Massive Gun Owner Sell Out Of Basic Rights by M. Gaddy


PDA






rick_reno
June 2, 2004, 12:03 AM
I didn't see this posted - so here it is...

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/05/17/gaddy.htm

Massive Gun Owner Sell Out Of Basic Rights

By Michael Gaddy

May 17, 2004

In ever increasing numbers, gun owners in this country have, by their actions, said to government: You are my master, all rights flow from you, I bow down before you and will beg, no, even pay for your permission to have my firearms. I have watched this occur here in my home state of New Mexico since January of this year, although it has been happening in many other states over the past decade or so.

Let me draw an analogy for you, if I may. Let’s say robbers beset your town. They are becoming more and more brazen in their theft of money and personal property. They have even taken to kidnapping your children and using them to help with their foul deeds. A group of citizens think they have finally found the solution to this mayhem. They go to see some of the people they know to be robbers. They ask, even beg these robbers for permission to protect themselves from the very actions perpetrated on them. After the negotiations are over, the citizens are most pleased with the agreement they have struck with the thieves.

First, anyone wishing to protect themselves must pay a fee to the robbers for permission to install fences, barred windows and even security systems. The robbers hold total control over who may or may not install these devises. Secondly, all citizens who are accepted to provide security devises for themselves must then provide the robbers with keys to all doors, windows and gates. They must also provide all codes to security and alarm systems and even allow the robbers to install the systems or teach them how to do so.

How totally absurd you say? But, is this not exactly what has happened with the massive rush by gun owners to secure concealed carry permits from the state?

The Bill of Rights to our Constitution is a set of negative protections. It was designed and passed solely to protect the citizens of this country from a runaway, despotic government. Are we not now begging and paying for permission to protect ourselves from the government itself? Do we not beg from those who steal our money and our rights for permission to protect ourselves from the very theft they are inflicting on us?
By doing so, are we not acknowledging the government to be more powerful than our Constitution? Do we not say by these very actions: I know there is a Second Amendment and foremost a divine right that provides me with the permission I need, but seeing as the government is more powerful than that little old piece of parchment, or the Creator, I will beg and pay it for this permission. By these very actions have we not destroyed the Constitution ourselves? I sure would like to see some of the gun groups and gun owners who are so proud of their accomplishments in obtaining this "permission" explain to our forefathers how they managed to trade away all they accomplished. Remember if you will, their pledge.
"For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor".

How can we ignore their sacrifice? How can we ignore the court decisions listed below?

1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90 at 92 and 93, 13 Am. Dec 251

“For in principal, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only that it secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order at the time at which it is done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”

1846: Nunn vs State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 at 251

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void which contravenes this right”

1876: U.S. v Cruikshank 92 US 542

In this decision the Supreme Court stated, “the right to arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent on that instrument for its existence.”

1921: State vs. Kerner 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 at 224

“The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.”

Notice that in all the cases listed above it is the State that is trying to take away rights and has been taken to task by the individual. Obviously, we have failed to keep vigilance over our freedoms and now beg the government for what is already ours.

Most importantly, the State has been able to co-opt the very group of citizens that should be those standing in the front lines of the battle for our liberty: gun owners.

By the actions of these gun owners, the State has been provided with a list of a great number of so-called patriots, especially those who would carry guns for self-protection.

What is to stop the State from rescinding this "permission" at its whim?

What would you, who have disavowed the freedoms of your Creator and the Constitution in favor of the State, have as your defense? Have you not already acknowledged the State to be greater than both? Have you not also provided the State with another database to use when total confiscation becomes necessary to the continuance of state control and domination?

How would you answer a judge who asked you, “Did you not acknowledge the right of the state to control firearms when you petitioned the state for the "right" to carry and paid them for it?”


(Quotes thanks to Colonel Dan)

If you enjoyed reading about "Massive Gun Owner Sell Out Of Basic Rights by M. Gaddy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
June 2, 2004, 12:35 AM
They ask, even beg these robbers for permission to protect themselves from the very actions perpetrated on them. After the negotiations are over, the citizens are most pleased with the agreement they have struck with the thieves.

Yep.

CrudeGT
June 2, 2004, 12:50 AM
I do agree with what he is saying, to an extent.

I agree that the RKBA was given to us, being free Americans, when this land was deemed America. I agree that that right has gotten stepped on, as well as all the others. And I agree that this has been allowed to happen by the ignorant, and those who with money&power, over those without. I agree that this country is no longer run like a true democracy. And I agree tha the greatest thing would be for us to take back what was given to us.


However, the cases that he states are over 100 years old. It was much easier to be heard and have a say in what is happening back them. Because every person (define person by how it was seen as the time of the court rulings) had equal oppurtunity to say what should and shouldn't happen to their rights. However, nowadays, try walking into a Supreme court room and saying "I demand my rights to RKBA" see what happens to you. I don't know if any of us here have the funds to support a suit large enough to get the attention of the supreme court. And we would need a Supreme Court Judge to make a ruling like that, because we have to play by their rules, because they are the ones with the power, right now. If we do not play by their rules than we are no different from people like David Koresh, or anyone else who has attempted to created a land with their own rules. Where did it get them? dead. all of them, dead or in prison for a LONG time.

Would it be a great thing if things went back to how they were when the constitution was written? damn straight, is it going to happen as easy as this article makes it sound? hell no. Is it outcome worth the risk? I say no.

Where we are right now, we have the right to carry firearms, concealed or open (depending on state), we have the right to own and collect firearms (and we can collect more after Sept.). Yeah, we have to play by their rules. But I got a CCW to protect my life, I own guns to protect my life. Dying in a war trying to make a point about owning guns for personal protection sounds way to ironic for me.

(I hope this made sense, i usually have a good intention with what I want to say, but it gets messed up when I put it into words).

cropcirclewalker
June 2, 2004, 01:20 AM
We have become a bunch of weenies. In another thread somewhere a poll indicated that about 2/3ds of the respondents thought that reasonable limits on RKBA were OK.

Weasle words. 2A is very clear. Yet we have slid into a morass of "Common Sense" gun laws. Common sense is that EVERY federal gun control law on the books is unconstitutional.

The BOR was adopted into the constitution to insure that regardless of the popular opinion of the masses at the present time, the God given rights of the minorities would be protected.

Like I said elsewhere, the worst fears of the founders have come true. We have slid from the constitutional republic as created into the tyranny of democracy.

Curiously, I do not remember any founder even using the word "democracy" other than as a perjorative. Sometime or other, we have been sucked into it.

Does anybody know when?

CrudeGT
June 2, 2004, 02:30 AM
True, we've become a bunch of weenies too scared of our own government to fight back.

Now what do we do about it?

Sitting around saying that we have lost out rights is useless, because anyone can see that we have given up many of our rights already. Listening to people complain doesn't help. How do we start to get them back? The times have changed A LOT since the instances this man has given, how do we get these rights back given our current situation?

revolting and rebellions will not work, our opressors are bigger, stronger, and they have more powerful means of defense.

Jim March
June 2, 2004, 02:58 AM
He has COMPLETELY misrepresented what Cruikshank was all about. If that's really the extent of his understanding of that case, and how it's still one of the core lynchpins (no pun intended) of all gun control today, then he simply has no clue whatsoever.

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/sections/history/19th.asp

The Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The case grew out of a brutal massacre of blacks in the little Louisiana town of Colfax.

In Colfax whites burned the court house and murdered an unknown number of blacks. After the U.S. Army restored order, a federal grand jury indicted 72 white men. The United States Attorney brought nine to trial and won a conviction against William Cruikshank and two others.

Normally the federal government does not prosecute persons charged with murder. Control of ordinary crime has traditionally been the job of the states. In this case the U.S. Attorney used the 1870 Enforcement Act. This law makes it a crime for two or more persons to band together with intent to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen.

The Supreme Court threw out the convictions of Cruikshank and his cohorts. As it had in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Court acted to protect states' power. "Every republican government," Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite wrote, "is in duty bound to protect all its citizens." He then added, "That duty was originally assumed by the States; and it still remains there."

In other words, the USSC was saying that states can violate our rights to free assembly (1st Amendment), arms (2nd), voting (15th) and there was to be nothing the Federal government can do about it.

This has been overturned with regards the 1st and 15th amendments, but NOT the second. Hence California's Attorney General is on record as relying on 9th Circuit case law which are in turn explicitly hinged on Cruikshank via direct reference, despite the racially vile nature of Cruikshank.

See also:

http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3505

http://www.americanminutemen.org/reinhardt.htm

------------------------------

What does it all mean?

With the courts acting in this sort of outrageous fashion, we MUST turn to the legislatures to protect our rights. And that in turn means compromise. It sucks, but it's that or shoot somebody...and the latter won't be necessary.

Here's why: as much as "shall-issue" systems suck, they DO establish and preserve a practical right to armed self defense. They also prove to the sheeple that us law-abiding gunnies can be trusted. They generate hard data on what does NOT go wrong with verifiable levels of self defense.

And finally, Alaska proved in '03 what we've long suspected: shall-issue permit systems can be a "stepping stone" to "Vermont Carry". As Alaska's experience with VT Carry pans out well, expect to see that concept spread.

Farnham
June 2, 2004, 03:25 AM
You will never see a revolution among fat men...

I think that was Ben Franklin, hell, it might have been Mao Tse Tung, but it applies here.

How many of us (us being mostly a group of fairly well off people in the 20-50 year old range, I say well off because really poor people don't have the Internet and a gun habit, I know cause I grew up in a trailer) are willing to give up our houses, our kids futures, our SUV's and gunsafes and computers and video games and import beer and miserable cable TV to get down in the mud and slug it out with the state cops, ATF, FBI, and possibly the DoD?

I say not enough to make it count.

That's Problem A.

Problem B is this.

CrudeGT was right, you stand up, I mean REALLY stand up for your rights, John Wayne/Lee Marvin style, and you're just gonna end up dead--if you ain't dead, you're hung out to dry by the 12 cake eating sissies and one liberal judge at your trial.

We, and maybe not just "we" but "We" as in the "We the People" done screwed up sometime, and I'm thinking it's around the time television news was invented, just to answer your question, cropcirclewalker.

This argument is not about guns, it's about a mindset, and the mindset that prevails among gun owners is FAR FAR from the mindset of most of the rest of "We the People". Self preservation is much too hard for most of America to fathom. "Shoot a disney-fied cute little lovable deer for food!?!? I'm appalled!!!" "You mean shoot the cute little lovable crackhead that's taking my car?!?! I'm appalled!!!" "You mean shoot the cute little lovable ATF agent that's coming to take my guns so eventually he can take my freedom of speech, religion, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, freedom from slavery, freedom to vote?!?! I'm appalled!!!"

Bah...we have met the enemy, and he is us...

Farnham

Jim March
June 2, 2004, 03:45 AM
We screwed up right at day one, when we wrote a fine set of founding documents while not eliminating slavery.

I'm dead serious here. The roots of 90% of this country's problems can be traced to that tragic decision. Jefferson suspected it was a mistake, and he was a slaveowner.

fjolnirsson
June 2, 2004, 03:54 AM
How do you figure?
Don't get me wrong, I beleive it's behind a lot of our troubles (the anti gun laws we have, to start with), but 90%?

Share, Jim.

Wildalaska
June 2, 2004, 05:01 AM
This argument is not about guns, it's about a mindset, and the mindset that prevails among gun owners is FAR FAR from the mindset of most of the rest of "We the People". Self preservation is much too hard for most of America to fathom. "Shoot a disney-fied cute little lovable deer for food!?!? I'm appalled!!!" "You mean shoot the cute little lovable crackhead that's taking my car?!?! I'm appalled!!!" "You mean shoot the cute little lovable ATF agent that's coming to take my guns so eventually he can take my freedom of speech, religion, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, freedom from slavery, freedom to vote?!?! I'm appalled!!!"

:rolleyes: O yeah sure, most gun owners are just ready to shoot car thieves and ATF agents....yep

Count me out...

WildnormalAlaska

Don't Tread
June 2, 2004, 05:19 AM
I feel I need to point out something here, whenever you have to apply for a "permit" or a "license" in order to practice a "Right", it is no longer a "Right", it is a "Priviledge".

I just thought I would point that out to all of you who are saying that it is okay for the government to substitute a "Priviledge" for a guaranteed "Right".

Jim March
June 2, 2004, 05:21 AM
Fjolnirsson:

Where do we even start?

Well y'all know that almost all of our gun control laws are connected to race. Clayton Cramer started looking into that and it went even further than his initial paper.

Example: between 1820ish and 1845ish, we had the worst period of white-on-white violence in the US. It spawned a bunch of gun control related to concealed carry of handguns, big knives, etc. But it was isolated in the South, esp. along the Mississippi river valley.

Why were whites in THAT area violent? Could it possibly have been connected to the "toughness" required to be part of the support system for slavery - catchers, plantation overseers, traders, etc? We know prison corrections people today get...hardened, sometimes to loony levels. There's an entire literal prison gang in California called the "Green Wall", complete with their own tags, signs, initiations, violent assaults on former members who "snitch", the works...but they're not inmates, they're guards :rolleyes:.

So let's take a more modern example: FBI uniform crime reports.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/02cius.htm

In Table 2.6 for 2002 (latest complete year published) we see that there were 5,356 situations where the race of the murderer was known to be white, 5,579 where the race of the murderer was known to be black (another 4,604 unknown, 274 “other”).

Assuming a representative chunk of the “unknowns” are also black, they’re behind over 50% of America’s murders while making up 15% of the population.

(Hispanics are recorded separately and appear to be LESS violent than whites per-capita...so there's more going on here than just poverty.)

This isn't genetic. It's a result of long-term racism. The grinding poverty and drugs in the inner cities are another result...and it's breaking our budgets something fierce. We'd have been LONG over this if we'd dumped slavery by around 1820, as some early proposals for a phase-out mention as early as the 1780s/90s.

Ponder what our finances would be like without the urban black "blight zones" (with their welfare, joblessness, educational failures) in most major cities. Without the drug rates in there, we wouldn't have such horrendous civil rights violations in the "war on (some) drugs".

Anybody else catch tonight's special on ABC on the LAPD gang wars in these "hoods"? They described systematic 4th Amendment violations that would NOT be tolerated in any other community, and causes pure hate between that whole community and the police.

A whole segment of our population is under a totalitarian bootheel, and it's tolerated only because of who they are.

Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Franklin, Washington, the lot of 'em - they failed us. They sowed the seeds of this nation's destruction right into the founding fabric. They violated the high-sounding ideals of their own documents.

fjolnirsson
June 2, 2004, 05:55 AM
Hmm, Ok, I think I see what you mean. It makes sense, now that you mention it. I never really thought about it that way. Hmm..

Colt46
June 2, 2004, 06:00 AM
about the founding fathers.
They were great men. Yet, hypocrits every one.

Molon Labe
June 2, 2004, 10:03 AM
Good article.

I am shocked that many of my fellow citizens are asking for the government’s permission to carry a concealed weapon.

Them: “I just applied for my CCW!”

Me:: “Why?”

Them:: “Because, dammit! I have a right to keep and bear arms!!”

Me:: “If you believe you have this right, why are you asking the government’s permission? You do not need to ask anyone’s permission to exercise an inalienable right.”

Them:: “Huh? Look, I don’t like the permit system. Personally, I would rather have Vermont-carry. But if I’m caught carrying without a CCW license I’m looking at a felony.”

Me:: “So you live in fear of the government. You’re afraid to exercise your rights. Instead of living your life based on freedom, you live it based on fear. Instead of maximizing your liberty, you seek to minimize your discomfort. If you’re scared of the government now, will we be able to count on you to fight if the SHTF? I’m guessing the answer is ‘no.’”

Art Eatman
June 2, 2004, 10:25 AM
Colt, while I follow Jim's line of thought, I'd disagree with you as to "hypocrisy" on the part of the Founding Fathers. Were they to hold those attitudes today, yeah--but judgement must be in the context of the times in which they lived.

Forget the issue of slavery for a moment: Consider that women couldn't vote. Also consider that the idea of a woman holding title to real property was a rather inflammatory topic of debate.

When you consider that this sort of thinking was fundamental in the attitudes of a great majority of people, it is rather amazing that the concepts of restraint on government and of liberty for individuals was thought out for the Constitution.

There is irony in that "The People" only later came to include blacks and women.

:), Art

Farnham
June 2, 2004, 11:26 AM
Wildalaska, that was meant to be more of a progression thing...if you can't do one, you can't do two and three.

Besides, I wouldn't shoot anyone in the government, they're much too gamey. :what:

FarnNOTASNORMALASWILDALASKAham

Ryder
June 2, 2004, 11:42 AM
What would you, who have disavowed the freedoms of your Creator and the Constitution in favor of the State, have as your defense?

The state is not a living entity. I need only defend against people.


Have you not already acknowledged the State

Many appear to think there is some invisible contract signed the second they are born which obligates them to obey anything and everything another man can dream up and put down onto a piece of paper. Their existence is a huge swamp of embellished rule rule sets. I've experienced these yet have always made my own decisions and will contue to do so. Freedom is dynamic, it's a stand off until direct action against ME is taken. Words on paper are mundane.


Have you not also provided the State with another database to use when total confiscation becomes necessary to the continuance of state control and domination?

That is a Pandora's box. Everyone knows what happens to whoever opens that lid. I don't worry about it. The wouldbe usurpers of freedom would have to admit to their previous self-deception and then they'd not even have that.

Jim March
June 2, 2004, 12:43 PM
Art: you're right about the "mindset of the times" issue. One of the best ways to help people understand how endemic racist thinking was is to have them read Lincoln's first inaugural address:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

This was the guy now praised in school history texts as "the guy that freed the slaves"...but they don't talk about THIS speech.

Because by modern standards, Lincoln was a white supremacist.

----------------------

But there's a really big "BUT":

The Founding Fathers *knew* slavery was eventually going to be trouble. Most (even the Virginia delegates) knew that slavery flew in the face of the ideals on paper. And as I said, proposals were put forward to gradually end it over a 20 year period...children of slaves born free, African importation to end (the only part of the plan that actually happened), government payments to slaveowners in compensation for the scheduled "property losses". Was it perfect? Of course not...but it would have prevented the Civil War, the Southern civil rights abuses (against all races!) that made it necessary AND the gross expansion of Fed power post-war.

The existence of these proposals around the time of the creation of the BoR means they didn't screw up out of ignorance.

They just screwed up.

moa
June 2, 2004, 04:12 PM
One thing left out of the equation of crime rates, especially among black people, is the 1960s War On Poverty. The welfare state came about and it put many blacks under new and different form of slavery, disrupting the family structure with 70% out of wedlock babies.

Crime rates for blacks were not high prior to the 1960s. They have soared since.

Of course the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War also had its social churning effects that did not always have a good outcome, such as the "victim movement", "the I-am-entitled movement" and a general disrespect for authority. In some instances, disrespect for authority might have been justified.

However, not all outcomes were bad. Some were positive.

TallPine
June 2, 2004, 05:43 PM
If we do not play by their rules than we are no different from people like Thomas Jefferson, or anyone else who has attempted to created a land with their own rules.

Mr. Kook
June 2, 2004, 06:42 PM
The posts about "playing by their rules" don't really make much sense to me. The way I figure it things got screwed up by the slow slide of our society towards the left on the issues mentioned above they can get unscrewed by the slow slide back toward the right on the issues mentioned above as well.

People keep posting this comments about "Well aren't you just giving in to the antis with you permit" and all that about denying a basic human right. The answer is yes, we are giving in. We are giving in and it's working.

Incrementalism goes both ways. The antis used it to slowly outlaw concealed and in many places open carry. Well guess what, concealed carry is coming back and open carry will probably follow. Right now most states do it with a permit, in time they may all go Vermont Carry. We're sliding to the right folks. Incrementalism is on our side on this one.

As time goes on and more people carry, the rest of the states start to allow it with a permit and eventually without, concealed and open carry are totally allowed, people will soon no longer be socialized to hate guns. Appropriate justices will run the courts, justices who read and abide by the constitution and we'll eventually get everything back.

I've said it before on this board. This war is won or lost incrementally. In order to fight it the single best and smartest thing a person can do is ensure that their children understand the purpose of guns and the second ammendment. Talk to your children, talk to your children's school teachers, talk to your neighbors, take an anti to the range, write letters to the editor of newspapers, call in on radio shows, call Oprah and Rosie O'Donnell (if her show is even still on) and challenge them, get your neighbors to sign their kids up for the scouts, talk your coworkers into going trap shooting with you (double points if you work at a liberal newspaper or TV station).

Every anti you publicly discredit or show the hypocrisy of is one less the listeners will listen to. Every neighbor you talk to about guns and take to the range is one less in favor of gun control. Every teacher you confront about teaching an agenda and either convince not to or get fired is one less propagandist screwing up our kids. Every child you raise to think for themself is one more victory.

This is a fight we can win.

This is a fight we are winning.

The spread of concealed carry states is proof of that. The battle for the AWB is proof of that.

Packing a pistol illegally, or making an illegal rifle won't help this fight at all. It'll just get the perpetrator thrown in jail or worse, and it will make our cause look bad.

Jim March
June 2, 2004, 07:32 PM
If shall-issue CCW is so bad for us, why do the grabbers squeal like stuck pigs every time it passes?

:scrutiny:

vi9er
June 2, 2004, 07:40 PM
How can I put this. A log time ago, in a galaxy far far away.....
"I obey laws put forth, and will bend slightly so long as the law causes me little discomfort. I will blantanly ignore laws which restrict my freedoms in a way that is not easy to get around. It is similar to hiking in the woods, if there is a small tree in my way, i will take a few steps around it. If I come to a mountain, screw climbing it, I'm blasting my way straight through..."

That is an excerpt from a book I am writing. Really it is.

Ed

Chris Rhines
June 2, 2004, 07:59 PM
“So you live in fear of the government. You’re afraid to exercise your rights. With good reason, I might add. The government is dangerous - they frequently kill and imprison people. While I'm firmly in favor of ignoring stupid and/or immoral laws, it also pays to be smart about it.

- Chris

If you enjoyed reading about "Massive Gun Owner Sell Out Of Basic Rights by M. Gaddy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!