Guns and Pie

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Well at least we can all agree that magazine disconnects are a desirable and necessary part of any handgun.

You should be suspended by Gigii for baiting! If any of those Canuck mods get loose in here, you could be in trouble!

I am also a 40+ year member of the NRA and support them 100% There is NO gun show loophole. Non-existant problem and the law would be a non-needed change, like a magazine disconnect safety.

The rules for firearms sales (federal laws) are identical for dealers and individuals regardless if the gun is sold at a gun show or not. Private individuals are not required to perform background checks, dealers are...period. Gun show or not. I do not believe there is any such thing as a "reasonable gun law" The phrase is an oxymoron.

I do not believe in training to own a gun on your own home. I have no problem with it for concealed carry in public, per se, though I question the value of it. I am a big supporter of hunter education. Vermont does not require training, or even a permit, for concealed carry, ANY person over age 18 (even an Illinois resident) can carry a concealed firearm and it has been that way since Vermont was made the 14th state and I doubt it would ever change. Vermonters are TRUE liberals, which means they like to see as much legalized as possible, they tend to be pro-choice...ON EVERYTHING. (actually they are much more "libertarian" than anything else) We have no problems with the abuse of our very liberal firearm carrying law. None. If people in other states cannot handle the level of freedom we have here, I would have to ask what the HELL is wrong with those people?????? Vermont is well known as a peaceful and beautiful and virtually crime free state and always ranks at the top of any list of clean places, healthy places, safe places, etc. It is so safe as to be downright boring, at least from a newsworthy standpoint. Yet we are armed to the teeth andhave no state restrictions on firearms ownership or carry. Are we that much better than anyone else? You mean that people in New Hampshire can't handle freedom but we can? New York? Ohio? I think very well they could. If you think they can't well, you are just going to have to specify where their inabilities come from. We in Vermont prove you can have a clean, safe, polite and heavily armed society without government regulation every day.

[slim 1,525]

Regarding everything else, we'll agree to disagree. I guess the important thing is, no matter how you carry, that you're comfortable with the decisions you make, and that if the stars ever align to the point you have to draw for "business," you're trained and prepared enough to do it by the numbers.

I'm going to go on record right now and say by Dec. 17th, 2010, you'll have changed your mind. Not saying you're wrong, hell, carry a gun with no bullets at all, I don't care, but just saying that you'll have the experience and confidence to carry your SR9 cocked and locked 24/7 no matter where you are.

Make your own crust or store-bought?

I'll have to go with store bought. I'm one of those "buy the best and then don't ####### with it" type folks. I bought my rifle that way, my Jeep that way, my wife that way.... pie crust will have to be the same!

I might just make a pie next week for work. My "specialty" is a store-bought pie crust with some chocolate pudding and topped off with whipped cream. Lazy? You bet! But tasty all the same!

I did not take it out and play with it, I did not unholster it every night, blah, blah blah. I left it IN the holster, ON my belt.

I carry mine in a kydex holster that has a clip on it. I hardly ever remove it from the holster except to inspect it or something. When I leave the house, it's clipped onto my pants as I grab my wallet, cell phone and keys. When I have to secure it in my Jeep, I remove the whole rig, not just the gun. Coming home is the exact opposite order. I remove the holster containing the gun... not the gun from the holster.

I'll practice drawing every now and then, but for the most part, it sits in the holster and doesn't move.

I think what some of us who carry in a serious manner have decided is that the whole world is a "ghetto" if some nut case or perpetrator shows up. We don't like your reliance on playing "the odds" of needing a live gun. The morgues are full of that sort of innocence or naivete.

The world is a ghetto.

Call me crazy, but I carry at family gatherings and everything. You just never know. To me, there is no place that has "more of a chance" than another. You might increase your chances of being victimized in a crime while in a bad neighborhood, but trust me, it's not going to be the kind of crime where someone's trying to kill you because you'll be that guy that's not scared. Hardly ever does that guy get robbed, raped or killed. The guy that looks scared, that looks like an easy target... that's the guy that gets killed.

When you're assertive but respectful, I think you'll find the ghetto has a very safe side to it as well.

Get yourself a biometric safe for the handgun. I love mine, and if I hear a bump in the night, it takes all of a few seconds to arm myself.

There's your answer. You can safely store your fully-loaded handgun without worry. You can carry it that way too.

Dude, I'm a liberal and I'm not scared of you or Slim or Gary. But I'm sure the #### scared of Bustagoon out there with his bling'd up That's the guy the librulz are afraid of,

You might not be scared of me or Gary..... but Pelosi is. Your average everyday lib might be scared of bustagoon, but your average liberal politician gives two $#!ts because they'll never come in contact with someone like that in their privileged life. What most libs fail to realize is the more gun control we have the more bustagoons out there we'll see.

and it's the reason that sensible liberals want sensible gun legislation. (as a caveat, there is some very stupid and/or misguided legislation out there. I'm not talking about that.) (and yes, bustagoon is the reason we pack. But I'd much rather bustagoon never got his hands on a weapon in the first place, and sensible legislation would help.)

Sensible gun legislation? Like what? Make it illegal for felons to possess handguns or kill people? Also, let's keep in mind, criminals don't typically follow laws.

And then there's the NRA, who do NOT want sensible gun legislation. The NRA will not stop until every man woman and child is allowed to have a tactical nuke in their possession. In fact, I see the NRA and it's most rabid supporters as a MUCH bigger threat to the 2nd amendment than anti-gun advocates. For a very recent example, the NRA opposes closing the gun show loophole, even though the majority of its membership is in favor of the closure. That's just wrong-headed and dangerous. There was a day when the NRA advocated responsible gun ownership, but those days are gone. And until they get back to sensible advocacy they're not gonna see a dime from me.

The NRA pushes for gun laws to be enforced probably more than any other group out there yet we don't hear a lot about that. What we do hear is when they challenge unconstitutional laws and represent folks whose rights have been violated or when they try to prevent laws from being passed that would restrict lawful firearms ownership or transfer.

Surprising that your link comes from the Baltimore Sun. Baltimore already has some of the most restrictive gun laws out there... yet they have the highest murder rate in the country. Why is that?

Also, please explain to me what this "gun show loophole" thing is. I've heard a lot about it, but I've never once been able to have someone explain it in terms I can understand. Every time someone tries it always sounds like the transfer is already illegal but just happens to take place at a gun show. If they could close down this theoretical "gun show loophole" and make illegal gun sales more illegal at gun shows, would politicians then be obligated to close the "parking lot loophole" or the "classified ads loophole?" Or would they just go ahead and ban all private transactions?

It's not the liberals you need to be worried about, it's the extremists in our own midst. Carrying a sidearm to a Presidential speech, for example, is much more damaging to our 2nd amendment rights than anything Nancy Pelosi could dream up, and yet "our side" is constantly pulling bullshit stunts like that, and then patting ourselves on the back for it.

My only question in all these "stunts" is why is our President or Nancy Pelosi - or any politician for that matter - feels threatened by an armed citizen, especially one carrying openly?

Politicians should have no reason to be scared of an armed populace... if they are, shouldn't that tell them something?

We in Vermont prove you can have a clean, safe, polite and heavily armed society without government regulation every day.

[mox 298]

I'm going to go on record right now and say by Dec. 17th, 2010, you'll have changed your mind. Not saying you're wrong, hell, carry a gun with no bullets at all, I don't care, but just saying that you'll have the experience and confidence to carry your SR9 cocked and locked 24/7 no matter where you are.

Anything is possible. I'm not dogmatic enough in my beliefs to the point where I wouldn't change my mind if it made sense to do so. Guess that makes me a flip-flopper huh?

I'll have to go with store bought. I'm one of those "buy the best and then don't ####### with it" type folks. I bought my rifle that way, my Jeep that way, my wife that way.... pie crust will have to be the same!

Store bought crust? Are you crazy? You know back in the 80's somebody laced a bunch of Tylenol with cyanide, right? IN GROCERY STORES, WHERE THEY ALSO SELL PIE CRUSTS!!!!!

I carry mine in a kydex holster that has a clip on it.

That's not one of those "paddle" holsters, is it? I saw a Youtube video demonstrating how easy it was to grab somebody's gun from one of those things, wondering how realistic that was.

You might not be scared of me or Gary..... but Pelosi is. Your average everyday lib might be scared of bustagoon, but your average liberal politician gives two $#!ts because they'll never come in contact with someone like that in their privileged life. What most libs fail to realize is the more gun control we have the more bustagoons out there we'll see.

You're taking the attempts of a very small minority of "liberals" and making a pretty sweeping statement. I could do the same thing with "conservatives," who as we all know are racist Federal-building-blow-upping fundamentalist Christian zealot nutjobs who will kill to ensure fetuses aren't aborted but could give a #### about those lives once they're past the #######. There are some pretty misguided liberals out there, and there are some pretty misguided conservatives out there. One brush doesn't cover them all. In fact, if you've been following the health care debate at all, you'll see that the Democrats are anything but in lock-step right now.

When you say "gun control" you're implying an attempt to deny access to your 2nd amendment rights. When I say "gun control," I mean mechanisms to ensure we exercise our 2nd amendment rights safely, to make it difficult for the bad guys to obtain guns, and to come down hard on the bad guys when they circumvent the law or use them in a crime. That's sensible "gun control" to me. I have no doubt that given enough time, the NRA will eventually oppose prosecuting criminals who used a gun during the commission of a crime because they were just exercising their 2nd amendment rights. That's why I'm more scared of the NRA than I am Nancy Pelosi.

Sensible gun legislation? Like what? Make it illegal for felons to possess handguns or kill people? Also, let's keep in mind, criminals don't typically follow laws.

I believe it's already illegal for most felons to possess. We also have laws that prohibit people from running stop signs. But some people still run stop signs, so should we just make it legal to run stop signs? Or should we look into ways to make coming to a full stop at a stop sign more desirable than the penalties for getting caught?

I'm pretty sure we'd see a MASSIVE drop in crimes committed with a hand gun if there was a sweeping Federal law that said if you are caught on tape committing a crime with a hand gun, then you will be executed within 24 hours of us catching your azz, no appeal, no lawyer, no nothing. Not obviously that's not realistic (or desirable), but it makes the point that legislation could be enacted to lower crimes committed with a handgun. But to get there, people on both sides of the issue need to use their brains instead of their emotions.

The NRA pushes for gun laws to be enforced probably more than any other group out there yet we don't hear a lot about that. What we do hear is when they challenge unconstitutional laws and represent folks whose rights have been violated or when they try to prevent laws from being passed that would restrict lawful firearms ownership or transfer.

I think the NRA does a lot of good things. Their hunter and gun safety programs are second to none. They have in the past, and occasionally in the present, supported smart gun legislation (or fought against terrible legislation). And I don't know what happened, but somewhere along the way the same thing that's happening right now to the Republican party happened to the NRA, and the extremists have taken over. I was a member as a kid and teenager. I'll be more than happy to start paying my dues again when they return to sanity.

Also, please explain to me what this "gun show loophole" thing is. I've heard a lot about it, but I've never once been able to have someone explain it in terms I can understand. Every time someone tries it always sounds like the transfer is already illegal but just happens to take place at a gun show. If they could close down this theoretical "gun show loophole" and make illegal gun sales more illegal at gun shows, would politicians then be obligated to close the "parking lot loophole" or the "classified ads loophole?" Or would they just go ahead and ban all private transactions?

Nobody's talking about banning private transactions. The loophole is that business dealers are held to a higher standard than private dealers. That creates a two tiered system that's not only bad for gun businesses, but it creates an avenue for people who have no business having a gun in their hands to have one.

But the interesting thing is that no matter what side of the background check issue you're on, you should still support closing the loophole because it creates unfair competition against gun dealers.

It's not the liberals you need to be worried about, it's the extremists in our own midst. Carrying a sidearm to a Presidential speech, for example, is much more damaging to our 2nd amendment rights than anything Nancy Pelosi could dream up, and yet "our side" is constantly pulling bullshit stunts like that, and then patting ourselves on the back for it.

My only question in all these "stunts" is why is our President or Nancy Pelosi - or any politician for that matter - feels threatened by an armed citizen, especially one carrying openly?

So if you were the President, you'd be perfectly comfortable standing--with your family--in front of a couple thousand armed citizens of all political persuasions? You'd have no problem at all with that? Come on.

The bigger problem I have with it, however, is the message it sends. First and foremost it just gives more momentum to anti-2nd-amendment supporters. And second of all, you can't just sit there and smugly tell me "hey, that was just a citizen exercising his 2nd amendment rights." Bullshit. That was a threat. That was somebody encouraging people to use their 2nd amendment rights to suppress somebody else's 1st amendment right.

Politicians should have no reason to be scared of an armed populace... if they are, shouldn't that tell them something?

Everybody should be scared of a populace using their 2nd amendment rights to suppress their 1st amendment rights.

And why is it that we never had supporters openly packing at Republican rallies? Certainly there would be a LOT of gun owners who were thankful enough for McCain's support of their 2nd amendment rights that they'd show their thanks by an open show of their right to bear arms. And yet not one of them did. It was only when the black librul showed up that some idiot decided this was a perfect time and place to exercise his open carry rights. In my book, at the very least, that's brandishing a weapon while not under threat, at least in spirit. Every 2nd amendment supporter in America should have condemned that jackass.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Mox

There is no such thing as "private dealers" and "business dealers" This is what scares me. someone that has no knowledge of what the laws ARE, but wants more.

A person is an FFL dealer, or they are not an FFL dealer. Period. If they are not an FFL dealer, they are a private citizen, not a "private dealer". ALL FFL dealers MUST conduct a background check for ALL firearms sales regardless of where they are made. FFL dealers are restricted to making sales at their licensed place of business OR at a registered gun show...that is ALL. Private citizens can sell firearms anywhere, but not for the business of buying and selling firearms. They can do so only for specific reasons.

Anyone operating, in practice, as a "private dealer" is ALREADY violating federal law, we do not need a new one, it already exists.

The so-called "Gun show Loophole" bills I have seen have all been attempts to forbid private sales of any kind and require ALL firearms sales to go through an FFL dealer. (READ one of them sometime, not just the BS sound bites you hear on TV) Of course, dealers are not going to do this for free, or maybe not at all. Also it simply has never been shown that any great amount of crime related guns are being purchased through legal, private sales. It is a solution to a problem that does not exist, yet provides a framework for the government to control private firearms sales. I am 1000% against this. It is not in any way reasonable, logical or anything but an end run to get at our guns...period.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Mox

If I were president I would have no problem giving ALL my speeches and apprearences in front of an armed crowd. Personally I am very comfortable in an armed crowd. I would refuse to live in the White House without my collection of guns and they better allow the same for ALL DC residents or I'd be renting a place in the suburbs. I could have staff meetings at a local skeet club and you would regularly see me shooting an M1A, M1 or AR15 in hi-power competition...no golfing for this guy, I hope the leaders in congress can shoot, 'cause that is where we are having our meetings.

the orblem is NOT that a guy openly carries a handgun at a political rally, the problem is that is is deemed newsworthy. It needs to happen enough that it is just ignored...an everyday thing. Like all the guns around my house. Who cares? No more interesting that the ceiling fan. But I liver in an area where a guy hitch-hiking with a rifle will get picked up right away because it is assumed he is just lost in the woods and it really is no big deal that he is carrying a rilfe...so is the guy that picks him up.

[sara..... 371]

in our state (oregon) u can legally wear a side arm as long as it is not concealed if u want to conceal it u go to classes and get the license it is then attached to ur drivers license or ur id car if u dont drive.........same with a rifle no problems

how ever if ur stopped by an officer u better make sure the gun is visible and out of reach and warn him i have a gun its on the dash while holding both hands up above the steering wheel so that they can see ur hands are empty so that u dont get killed from an officer that has not been warned

[mox 298]

There is no such thing as "private dealers" and "business dealers" This is what scares me. someone that has no knowledge of what the laws ARE, but wants more.

However you want to play the semantics, the way it works right now is a two-tiered system. One group of people operate under one rule, another group operates under another. It's not right. Either support background checks or don't, but it should apply to everyone.

[mox 298]

If I were president I would have no problem giving ALL my speeches and apprearences in front of an armed crowd.

lol ok.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Mox

If I were president I would have no problem giving ALL my speeches and apprearences in front of an armed crowd. Personally I am very comfortable in an armed crowd. I would refuse to live in the White House without my collection of guns and they better allow the same for ALL DC residents or I'd be renting a place in the suburbs. I could have staff meetings at a local skeet club and you would regularly see me shooting an M1A, M1 or AR15 in hi-power competition...no golfing for this guy, I hope the leaders in congress can shoot, 'cause that is where we are having our meetings.

the orblem is NOT that a guy openly carries a handgun at a political rally, the problem is that is is deemed newsworthy. It needs to happen enough that it is just ignored...an everyday thing. Like all the guns around my house. Who cares? No more interesting that the ceiling fan. But I liver in an area where a guy hitch-hiking with a rifle will get picked up right away because it is assumed he is just lost in the woods and it really is no big deal that he is carrying a rilfe...so is the guy that picks him up.

I think people who arm themselves at political rallies (when a government official is in the remote area) are actually endangering themselves. You want to bet that they have cross hairs on them at all times?)

Edited December 18, 2009 by Sousuke

[baron555 934]

Mox

There is no such thing as "private dealers" and "business dealers" This is what scares me. someone that has no knowledge of what the laws ARE, but wants more.

A person is an FFL dealer, or they are not an FFL dealer. Period. If they are not an FFL dealer, they are a private citizen, not a "private dealer". ALL FFL dealers MUST conduct a background check for ALL firearms sales regardless of where they are made. FFL dealers are restricted to making sales at their licensed place of business OR at a registered gun show...that is ALL. Private citizens can sell firearms anywhere, but not for the business of buying and selling firearms. They can do so only for specific reasons.

Anyone operating, in practice, as a "private dealer" is ALREADY violating federal law, we do not need a new one, it already exists.

The so-called "Gun show Loophole" bills I have seen have all been attempts to forbid private sales of any kind and require ALL firearms sales to go through an FFL dealer. (READ one of them sometime, not just the BS sound bites you hear on TV) Of course, dealers are not going to do this for free, or maybe not at all. Also it simply has never been shown that any great amount of crime related guns are being purchased through legal, private sales. It is a solution to a problem that does not exist, yet provides a framework for the government to control private firearms sales. I am 1000% against this. It is not in any way reasonable, logical or anything but an end run to get at our guns...period.

Gary, you may want to clarify the differences between and FFL-01 license and an FFL-03 license. As an FFL-03 license holder, I do not have to conduct background checks on any arm I sell to anyone; no private citizen does, only the FFL-01 holders.

Being an FFL-03 allows me to privately purchase certain listed arms without having to go through an FFL-01 license holder (some are dealers and others are citizens with this type of license).

And then being a CMP active and certified member allows private citizens an entire different set of rules, so to speak.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

There is no such thing as "private dealers" and "business dealers" This is what scares me. someone that has no knowledge of what the laws ARE, but wants more.

However you want to play the semantics, the way it works right now is a two-tiered system. One group of people operate under one rule, another group operates under another. It's not right. Either support background checks or don't, but it should apply to everyone.

Not true, Mox. Simply not true. Private individuals are not dealers. If they behave like dealers they are violating existing laws, lock them up. The ONLY way to do what you say (play by one set of rules) is to allow sales of firearms ONLY through licensed dealers. But you said in a post above, you do not favor that. That is what the so-called gun show loophole laws do....forbid private sales of firearms between individuals. Are you in favor of that or not? Either support banning private sales or not.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Mox

There is no such thing as "private dealers" and "business dealers" This is what scares me. someone that has no knowledge of what the laws ARE, but wants more.

A person is an FFL dealer, or they are not an FFL dealer. Period. If they are not an FFL dealer, they are a private citizen, not a "private dealer". ALL FFL dealers MUST conduct a background check for ALL firearms sales regardless of where they are made. FFL dealers are restricted to making sales at their licensed place of business OR at a registered gun show...that is ALL. Private citizens can sell firearms anywhere, but not for the business of buying and selling firearms. They can do so only for specific reasons.

Anyone operating, in practice, as a "private dealer" is ALREADY violating federal law, we do not need a new one, it already exists.

The so-called "Gun show Loophole" bills I have seen have all been attempts to forbid private sales of any kind and require ALL firearms sales to go through an FFL dealer. (READ one of them sometime, not just the BS sound bites you hear on TV) Of course, dealers are not going to do this for free, or maybe not at all. Also it simply has never been shown that any great amount of crime related guns are being purchased through legal, private sales. It is a solution to a problem that does not exist, yet provides a framework for the government to control private firearms sales. I am 1000% against this. It is not in any way reasonable, logical or anything but an end run to get at our guns...period.

Gary, you may want to clarify the differences between and FFL-01 license and an FFL-03 license. As an FFL-03 license holder, I do not have to conduct background checks on any arm I sell to anyone; no private citizen does, only the FFL-01 holders.

Being an FFL-03 allows me to privately purchase certain listed arms without having to go through an FFL-01 license holder (some are dealers and others are citizens with this type of license).

And then being a CMP active and certified member allows private citizens an entire different set of rules, so to speak.

I presume you mean a dealer of curios and relics? Yes. Curios and relics have always been exempt from background checks.

At any rate...we are talking about licensed dealers of firearms and private individuals. Private individuals do not have to conduct background checks, but cannot be set up to conduct the business of buying ans selling firearms. Mox has said he does not want to ban private sales of firearms, but that is what the "gun show laws" do. We really do not need to discuss the details of different levels of FFLs, that is not the issue and is not addressed by ANY law relating to gun show sales.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Mox

If I were president I would have no problem giving ALL my speeches and apprearences in front of an armed crowd. Personally I am very comfortable in an armed crowd. I would refuse to live in the White House without my collection of guns and they better allow the same for ALL DC residents or I'd be renting a place in the suburbs. I could have staff meetings at a local skeet club and you would regularly see me shooting an M1A, M1 or AR15 in hi-power competition...no golfing for this guy, I hope the leaders in congress can shoot, 'cause that is where we are having our meetings.

the orblem is NOT that a guy openly carries a handgun at a political rally, the problem is that is is deemed newsworthy. It needs to happen enough that it is just ignored...an everyday thing. Like all the guns around my house. Who cares? No more interesting that the ceiling fan. But I liver in an area where a guy hitch-hiking with a rifle will get picked up right away because it is assumed he is just lost in the woods and it really is no big deal that he is carrying a rilfe...so is the guy that picks him up.

I think people who arm themselves at political rallies (when a government official is in the remote area) are actually endangering themselves. You want to bet that they have cross hairs on them at all times?)

And what? They endanger themselves and why would I give a flyin' flip about that? And in all the media hype we saw on this, not ONE reporer said "This poor man is endangering himself"

This was the biggest media uochuck over nothing since the Jackson chick had a wardrobe malfunction and flashed (HORROR) a breast at the prime time audiance. It is a ridiculous display and goes to show this country ahs gone way too far from its roots when a man with a gun is something to be feared.

[mox 298]

Not true, Mox. Simply not true. Private individuals are not dealers. If they behave like dealers they are violating existing laws, lock them up. The ONLY way to do what you say (play by one set of rules) is to allow sales of firearms ONLY through licensed dealers. But you said in a post above, you do not favor that. That is what the so-called gun show loophole laws do....forbid private sales of firearms between individuals. Are you in favor of that or not? Either support banning private sales or not.

Of course I support private sales. I also support background checks, so the matter seems simple to me: private owners should be required to verify that a buyer has passed a background check, whether they're at a gun show or in a parking lot. What's so hard about that? Please don't tell me it's an undue burden on the seller. In this day and age we should be able to do it on the internet within minutes. (yeah I know we can't yet, but we should). Or the buyer visits their local law enforcement office and obtains a verifiable certificate good for some periodicity like 90 days or something. This is sensible, and it doesn't violate anybody's rights.

Now, if you're not a supporter of background checks, then the solution gets even easier. Nobody, including licensed dealers, are required to verify background checks. Done and done.

Either way, there just needs to be parity.

With regards to the guy carrying the gun at the rally, I say again: I call bullshit that he was simply exercising his 2nd amendment rights. How come he never asserted his right to carry openly at a Bush speech? Or a McCain speech? Or a Palin speech? The dude was, in spirit, brandishing a weapon to intimidate. He was also carrying a sign with Jefferson's quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." You carry an assault rifle to a rally where the President is speaking, with a sign that in effect says there needs to be some killing done, and that's not just an intellectual exercise. That's a threat, and it's using a firearm to intimidate. The dude does not represent me, and he sure as hell shouldn't be representing you or anybody else who cares about gun rights. Any 2nd amendment supporter should be condemning this jackass.

[mox 298]

ETA: the guy with the sign was only carrying a pistol, not an assault rifle. My bad.