Kelly drafting bill allowing restricted firearms
The Associated Press
FAIRBANKS – State Rep. Mike Kelly says he’s drafting a bill that would allow firearms restricted under federal law to be built and used in Alaska.
The Fairbanks Republican says the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act is inspired by a similar bill that passed the Montana House of Representatives. It allows someone to own firearms or components restricted by the federal government, as long as they are built and kept entirely in the state.
Kelly made the announcement while addressing about 400 members of the Second Amendment Task Force, a gun rights group that has urged gun owners to openly display their weapons.
Kelly told the group he resents infringements on gun rights, such as having to go through a metal detector at a courthouse.
) to report an inappropriate comment. Three moderation votes will hide a comment.
or 
) to rate comments. These ratings do not effect the status of a comment.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:01 am
110% support!
March 6th, 2009 at 9:10 am
111% support!!!
March 6th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Thank you Mike, anything we can do that will help to keep this administration from infringing on our rights. For those who don’t think this will happen, keep one thing in mind. Once they remove your 2nd amendment right the rest will soon follow. If you don’t believe me look at what this administration is already doing with the first amendment by trying to enact the so called Fairness Doctrine. Open your eyes people. It’s only just started.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Pretty slow winter up there in fairbanks?
March 6th, 2009 at 9:42 am
This shows just how sick the Republican party has become.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:43 am
While I admit that I am not a big gun rights activist, I do support the notion that my ex-husband always advocated…”Ignore your rights and they will go away”. So, thank you to those who have the time and ambition to not ignore their rights and fight for what they believe in.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Darn right! If I want to manufacture and distribute silencers for assult weapons, that my buisness. Everyone knows that to be a productive hunter you need suppressed automatic weapons. I’m so tired of the old line that assult weapons are only for killing people, they have legitimate sporting applications. Sometimes you need to shoot up a gas station without waking up the whole neighborhood.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Should there be other things politicans spend there time on in hard economic times? To me, this wouldnt be a high priority issue.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:54 am
What was it Obama had to say about gun owners and religion.The good progressives of Juneau know what’s best, they’ll take care of things.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:54 am
I’m hoping the Empire will find out the specifics in this proposal and print them so we’ve actually something to go on beyond adding kindling to shallow comments such as those of Imf, above.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:16 am
We should be able to use assault weapons to protect our property and those that don’t can post a sign that says: not automatic weapons here. I believe in the idea of shoot first and carry something big because you never know what the other guy is carrying. This is also going to make hunting easier so I am thankful for this. I am a horrible shot so using an automatic assault weapon will pretty much guarantee something or someone for dinner.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:19 am
@ puppykiller404
you are truly an idiot.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Rkykaufman: This administration is trying to push a bill HR 45 sponsored by Bobby Rush (Democrat) from Chicago, who by the way co-founded the Black Panther Party. Too much to list about the bill so please look it up. Puppykiller, I hope that your post was in jest. If not the 2nd AD has nothing to do with hunting. I also bet you wouldn’t know what a true assault weapon was even if you were slapped up side the head with one. Keep your head in the sand people its safe down there. IFM, What do you mean by sick, please enlighten me wise one.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Why Frank? I’m open to critisism, let it rip.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Are silencers not covered under this? Is there a good reason for silencers that you can enlighten me about?
March 6th, 2009 at 10:25 am
I agree, Ryk. Specifics!
As for having to walk through a metal detector at a court house, what exactly is Kelly’s (non) point? That’s aimed at behavior, not firearm ownership. Does he feel he should be legally entitled to bring a firearm into a courthouse?
March 6th, 2009 at 10:26 am
An unarmed and poor populous is a good Socialist populous.
Those That Fail To Study History Are Doomed To Repeat It. Study Nazi Germany
and what happened when they surrendered their rights. If you think that cannot happen here, you’re a fool. If you think it isn’t happening here, in the U.S.A right now, good luck to you.
Thank you for helping secure MY RIGHTS as provided in our U.S. Constitution.
Those not liking the U.S. Constitution should find another country in which to live.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
I’m 100% for defending your rights but this is AK and there are problems.
We’ve already had people advocating hunting in residential areas this year. Now we wait for the first kids to be killed in a suburban hunting accident. Think it’s smart to make more firepower available for fools like that?
AK leads the nation with alcoholism, meth and incest. Adding more gunpower to that is a disastrous combination.
If you need high powered silent auto weapons to hunt; you’re one heck of a lazy, lousy hunter. Those are the first people to have accidental shootings.
Does this proposal contain provisions to restrict the usage of such weapons in suburban areas, hunting on frequented public grounds or prevent ownership/use by those who have drug, violence and domestic violence convictions?
March 6th, 2009 at 10:33 am
This is a great Mike. With the turning economy and people being disparate I would rather protect my property with an automatic assault weapon anyday, shoot first ask questions later, that’s my motto. The guy who doesn’t believe in packing heavy can post a sign in his yard saying so: I don’t believe in assault weapons vote NO. So folks will go and rob that guy’s house.
And we should be able to take weapons for protection these days, there are alot of jerks, coming to our state! Bad drivers gone!
This will also make hunting easier. I’m not a good shot so now that won’t matter either; I’ll at least be bringing something home for dinner using an automatic weapon is the better than home made pie.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I like the idea of silencers to, easy kill with an automatic assault weapon plus and added benifit with the silencer for an easy exit.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Sounds to me like Mr. Kelly and most of the commenters here are compensating for their deficiencies.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Your right Milspec I don’t know what an assult weapon is, you have me all figured out.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:56 am
there are alot of folks that wont agree but we should all be able to pack a weapon if we want to and in this we way we protect our rights and possibly our lives.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:47 am
I can just see the national media doing a story filming ‘interesting Alaskans’ going through A&P with a fully automatic AK-47’s with a silencers strapped over their shoulder, just like in Pakistan.
Cool.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:48 am
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
March 6th, 2009 at 11:49 am
above is what i have to protect
March 6th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Those who beat their guns into plows, will plow for those who didn’t.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:52 am
You subjects need to move to Chicago or D.C. so you can be coddled by a government that will take care of your every need, thought, and life span. The time is here to separate the sheep from the wolves, you will be safe to engage in your perverseness and socialist ideas some ware down south like San Francisco or New York where you can feed on each other in till you are total slaves to the sick world that you created.
I will keep what is mine and not be fooled by a few fools that want to justify their sickness by dragging this country down to their level. Take away the rights of the people of this country and you will enslave the subjects. You have the right too not be a slave to the government or to act like a fool because of the citizens of this country having guns.
How long do you think you would be able to act the way you do or say the stupid thing you do when you have no constitutional rights?
March 6th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Here you go killer: I am not sure where the idea of automatic weapons’ and silencers come into play here because it doesn’t. They have been banned sense 1938; to obtain such you need a class III license and lots of money. Below is a section of Montana’s bill and what they are referring to. And again for those idiots out there, this has nothing to do with hunting. Deficiencies zaphod? That kind of comment just tells me about the nut rattling around in your skull, give me a break you can do better then that.
FEDERAL FIREARMS ACT http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Ascione1.html
Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.
March 6th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I used to have no use for aussalt rifles at all, but then I started wwatching my friends who hunt wolf, and they were correct. Its a smallfast caliber with wich you could get several shots off before the pack retreated out of site. I still probably wouldn’t get one, but that doesn’t mean that the right should be surrendered. It leads to rediculous things like limiting the amount of rounds you can carry in your pistol. Why is 8 rounds going to be better than 15? If I get charged by a bear and have to start pumping rounds into him I don’t want to have to stop and reload. In reality that probably really wouldnt come into play, but in reality people could get by with a 50 hp engine in their cars too. Keep in mind as well that criminals aren’t going down to Rayco or Fred Meyer and buying their guns and going through the FBI check. They are getting them black market or stealing them. Again, I personally don’t own any and my home defense weapon of choice is a pump 12 ga. The universal sound understood by all is the racking of a 12 ga slide. It translates in any language to “Stop or become a pile of goo.” Cant argue with that!
March 6th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I always wonder if anyone actually thinks about what the founding fathers were talking about re: The Right to Bear Arms ….do you really think that they were considering automatic and semi-automatic weapons? The weapon of choice during revolutionary times was a long barrel rifle that had to be loaded one shot at a time. No matter what any of you say, you don’t need to hunt with an automatic or semi automatic weapon – and for those with the shoot first mentality – you are only allowed to use the amount of force necessary for self protection without fear of prosecution….except in Texas where if someone is preparing to pour you a glass of wine and you decide you feel threatened you can shoot to kill.
March 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
CSI teams in California are asking to be armed as they go into unsafe areas,yet the people themselves in Cal.who often go into unsafe areas are denied that very right? And the posters who mention bo are correct in stating that he is the most anti second amendment pres. we have ever had. It is on record that he would ban all hand guns and have a national policy against CC anywhere in the country. This administration is a cancer to the constitution and, if left alone, will destroy it! Build em in Alaska and use them there and tell Mr. Husein to stick it where the sun don’t shine,just like we told his namesake!
March 6th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Milspec, I’m somewhat familiar with HR 45 and the idea of licencing, etc, it would encode. You’ve presented a piece of the Montana legislation Kelly’s bill is based on, thanks.
I personally don’t have an issue with current AK law that prohibits personal carry in places like courthouses, so long as there is adaquate security to ensure nobody actually is. Putting up signage saying “no gun zone” like Virginia Tech did without it is naive foolishness.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
good job Mr Kelly
March 6th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
leave it to the Republicans, they want to deregulate everything which caused our economy to crash, they want to control your personal choices, and they want to give everyone an automatic assault weapon and they choose people like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh to lead them.
I’ll take President Barack Obama and no assault weapons any day.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
IM will probably be the first to sue the government when his/her house is broken into and the police did not show up fast enough to save him/her from the thief.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Banana, I am wondering if you have any idea what the 2nd amendment is about. The founding fathers were thinking about hunting, but more importantly they were thinking about the ability to rise up against an oppressive government. Feel free to take on the Marines with a muzzleloader, but I would prefer a slightly more modern weapon. And anyone who says we would be massacred by the military, please refer to Vietnam, Korea, Afganistan, etc where broke villagers with a rifle have done a pretty good job of at least slowing us down. There was an interview with a Japanese leader after WWII who was asked why they attacked Hawaii instead of driving into the heartland of the US. To paraphrase his response “Are you nuts? Those crazy Americans all have guns!”
March 6th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
not true freedomfighter. As a Democrat I do believe in the 2nd amendment and I would kill anyone who broke into my home, I just don’t believe in a bill that would allow firearms restricted under federal law to be built and used in Alaska.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
IM speaks the words of a professional/perpetual victim. If YOU, for one minute think, that in times of need your government is coming to SAVE you… you’re government in on your side, you are sadly mistaken and completely uneducated. It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees. -Emiliano Zapata You speak as if you’ve already spent a lot of time… other than on your feet.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
IM you are a piss poor Democrat if you would defend yourself. The law is meant to allow the state to govern it’s self, not to have some jerk wad from D.C. or anywhere else tell you what to do because it fits their agenda or needs.
If they want to wait in till a cop gets around to showing up to a rape in progress or to give their lives up for the taking to any weapon available that is fine by me. The automatic weapon part or silencer has nothing to do with anything but taking your right to have! I would love to have a full automatic gun but would never consider hunting with one. As for Assault rifle, assault is an act, not a gun, a gun is a tool and when you get run over in a cross walk does your stupid family outlaw automatic transmissions?
Is there no common sense in this country anymore?
March 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I have no issue with the Second Amendment, nor people who like to make or own firearms. But I have to say that the general level of intelligence, jingoistic paranoia, and sixth-grade macho chest-beating exhibited by and contained in many of these posts is disturbingly ridiculous. I take refuge in hoping that the vast majority of people who own and use firearms are more mature.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“I take refuge in hoping that the vast majority of people who own and use firearms are more mature.”
Do you have any evidence to support that position?
March 6th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
If by ‘jingo’ you’re referring to a turn of the century ideal by which Americans will insist on, and fight, to guarantee their rights being respected and not infringed upon by any government, then Jingo’s they are. I’d also say that the loss of ones liberty isn’t something anyone should take lightly. All lot of people in our history have fought and died for these rights. I’m glad to see that these people are tired of being pushed. And you bring up maturity… How many 18, 19 and 20 year old American kids have fought and died for YOUR rights
so you can sit there flapping your gum’s, criticizing these people you know nothing about. You’re pretty smug sitting there, hiding behind your anonymity. Their are two things usually found in the middle of the road, yellow lines and skunks. Which are you?
March 6th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
“Shoot first, ask questions later.” blah blah blah. How many times do I have to read the same blog chant over and over?
Maybe some of you radicals should ask some questions first. The answer might be, “Just me, Dad.”
March 6th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I want specifics here too before I comment.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Bananawoman: Again, this has nothing to do with hunting.
Now, let’s use your analogy on the basis of single shot firearms that were used by our founders at that time in history. We can say the same thing about the 1st amendment, free speech. I don’t remember if they had computers at that time in history or word processors. Can you tell me if they did? If so, I will stop here, if not I would suggest you use your intelligence and start using a quill and a bottle of ink for you next post.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Bananawoman, BTW your wrong on that comment about shoot first, and Texas. Again use your intelligence and do some research on self protection from state to state.
The term you’re thinking about is called the “Castle Doctrine” which is law in Texas and it also applies here in Alaska. That should scare the heck out of you.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I assume then, Todd, that you have been as furious and offended over the loss of liberties undertaken by the Bush administration over the last eight years, including lying through their teeth to justify sending off any numbers of those 18, 19 and 20 year-olds to die for nothing more than profit and power in Iraq, as you are with idea of infringements upon the Second Amendment. I assume also that you have fought against the Bush adminstration’s efforts to read your mail, listen in on your conversations, label you as a “terrorist” if you happen to disagree with them or stand in their way. By “jingo”, I refer to a belligerent and often violent response to anything that threatens an image or a label of whatever represents a person’s ideal of comfort and self-definition, NOT a threat to reality of the thing in and of itself.
The Second Amendment is a tricky issue. I think we would all be better off without the assault weapons and fully automatic weapons currently used in criminal activities, especially the current situation in Mexico, in which the weapons used are illegal there, but manufactured here and smuggled across the border. But by the same token, I don’t like the slow and steady erosion of rights or wilderness (pardon the sudden non sequitor) by saying “Oh, we’re only going to take this little bit”. The vast majority of people who own firearms are never going to commit a crime, and they are never going to abuse the privileges and rights that come with owning and using them. That’s why I am generally dismayed by the responses I defined initially whenever the subject is discussed- they are not worthy of the majority of people who own and use firearms, and do not do them justice.
March 6th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
No Molly Hatchett, I did not say that I think my Government is going to save me.
As a Democrat, I believe that it is up to “the people” to save themselves, less the automatic assault weapons that Republicans think they need, and as I said before I do own a gun and I would kill anyone who tried to break into my home.
This is interesting because I am the only person in my neighborhood that has a “No Trespassing” sign on my house, and all my Republican neighbors dislike me for it.
I don’t think Republicans know what they are about. To them its ok to pack around automatic assault weapons but its not ok for people to have freedom of choice. This makes no sense.
March 6th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I hope he will include an attachment that allows people to own and openly smoke marijuana so long as it is grown in state.
March 6th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Who elected this idiot? Time to write hom a letter!
March 6th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I finally agree with Biggun about something: nothing crystalizes one’s perceptions like the sound of a round being racked into a Mossberg 500 12 ga. or similar. With heavy birdshot it’s a great home defense weapon, with buck and slugs, it’s great bear insurance. Put on a door breacher muzzle brake, a picatinny rail for a light, laser or both, some ammo storage, rifle sights, and a few other needful things and you can maintain order with one as well.
The only thing the lefties here know about “assualt weapons” is that they’re black, ugly, and Democrats aren’t supposed to like them. Most free people have their SHTF weapon, and I wouldn’t advise trying to come get mine.
March 6th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
This is the idiot that won his election by FOUR votes in November. There’s a lesson in civics for you.
March 6th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Four is three more than he needed. There’s a lesson in civics for you.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
It’s also a math lesson, Art
March 7th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Thank God! We are so behind the rest of the country in our incidence of mass murder. This will help people as crazy as Rep. Kelly take out as many people as they can when they go postal.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Uh, many MORE votes did Al Franken get than the Republicon alternative in his election? How many MORE votes would he need to satisfy you?
March 7th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Whoo Hoo Yee Haw
I’m a red-neck moron gun owner! Ain’t gonna take my guns! Koo koo koo.
Idiots.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:28 am
I can only speculate that this clown is going to be a good source of amusement for a couple of years to come.
I’ve got nothing against gun ownership. I have a few myself. There’s nothing more fun than getting really ripped for a blasting spree. However, those nuts who think everybody ought to have the right to own a .50 claiber machine gun are a bunch of dildoes.
March 7th, 2009 at 6:01 am
I thought it was Breeblebrox? 42 to you! GRIN
March 7th, 2009 at 6:24 am
WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW GUNS A BAN? IF THEY WOULD HAD REGISTERED GUNS THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE AMERICANS INDIANS RUNNING AROUND…WHITE PEOPLE LIKED TO SHOOT INDIANS IN THE EARLY 1800′S. THEY WOULD STILL LIKE TO SHOOT INDIANS IF THEY STILL HAD OPEN SEASON ON THEM. NO GUNS! POLICE SHOULD ONLY HAVE GUNS TO KEEP ORDER IN ALASKA.
March 7th, 2009 at 7:00 am
The simple fact is you can slap all the regulations, restrictions and registration requirements you want all over LAWFUL handgun owners. It will NOT change the fact that the people you don’t want having guns, i.e. CRIMINALS, are still going to have them. It may surprise some of you (based on some of the posts before this), but CRIMINALS don’t care they’re breaking the law by unlawfully possessing a gun. There are many ways to look at this issue, so I guess I’ll just point out 64,999,987 legal firearms owners killed no one yesterday. What part of “shall not be infringed,” is unclear?
March 7th, 2009 at 8:15 am
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html
March 7th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Viking, we might as well give up. These BO lovers will never learn. But they will be the first to cowar down to Lord Obama. “You can’t fix stupid you know”
March 7th, 2009 at 9:17 am
OK, let me get this straight…
By the time our obligations to our young men and women maimed in Iraq are through, the whole mess will cost us over 3 trillion dollars.
Before the bailouts started, Bush’s Treasury Department bought two trillion dollars worth of bad loans, with your tax dollars, but wouldn’t say who got the dough…or what the true value of those loans were.
My question is: If the government can steal 5 TRILLION of your dollars, WHAT GOOD ARE ALL THOSE GUNS? All I ever hear is, “I keep my guns to keep the gub’ment in check. The politicians should be scared of me. Blah, blah, blah”
The government is spitting on you. Bush & Co. weakened every other meaningful clause of the Constitution, but knew you jamokes would keep voting for them (against your interests) as long as they never touched the 2nd Amendment.
Every time you hear about a missile strike in Pakistan or Afghanistan, remember this: Those were professional warlords and they still got smoked. If the gub’ment wants you, some 25 year old kid in a cubicle at CIA HQ can smoke you, and all your guns, in between swigs of Red Bull.
Our forefathers fought and died for the freedom of speech, the free vote, and freedom from tyranny. You knuckleheads voted to undermine all that…twice!
March 7th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Deregulation of the financial industries is what caused us the financial problems. Do a little research on when and who pushed for that.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I think this law is a really stupid idea. Nobody is going to be able to take away anybody’s guns. That’s not going to happen. However, legislation like this will just cause knee-jerk liberal reaction. I like shooting as much as anyone. Assault rifles are lots of fun to play with. However, there are some clowns out there that think everyone has a right to own a .50 caliber machine gun. People on the extreme right are dangerous to the cause because they provide fuel to the cause of the anti-gun crowd. Let’s all get real!!!!
March 7th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Up yours Empire! That’s my third comment you have nixed.
March 7th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I’ve got a long one still being “moderated”. I wonder if it’s length or origin that designates a post as needing “moderation”.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
This is a great idea.
March 7th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Paul, your the reason we so called gun-nuts are here. Call me when you need a place to stay or even food for that matter. You just done get it do you. Bush is not your enemy. Look very very close. Lord BO is.
March 7th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Your president is your “enemy”?
March 7th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Zap, how old are you anyway? Have you even looked at history? If you are asking me that question, I’m not sayiny the Prez. is my enemy or our enemy. Hilter was not looked as an enemy either. People very much looked up to him, praised him and believed in change. They were suckered in and the rest is history.
March 7th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
“I’m not sayiny the Prez. is my enemy or our enemy”
Yes you are.
“Bush is not your enemy. Look very very close. Lord BO is.”
And now he’s ‘Hitler’?
March 7th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Now I’m getting very curious indeed who “moderates” these forums! My big post was finally deleted and not approved for posting. It had no insults, no threats, no profanity, was no longer than any others here, and although I’m sure some people would disagree with it, that’s the entire point of the forum in the first place.
Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice…
March 7th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
All it takes is for three idiots to not like it and it goes to “moderation,” from which it never returns. Lefties don’t like that freedom of speech stuff. Only lefties speech is free.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
So how do I moderate your last comment?
October 27th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
With this current congress and president you better get all your gun licenses ASAP before they take all our rights away.