofl and we are surprised that all of your Priuses don’t smell like pee.
Mark McCauley October 13th, 2014 at 11:55
If ANYTHING smells like pee, it’s the pants of those so skeert they can’t go out in public without carrying a gun.
atunionbob October 11th, 2014 at 17:55
I pledge to no longer shop and any Kroger, Bakers, King Supers or any other Kroger chain owned stores until they stop allowing open carry in their stores.
MontieR October 11th, 2014 at 22:02
Good we won’t have to deal with your winy ass wile we go about our business.
Margaret Kaufman October 13th, 2014 at 17:36
Why are you here?
Oldfoxbob October 11th, 2014 at 17:55
I pledge to no longer shop and any Kroger, Bakers, King Supers or any other Kroger chain owned stores until they stop allowing open carry in their stores.
MontieR October 11th, 2014 at 22:02
Good we won’t have to deal with your winy ass wile we go about our business.
Margaret Kaufman October 13th, 2014 at 17:36
Why are you here?
Beau West October 11th, 2014 at 19:30
You are ALWAYS reading about some lady getting raped and/or beaten up at Krogers!!Seems like it’s on the news every day or so. Must be a dangerous place.
Obewon October 11th, 2014 at 22:51
Exactly! That’s why many shoppers are going to safer stores to shop. Always boycott Kroger & Wal*Mart. Running List of 2014 Walmart Shootings! http://walmartshootings.blogspot.com/p/running-list-of-2014-walmart-shootings.html
Chinese Democracy October 12th, 2014 at 03:14
just the lighting in wal mart sends me running. Its a very odd color of blue
Beau West October 11th, 2014 at 19:30
You are ALWAYS reading about some lady getting raped and/or beaten up at Krogers!!Seems like it’s on the news every day or so. Must be a dangerous place.
Obewon October 11th, 2014 at 22:51
Exactly! That’s why many shoppers are going to safer stores to shop. Always boycott Kroger & Wal*Mart. Running List of 2014 Walmart Shootings! http://walmartshootings.blogspot.com/p/running-list-of-2014-walmart-shootings.html
Chinese Democracy October 12th, 2014 at 03:14
just the lighting in wal mart sends me running. Its a very odd color of blue
cargosquid October 12th, 2014 at 13:49
“Of course we all know what happens if a black man walks into Kroger with a loaded gun”
by Chinese Democracy
I don’t. What would happen?
cargosquid October 12th, 2014 at 13:49
“Of course we all know what happens if a black man walks into Kroger with a loaded gun”
by Chinese Democracy
I don’t. What would happen?