Are there any PRO -gun billionaires??


PDA






piece of meat
January 29, 2014, 12:23 PM
The Anti's have Bloomberg, one of the earth's richest men. As sickening as it is, the fact is that despite being only one man, he has more money and resources than the entire NRA combined, all by himself. The damage that can and has been done by an extremist like him is virtually unlimited. Not only will this guy relentlessly attack us until he dies, but now apparently other ultra rich are supporting the Anti's- harvey weinstein, who has not only unlimited funds but also a vastly influential position as major Hollywood producer to insert Anti propaganda into all forms of popular media. I have also heard that Bill Gates and Steven Spielberg have contributed to the Anti cause.

Are there any super rich who stand on our side? Are there any willing to stand up to and counter the men above?? The sad truth is that despite millions of americans being on our side, these handful of scum have the resources to eventually sway things in their direction. We need at least someone like this on our side to counter them.

Does such a person/people exist??

If you enjoyed reading about "Are there any PRO -gun billionaires??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Solo
January 29, 2014, 12:40 PM
Maybe the Koch Brothers?

Hurryin' Hoosier
January 29, 2014, 12:42 PM
I'm a pro-gun thousandaire. Will that work?

txblackout
January 29, 2014, 12:54 PM
bass pro shops billionaire John “Johnny” Morris http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-03/bass-pro-billionaire-building-megastores-with-taxpayers.html


billionaire, Stewart J. Rahr, 66, "Mr. Brafman said his client had been licensed to carry a weapon for more than 40 years “for his personal protection.”


The waltons are generally pro gun "2005 through 2012, the Walmart PAC gave nearly $1.7 million to candidates endorsed by the NRA,"

The kochs as someone mentioned


Because many billionaires are from oil money, I suspect there are more billionaires who are pro gun than anti gun.

Warp
January 29, 2014, 01:05 PM
There is no such thing as an anti-gun billionaire.

There are only "guns for me and my professional bodyguards and my police escort and my secret service agents, but not for all of you" billionaires.

Arkansas Paul
January 29, 2014, 01:12 PM
billionaire, Stewart J. Rahr, 66, "Mr. Brafman said his client had been licensed to carry a weapon for more than 40 years “for his personal protection.”

Having a concealed carry license doesn't make one pro-gun.
Remember, Diane Feinstein has a license to carry.

Warp
January 29, 2014, 01:19 PM
Having a concealed carry license doesn't make one pro-gun.
Remember, Diane Feinstein has a license to carry.

True.

But if they openly state that they have one, that is a good sign.

JohnBT
January 29, 2014, 01:48 PM
www.luxist.com/tag/shotguns

I don't know, is Spielberg a billionaire yet? Madonna? Well, iirc she bought two for her now ex, but buying guns is pro-gun. Tommy Mottola was head of Sony Music for 15 years.

"He has made guns for celebs like Steven Spielberg, Eric Clapton and King Juan Carlos of Spain, as well as Mexican-born pop singer Thalia, pictured above with her Fabbri 20-gauge. Fabbri's father began the business in 1965 in a small shop in the Valle Trompia, a legendary valley in northern Italy that has been home to gunmakers since the 16th century.

Fabbri only makes 30 guns per year, hence the waiting list. Italian artisans spend 400 - 600 hours etching the metalwork on each gun, which can add $50,000 or more to the price. Thalia's husband, music mogul Tommy Mottola, tells the magazine that "Tullio's work is as good as a Picasso."



"

Skribs
January 29, 2014, 02:34 PM
What's the term for someone who's worth is in the double digits? Because I'm a pro-gun that.

It is interesting, though, the comparison of money to RKBA. When you look at gun control laws from the perspective of a person with a generous amount of disposable income, it is largely the paperwork and wait that are the problem, and the fees are just another annoyance. From the perspective of someone who lives paycheck to paycheck, bans on cheap firearms or tax requirements make it prohibitive for poor people to own firearms.

Extrapolate that further, and look at the demographics. Minorities make up a larger portion of our poor than they do our rich. Therefore, laws which make guns less available to the poor have a greater effect on minorities than they do on whites. Therefore, gun control is racist.

berettaprofessor
January 29, 2014, 03:06 PM
There are only "guns for me and my professional bodyguards and my police escort and my secret service agents, but not for all of you" billionaires.

Spot on, Warp.

Warp
January 29, 2014, 05:56 PM
What's the term for someone who's worth is in the double digits? Because I'm a pro-gun that.

It is interesting, though, the comparison of money to RKBA. When you look at gun control laws from the perspective of a person with a generous amount of disposable income, it is largely the paperwork and wait that are the problem, and the fees are just another annoyance. From the perspective of someone who lives paycheck to paycheck, bans on cheap firearms or tax requirements make it prohibitive for poor people to own firearms.

Extrapolate that further, and look at the demographics. Minorities make up a larger portion of our poor than they do our rich. Therefore, laws which make guns less available to the poor have a greater effect on minorities than they do on whites. Therefore, gun control is racist.

Gun control is very much racist. In fact, the origins of a lot of gun control laws and carry restrictions (shall issue, open-to-interpretation things like when GA didn't allow carry at "public gatherings", etc) were straight up racist. It allowed the Sheriff or whoever else to selectively enforce based on their whim...which apparently was quite often racially motivated


And yes, all the extra gun control or "this isn't gun control, this is common sense and merely nominal expenses" type stuff is also very arguably racist for just what you said.

barnbwt
January 29, 2014, 06:36 PM
Did someone say Spielberg? Isn't he typically outspoken against gun stuff, though obviously profiting greatly from it in his movies ("ET Walkie Talkies, anyone? :barf:). I recall hearing (since I never saw it) that Munich was pro-ish gun-ish, but that is more the exception than the rule and more pro-terrorist-ass-kicking in any case.

Buying excellent Fabri firearms does not a supporter make. Merely a man of wealth, and taste. I wager there's a better case to be made that the typical ultra high-end gun purchaser tends to err toward the side of restrictions on the less powerful who could potentially worry them.

"And yes, all the extra gun control or "this isn't gun control, this is common sense and merely nominal expenses" type stuff is also very arguably racist for just what you said."
Ay-up. It's also usually followed by "you don't want people like that having guns," or "they can't be trusted; it'd be like the Wild West," or my favorite; "it's in their own best interest." We hear so much about 'white privilege' these days that many folks have forgotten about good 'ol white arrogance (upper-middle-class arrogance to be specific, but you get my drift). Afflicted many an abolitionist and slaveholder alike.

TCB

Skribs
January 29, 2014, 06:54 PM
Warp, there's also the more direct examples of Jim Crow laws and slave codes.

SharpsDressedMan
January 29, 2014, 06:59 PM
"Schindler's List" SHOULD have given people the awareness that once the Warsaw Ghetto was disarmed, the Jews had no chance, but Polish underground fighters DID give the Nazi's a run for the money until they burned it down. That was THE movie that Spielberg will be remembered for.

newfalguy101
January 29, 2014, 07:01 PM
I would suspect that honestly, there are more " I really don't care one way or the other" billionaires than either pro or anti.

Hurryin' Hoosier
January 29, 2014, 09:49 PM
Gun control is very much racist. In fact, the origins of a lot of gun control laws and carry restrictions ... were straight up racist. It allowed the Sheriff or whoever else to selectively enforce based on their whim...which apparently was quite often racially motivated


I agree. The State of Indiana made me get a License to Carry a Handgun and I know durn good and well that it's just because I'm mostly Scots-Irish. (The English have always harassed and oppressed us.)

Warp
January 29, 2014, 10:24 PM
I agree. The State of Indiana made me get a License to Carry a Handgun and I know durn good and well that it's just because I'm mostly Scots-Irish. (The English have always harassed and oppressed us.)

Shall Issue vs May Issue.

Palehorseman
January 30, 2014, 03:25 AM
Don't know about Donald Trump himself, but do know both his sons are big time hunters, including African safaris.

Phaedrus/69
January 30, 2014, 05:24 AM
To accumulate the kind of wealth needed to become a billionaire requires an extraordinary amount of crimes against society, and to commit that many offenses requires government complicity. To hold that wealth and protect it against the unwashed masses (that would be us) is a lot easier when you have near total control over the people. To that end the richer you are and the larger your share of the pie is the more you will seek to dominate and control those who might take some of it back. That is why the wealthy are generally for gun control (and peasant control for that matter). It's probably a big reason the government wastes so much money subsidizing sports; pro sports is the modern version of bread and circuses.

Hey, you asked!;)

JohnBT
January 30, 2014, 06:47 AM
"Buying excellent Fabri firearms does not a supporter make."

Sure, go on whining because they aren't as big a gun rights supporter as you. Or maybe they are. You don't know. Sounds like more sour grapes about wealthy folks than anything else.

tuj
January 30, 2014, 06:55 AM
Charles and David Koch, although I don't think either of them are shooters themselves, they are very libertarian and spend a lot of money on it. That said, I have met Charles and talked to him and while not specifically about this subject, I get the feeling he is not 'pro-gun-enough' for most people on THR.

deerhuntersc
January 30, 2014, 07:42 AM
There is no such thing as an anti-gun billionaire.

There are only "guns for me and my professional bodyguards and my police escort and my secret service agents, but not for all of you" billionaires.






Well said.

TRX
January 30, 2014, 07:44 AM
Owning one or guns doesn't make someone "pro-gun." I've known many gun owners who were fervently in favor of gun control, even though some of the reasons they specified would have made them ineligible to own a firearm themselves.

Any attempt to point out the problem with their logic is met with disinterest or blank incomprehension. I think it's a form of schizophrenia, though I think that word is technically obsolete nowadays. They hold two opposing viewpoints, and refuse to acknowledge any connection whatsoever between them.

Stevie-Ray
January 31, 2014, 01:41 PM
Don't know about Donald Trump himself, but do know both his sons are big time hunters, including African safarisI believe generally pro-gun. I've seen him bury anti-gun people in interviews, and he's rather eloquent at it.

MagnumDweeb
January 31, 2014, 02:21 PM
When you can't get the votes you try and buy the election or the politician. That's what billionaires do because we the American people so often abandon our duties to vote and take part in the process. We do nothing to create organizations that have to answer to us. We simply shuck our money to our hopeful saviour or we don't spend any money at all and demand the heavens answer our prayers.

If we organized, and stayed united, then the billionaires and the special interests would have a far harder time pushing their agenda. If we then organized to boycott those billionaires and their brethren, it'd have an effect as well. What do you imagine would happen if an advertiser for Bloomberg news got a petition to boycott their product signed by ten million people, so long as that advertiser advertised on their channel.

But hey, let's whine and moan, scoff at new ideas, act like a bunch of fatalists and defeatists and go woe is me. Right?

gym
January 31, 2014, 04:16 PM
No we aren't all like that.

yzguy87
January 31, 2014, 04:23 PM
Bruce Willis is about $850 mil short of a billion but that's still bigger than my chunk of change! Regardless of how much, or little:rolleyes: money he has, he's on our side! Post Sandy Hook he spoke out in favor of the 2a!

I must add that idk if he endorses any pro 2a organizations financially.

Trent
January 31, 2014, 06:59 PM
Well, if all NRA members contributed $100 a year they'd have a half-billion a year bankroll to work with.

There is such a thing as "strength in numbers", to offset the titans of the anti-gun world.

Shimitup
January 31, 2014, 07:59 PM
Here's one for you. Dan Duncan, one of the most humble and gracious host to families he invited to his ranch. He hosted in partnership with the Houston Safari Club a hunt for special needs children and their families at this incredible ranch for several years. Myself and my son along with about 5 or 6 other families were lucky enough to have been able to attend on two occasions. When I addressed him as Mr. Duncan, he smiled and quietly said "please just call me Dan". Sadly the world lost a very fine gentleman when he died in 2010. Seems he was worth somewhere around 9 billion. He had an incredible Winchester collection in the guest house.

He's in the green shirt in the photo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Duncan

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p47/shimitup/P9211173r1.jpg (http://s125.photobucket.com/user/shimitup/media/P9211173r1.jpg.html)

UpperAtmosphere
January 31, 2014, 11:16 PM
Tell ya what, guys, y'all get together and send me a billion dollars and I guarantee you there will be a pro-gun billionaire.

You get to feel good, and I get to have a billion dollars. Win-win for everybody!

Sol
February 1, 2014, 12:40 AM
As "crazy" as post #19 may seem, I believe it to be accurate.

For one single person looking to encroach on the rights of millions, it would appear that there is an underlying agenda.

When Reichsführer Bloomberg donates or goes on an advertisement spree to disarm people, whom does that benefit? You? Me?

First and foremostly it benefits him, if it didn't why would he donate? Sure somebody can be that convicted in their beliefs to donate to any cause, but wanting to disarm everyone while maintaining an armed security force for your self says something.

Secondly it benefits the state/ government. Yes, it's great to be that elevated in society that you can either afford private security or you get police protection due to position or wealth. The rest of us proletariats, SELF defense is just that. We either can't afford to have private security or we are not important enough that it is provided to us via tax payer.

When the right to have guns is taken away, so is the idea of self defense. Using a gun, where outlawed, in self defense is a crime. Say John Q. Public (living in the bloomberg fantasy) shoots someone in self defense and gets arrested. Sure, any REASONABLE court won't find him guilty of murder when the facts show John Q. shot only after being stabbed, but he probably will be charged with a bogus felony for carrying/shooting/owning a prohibited object. Thus leaving John Q. With enormous fines, fees, penalties and the such all paid to the state, and your not even talking legal fees.

TennJed
February 2, 2014, 08:50 PM
I would suspect that honestly, there are more " I really don't care one way or the other" billionaires than either pro or anti.
I would bet this is correct

stevek
February 2, 2014, 11:45 PM
To accumulate the kind of wealth needed to become a billionaire requires an extraordinary amount of crimes against society, and to commit that many offenses requires government complicity. To hold that wealth and protect it against the unwashed masses (that would be us) is a lot easier when you have near total control over the people. To that end the richer you are and the larger your share of the pie is the more you will seek to dominate and control those who might take some of it back. That is why the wealthy are generally for gun control (and peasant control for that matter). It's probably a big reason the government wastes so much money subsidizing sports; pro sports is the modern version of bread and circuses.


What!?!?! Sounds pretty socialist/communist to me...

gonoles_1980
February 2, 2014, 11:51 PM
They can be anti-gun, because they just hire people with guns.

spm
February 3, 2014, 02:38 PM
I'm a pro-gun thousandaire. Will that work?

Hahahahaha!

Me, too.
s.

piece of meat
February 3, 2014, 04:25 PM
Sol,
One of the things I do not understand about all this is the motives of some of these anti's.

Why are they so relentless and personally invested in this?

These are (mostly) not stupid people, im sure they know there will be no real effect on crime, so why do they hate gun ownership so much?

Bloomberg is probably a smart man...he has nothing to gain financially or politically...and im sure he knows these stupid arbitrary laws will not really affect crime...so why is he so fixated on ending private gun ownership??

It is hard to not wonder if there is not something truly sinister behind the motives of these people. While not trying to get into tinfoil hat territory, i am at a complete loss as to what their true motivations are. I cannot explain why they hate gun ownership so much and work so hard to eliminate it.

zdc1775
February 4, 2014, 11:45 AM
Sol,
One of the things I do not understand about all this is the motives of some of these anti's.

Why are they so relentless and personally invested in this?

These are (mostly) not stupid people, im sure they know there will be no real effect on crime, so why do they hate gun ownership so much?

Bloomberg is probably a smart man...he has nothing to gain financially or politically...and im sure he knows these stupid arbitrary laws will not really affect crime...so why is he so fixated on ending private gun ownership??

It is hard to not wonder if there is not something truly sinister behind the motives of these people. While not trying to get into tinfoil hat territory, i am at a complete loss as to what their true motivations are. I cannot explain why they hate gun ownership so much and work so hard to eliminate it.
It's actually really simple. Gun ownership gives people power and they want all the power in their hands.

Double Naught Spy
February 4, 2014, 12:09 PM
Why are they so relentless and personally invested in this?

These are (mostly) not stupid people, im sure they know there will be no real effect on crime, so why do they hate gun ownership so much?

Bloomberg is probably a smart man...he has nothing to gain financially or politically...and im sure he knows these stupid arbitrary laws will not really affect crime...so why is he so fixated on ending private gun ownership??

It is hard to not wonder if there is not something truly sinister behind the motives of these people. While not trying to get into tinfoil hat territory, i am at a complete loss as to what their true motivations are. I cannot explain why they hate gun ownership so much and work so hard to eliminate it.

Virtually all of these questions could be turned around and asked as to why folks are so relentlessly and personally involved with gun ownership.

It isn't just rich liberals who are so against gun ownership. There are plenty of poor folks against it as well.

JustinJ
February 4, 2014, 12:26 PM
Rather than politically motivated groups seeking their own billionaires i'd rather we as a country limit their grossly disproportionate influence by removing campaign contribution loopholes and tightening up lobbying restrictions.

Pizzapinochle
February 4, 2014, 01:10 PM
im sure they know there will be no real effect on crime, so why do they hate gun ownership so much?


??? Oh gosh.... :banghead:

Maybe because they DON'T know that? Or, even more likely, the think there WILL be a real effect on crime?

Maybe... just MAYBE.... not everyone sees the world exactly like you do?

HOOfan_1
February 4, 2014, 01:25 PM
Supposedly Heston said in one of his books that Spielberg has one of the biggest gun collections in the nation.

Using google I can't find any concrete evidence that Spielberg has done anything specifically anti-gun.

I did find one blog where someone misattributed a Stephen King quote to Speilberg

Double Naught Spy
February 4, 2014, 07:31 PM
Or, even more likely, the think there WILL be a real effect on crime?

Like Lott and several others believe guns reduce crime rates?

Dinosaur1
February 5, 2014, 12:17 AM
I just read where one of the walmart kids is joining with soros for hillary. Disgusting. I have a whole other view of walmart now.

Trent
February 5, 2014, 11:03 AM
I'm a pro-gun billionaire. Nay, TRILLIONAIRE!

(Ever look at the exchange rate for Zimbabwe dollars???)

:)

Trent
February 5, 2014, 11:08 AM
On a lighter note; as I mentioned earlier in this thread, this is a numbers game.

You *can* influence some people by spending money. But generally, this is only short term, and requires additional stimulus to be effective. (E.g. look at the load the anti-gun group spent on advertising after SH).

However, we have something the anti-gunners don't have. We're in this for life. It's far easier to convert an anti-gunner to pro-gun or neutral, than it is convert a pro-gun person from being pro-gun to anti.

So as long as we keep bringing new people to the range and introducing new shooters to the sport, we gain more ground; and we hold it.

They hold the attention of their supporters as long as it's in the mainstream media's interest. But that interest fades away as time goes on. We keep shooting. And hunting. And taking people to the range.

We (gun owners) are at what - 40% now? Of the entire population? That means they have to convince *80%* of the non-gun owners to be devoutly anti-gun, just to hold pace with our numbers.

We push that over 50% and their cause is lost. And maybe.. someday.. we get the dang NFA registry opened back up. :)

mbt2001
February 5, 2014, 07:22 PM
Bloomberg and the elites are pro-gun, just not pro you having one.

piece of meat
March 14, 2014, 11:23 AM
Bloomberg said in an interview yesterday that he can 'outspend the NRA'.

This guy has unlimited wealth and is intent on using those resources against us until the day he dies.

Ignition Override
March 15, 2014, 02:26 AM
Where does "The Donald" stand, or does he comment on the topic?

tuj
March 15, 2014, 07:21 AM
"The Donald" is barely a billionaire ($2.6B). He pales in comparison to say, the Koch Bros. ($40B+$40B). It would be like me making $50k a year, and you making $3,200.00 a year. Even amongst the super-rich, the disparities are great, probably far greater than amongst economically-common men.

Therefore the Koch's have much money at their disposal, which they have been active about using against liberals in many state-level races. Koch also has a significant sway over its usually well-compensated employees, who also contribute to the causes Charles and to a lesser extend David, want them to make. After all, their jobs depend on it.

Gates and Buffet top the list as the richest in America, the Koch's come next at 6th and 7th in the world if I recall. So don't say there aren't any pro-gun billionaires. Yes the Koch's are not explicitly pro-gun, but they are libertarians, and that should be enough.

Rembrandt
March 15, 2014, 11:31 AM
If inflation and the Federal Reserve keeps printing money, I may soon be a billionaire. Only problem is where to park my wheelbarrow full of money when going to the gun shows...I imagine there will be quite a line of wheel barrows waiting to get in.

JRH6856
March 15, 2014, 11:44 AM
This guy has unlimited wealth and is intent on using those resources against us until the day he dies.

Actually, his limit is currently estimated at $33billion. (which is a really high limit)

tuj
March 15, 2014, 11:54 AM
"If inflation and the Federal Reserve keeps printing money"

1. Money printing is not inflationary if an appropriate amount of debt is sold against the printed sum.

2. Inflation has been low. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CPIAUCSL

You can see inflation has been about the same since 1975.

ExTank
March 15, 2014, 12:01 PM
Owning one or guns doesn't make someone "pro-gun." I've known many gun owners who were fervently in favor of gun control, even though some of the reasons they specified would have made them ineligible to own a firearm themselves.

Any attempt to point out the problem with their logic is met with disinterest or blank incomprehension. I think it's a form of schizophrenia, though I think that word is technically obsolete nowadays. They hold two opposing viewpoints, and refuse to acknowledge any connection whatsoever between them.

George Orwell coined a term for this in his book, 1984. It's called double-think: the ability to hold two or more completely contradictory ideas/concepts/facts as true at the same time. The people of 1984 did this for purely political-power reasons. For everyday folks, it just called "living in denial."

JRH6856
March 15, 2014, 12:26 PM
George Orwell coined a term for this in his book, 1984. It's called double-think: the ability to hold two or more completely contradictory ideas/concepts/facts as true at the same time. The people of 1984 did this for purely political-power reasons. For everyday folks, it just called "living in denial."
Cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognative_dissonance)

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time. This stress and discomfort may also arise within an individual who holds a belief and performs a contradictory action or reaction. For example, an individual is likely to experience dissonance if he or she is addicted to smoking cigarettes and continues to smoke despite believing it is unhealthy.

Jason_W
March 15, 2014, 06:37 PM
Why would billionaires care about being pro or anti-gun? They're effectively above the law. They're the modern day gentry, we're all the serfs.

Every anti-gun law conceived could pass and billionaires would still be able to own whatever and whoever they want. Laws only apply to us peasants.

Kosh75287
March 15, 2014, 06:51 PM
It's a semi-clinical term called "Cranio-Rectal Insertion Disorder", or perhaps "Recto-Cranial Insertion Disorder" (meaning, in plain English, that they have their heads inserted in their posteriors. I PREFER the first one, since it lends itself to becoming a mono-syllabic acronym, but it may not be technically correct.

Perhaps one of the health-care professionals on here could chime in?

JRH6856
March 15, 2014, 07:16 PM
It's a semi-clinical term called "Cranio-Rectal Insertion Disorder", or perhaps "Recto-Cranial Insertion Disorder" (meaning, in plain English, that they have their heads inserted in their posteriors. I PREFER the first one, since it lends itself to becoming a mono-syllabic acronym, but it may not be technically correct.

Whichever, it still means they need a glass belt buckle to be able to see their way around.

Justin
March 16, 2014, 04:50 PM
For one single person looking to encroach on the rights of millions, it would appear that there is an underlying agenda.

When Reichsführer Bloomberg donates or goes on an advertisement spree to disarm people, whom does that benefit? You? Me?

First and foremostly it benefits him, if it didn't why would he donate? Sure somebody can be that convicted in their beliefs to donate to any cause, but wanting to disarm everyone while maintaining an armed security force for your self says something.

Here's what you have to realize, it has nothing to do with benefitting you, me, or society.

It's not rational in the least. What everyone needs to realize is that the vast majority of anti-gun people are pathologically narcissistic.

Everything a narcissist does in his/her life is geared towards the aggrandizement of their own personal power and adequacy. To that end, they will seek social situations in which they can assert their dominance over others.

To someone who's truly narcissistic, they believe the world does, or should, revolve around them, and the fact that you choose to own a gun is seen as a deeply personal affront to everything they stand for because it represents the possibility of a power disparity that doesn't work in their favor.

As an added bonus, narcissism perfectly explains why these people will vociferously support gun control, but are completely incapable of seeing the hypocrisy inherent to having heavily-armed personal security details. To them it simply doesn't matter.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are there any PRO -gun billionaires??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!