Return Home

Radiolab Presents: More Perfect - The Gun Show

Friday, February 23, 2018 - 06:00 PM

The shooting in Parkland, Florida on February 14, 2018, reignited an increasingly familiar debate about guns in this country. Today, we’re re-releasing a More Perfect episode that aired just after the Las Vegas shooting last year that attempts to make sense of our country’s fraught relationship with the Second Amendment.

For nearly 200 years of our nation’s history, the Second Amendment was an all-but-forgotten rule about the importance of militias. But in the 1960s and 70s, a movement emerged — led by Black Panthers and a recently-repositioned NRA — that insisted owning a firearm was the right of each and every American. So began a constitutional debate that only the Supreme Court could solve. That didn’t happen until 2008, when a Washington, D.C. security guard named Dick Heller made a compelling case.


More in:

Comments [33]

Rose from Brooklyn

Song at minute 00:39:30-00:39:58? Does anyone know this song they mixed with Dick Heller's "Freedom! Freedom!" It's super cool and I want to find it! Thank you!

Mar. 15 2018 10:22 AM
Philip Brady from San Francisco

The second amendment is irrelevant. Cody Wilson has done for guns what Phil Zimmerman did for encryption. Anyone who wants to can now print off a 1911 in their home office. Laws only matter when backed up by government power, and the power resides entirely now with the individual to choose. It would be much more interesting to make a radiolab about the the risks of additive and subtracting manufacturing in weaponsmithing and the future of security in this brave new world.

Mar. 14 2018 02:37 PM
DH from Alexandria, VA

This was an interesting podcast, but not balanced ... left leaning for sure. I support the right to own guns but I also agree with some restrictions. If you have to be 21 to buy wine, why not to buy a gun? Also a three-day waiting period is fine, as if you need it same day you are up to no good. We all should have the right to have a firearm for self-defense. The police can’t do it for us and they have been so villanized in the past eight or nine years ... why should they? Young Americans are desensitized to murder and death. They see it so often on TV, and the video games are worse. I support the ban of violent video games where a human character is being killed. Why doesn’t radiolab produce a podcast on the effects of viewing TV violence and video game violence??

Mar. 11 2018 04:09 PM
Sam from Denver

this was interesting.... the narrator keeps saying we need to “fix” gun regulation, and then they spend an hour making compelling points as to why we should have the right to bear arms. Also the amendment is not confusing at all...the people are the militia.

Mar. 11 2018 01:54 PM
Jennifer from Palo Alto

"Scott" "Scott Lake"from Denver,
thank you for making it clear you support total bans. You are in an insane, fringe and every year decreasing minority who support this positon that the gun control lobby ultimate aim is.

You have a posting on another story here saying all you want is 'background checks" you prove yourself to be a liar as you have other postings pushing a complete ban.

Also, how are the 58% of Americans, who according to Gallup support the NRA a "small minority", while your ban position, which polls at 7%, a "majority"? You are flat earth.

Mar. 10 2018 09:19 AM
Jose5ph Montew
The UnMasking 2.


An iteration too her confrontation with leading edge religious order of thought

in the derision of human thought processes from her affiliation with the Catholic priesthood. . . . THE SPIRITUAL AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF SIMONE WEIL


Read the modern version of Magna Carta
AI is a collectivwe basis into silicon based life form-.-See Ray Kurzweil
[through the ether , [f]EATHER!]
1:19 PM

Mar. 08 2018 03:19 PM
Jim G from Omaha

You seem to be missing something important in your story. The fight claiming an individual had the right to bear arms goes back to just after the Civil War. After the slaves were freed a new organization called the NRA fought for their rights to bear arms to protect themselves.

The Democrats hated this because they didn't want former slaves to be armed because then they could protect themselves from the Democrats and their terrorist arm called the Klu Klux Klan. This is the origin of the Democrat party and their hatred of the NRA.

Mar. 08 2018 01:03 PM
Joe C from Syracuse, NY

Scott in Denver,

What makes you think today "We are better than guns, and better than the people who choose guns over their fellow human beings?" How are today's humans better than those throughout history who formed governments which became corrupted and exterminated peoples they conquered or even those in their own countries (after dis arming them?)

It is great to hope for a utopian ideal, and even to live your own life according to such goals, but when you demand others strip themselves of THEIR beliefs- ESPECIALLY when history is NOT on your side you go to far.

This production was a great expose on the NRA and Black Panther history, but in the end the authors leave us with the notion that the 2A "needs fixing" and I find that conclusion extremely biased given no effort was made to research the REASON for debate in the supreme court decision beyond a cursory treatment of "the mind of James Madison." When one explores writings of the founders their vernacular for "a well regulated militia" meant "well supplied, well trained, and in good working order," and as the first poster notes Penn and Teller did indeed show how the founders could ONLY mean that when creating this document. WE ARE THE MILITIA. Admittedly, today most us "citizens" have dropped the ball big time when it comes to understanding their role in all this. As always, EDUCATION is the answer, and that should start with understanding how the world really works, and how governments have always sought to control people. Any government derives its power from THE CONSENT of the governed. That state can only happen if we "the people" are prepared to back up our desires with force if needed as a veiled threat against those who would usurp power. The constitution has not failed us, we have failed it.

Mar. 08 2018 08:54 AM
Jose5ph Montew from Burlington, Colorado

I don't mean to be uncreative; there really should be the voice of a ked in all the chatter . . . Can you give further pod for something younger . . . Listen, I believe in you guys and gals so much I will suggest the live podcast for you . . .

We can build a large fabric pyramid, inside with a domed structure for office and tech; on top of the pyramid is a platform for live music, singers & commercials not seen on televison, for example, by Reba in costume, maybe, a song about loving fast food or anything she wants to sing. One song by each artistry, this would be intermissions between moderators and guests, much like a concert of podcasting big issues, for example, how will the president succeed after he is no longer the president. It's just a thought.

Let's say for example, we could actually take away the second amendment from the U.S Constitution; how would we take away all natural defense mechanisms in nature?

For example, birds can avoid their prey with an M-60. If the prey is so large it is difficult to find a vital organ, the bird can just fly away. What do you think?

Can we get this pyramid podcast open for action?

This is your buddy, Montew...03/07/2018 . 4:06 PM
I suggest the live podcast could actually be much longer than this radiolab!

November 9, 2011

Mar. 07 2018 06:06 PM
Scott from Denver, CO

So the situation we're in now is the result of a small group of obstinate, selfish, frightened white men, scared that someone might take away their favorite toys, using another group of white men in government scared of losing their jobs. I mean, this episode was thorough, and you guys do a great job outlining it all, but I already knew all that.

The 2nd Amendment is immaterial. It's outdated, and it can be interpreted any way you want, depending on your pre-existing beliefs. Guns should go the way of smoking. A foolish vice. A dangerous, nearly ubiquitous presence in our lives, the risks of which (for users and non-users alike) we should use research to conclusively demonstrate. Then we can collectively decide that those risks are not acceptable, and move to distance ourselves from it. Leaving guns to be a peripheral hobby for an ever shrinking group of weirdos and holdouts, and not a central part of a society that has matured past it. We are better than guns, and better than the people who choose guns over their fellow human beings.

Mar. 07 2018 12:22 PM
David J from Portland, OR

I'm curious why this show (and so many gun control advocates) keep talking about some militia "clause" in the 2nd Amendment? The operative clause is "The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Everything else is simply a prefatory clause and sets the context; it has no bearing on the actual operative clause. This isn't opinion--it's well documented in the English language.

Mar. 05 2018 07:24 AM
Frank from Michigan

The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution. They've done a terrible job of this on the 2nd Amendment (among others). Does anybody genuinely believe that the Founding Fathers intended guns laws to be so lax that it creates conditions enabling our children be gunned done in schools on almost a weekly basis?

Mar. 04 2018 01:22 AM
Scott Lake

1. I am in favor of increasing control to access of all manner of guns.
2. We have far too many in our country already
3. This piece has such a large flaw in logic and position, that I listened all the way through to the end to see if you used it for 'the flip'.

The 2nd amendment sentence is only confusing if your position is that there is no right to individuals owning firearms.

However, what you failed to acknowledge and recognize is that when the 2nd amendment was written, nearly all families used firearms for hunting - so they could eat; not protect themselves from bears, or a rogue government.

You used the position that since there were no legal cases regarding personal gun ownership for over 100 years, as a premise that all persons regarded it as a silly and inconceivable idea.

The fact is that it was the opposite. Yet you never once acknowledge this throughout the show.

This is why there were no articles in sportsman's magazines on this topic - it was a foregone conclusion and well accepted by all of society that personal gun ownership was just plain part of living in this country, why have an article about something as basic as eating and breathing?

That said, the days of a well organized militia being able to stand against the government are long, long over. The 2nd amendment was written in a time of musket vs. musket, and mano a mano warfare.

The only hope we have to stand against a totalitarian move by our government is a military coup from our national military.

Please do a better job of presenting more than just an ill-conceived premise on future shows about gun control. We need it, but this report shows that you have really no clue what the topic is really about.

I am glad you brought the Black Panther angle to the story, because this is where things have lit up the NRA and conservatives - to see the government start to limit a right that has been considered de facto for centuries, does make them scared.

Mar. 03 2018 10:27 PM
Doug from Arlington, VA

Often overlooked bit of history:

Mar. 03 2018 05:41 AM
Chad DeBrun

Can we please stop trying to normalize these racists.

Mar. 03 2018 04:33 AM
Linda from Alexandria

I should also point out that Michel's denial that gun bans should be a concern is strange, since literally every gun control lobby outlet, supported and supports the argument of DC in Heller v DC.

When I was working and living in DC in the early 2000's, 2006 I inherited my grandfather's five shot revolver. We had a large uptick in home break-ins at night with sexual assaults.

At the time if you had asked me I would have said I supported "reasonable gun control." I Expected to be subject to a background check (no problem since I held higher tier clearance) and training. What I found out was even with those, and a firearms safe, this was totally prohibited.

So please if you are wondering why 58% of the US public approves of the NRA in th latest, it is that firearms owners know all the gun control lobby groups are on record and fully support bans. None will say they agree with Heller.

And the attacks on the NRA in the past have resulted in small temporary down turns in approvals, and even higher backlash in creases in approvals after a year or so.

Radiolab's entire piece fails to mention, not at all, that change in NRA attitude and positon was clearly a reaction to total bans such as DC and Washington and other shad, and more jurisdictions were moving toward. This is a disservice since NRA did not change out of the blue, it changed as a result of attempts to completely deny the Second Amendment protected the rights of individuals at all.

I also think one ought to be cautious about how many Americans one supposes own guns.

My quite large national insurer has internals that show about 60% of American households have a firearm. That Gallup shows about 40% and GSS shows about 32% is solely based on self reporting of a highly private and discreet question.

The peer reviewed science on sexual orientation and surveys shows self-reporting nets about half of persons in face-to-face (and that is what GSS is) and nearly as large an undercount on phone based interviews by more recognized firms (and that is what Gallup is and does).

And number of self-reporting will show a decline and also will underrepresent certain cohorts within respondents as well, because all modern firearms training say to never tell anyone a firearm is in a home.

I am 38 year-old-woman and I would never tell a stranger, banging on my door from GSS, or calling with a hackable caller ID, or even if legitimate entering me by phone number on a hackable database, that I have a firearm at home.

Pew shows 63% of Americans say having a firearm in the home makes the household member safer from violence (and if you are not a criminal it does), and Gallup shows NRA has 58% approvals. The peer reviewed science on polling on privacy related issues says veiled or indirect questions are much more accurate than the proven large undercounts in direct questions. It is likely gun ownership is 60% of households

Mar. 02 2018 07:01 PM
Linda T from Alexandria

@ Michael from Atlanta below. I'm an economist and I have done a lot of consulting with for actuary analysis for a number of insurers.

Your number on Americans killed by guns is 2/3 suicide. We know from Australia that overall suicide does not decrease when you remove guns from the equation. It just shifts method. if you are going to include suicide, and make suicide+homicide a "lethal violence" figure, many nations, S. Korea, Japan and others are higher in lethal violence than the US, which is in the mean of developed democracies.

And it is really disappointing how you and Radiolab decide to ignore the core and central trend, the very large decline in US murder rates, down 60% in the past 25 years, and gun murder down even more, except an extremely small number of cities where knife, gun and other murder it is "only" down 50%.

More important that all that, if you are not a criminal or in a gang, you are safer from homicide risk in the US than most other developed countries.

If you are going to look at mass murder of students in the past decade, Europe has had two incidents larger than any shooting of students events in the US: Beslin and Utoya.

And Europe has had a lot larger mass murder than the US in the past ten with troubled young Andreas Lubitz murdering 150 innocent people in France in 2015.

Mar. 02 2018 06:40 PM

As an European, I am deeply puzzled by all this conversation across the pond. And I grab my popcorn before I read the comments section.

Mar. 02 2018 01:48 AM
Chuck from MN

So, if we ban guns, will that fix the problem? Did it work for drugs? Will all the current gun owners give up theirs weapons?

Also, I doubt the framers wanted only the “militia” to have guns, as most people had to have guns to provide for their families, and protect themselves in pioneer times. Yes, go settle the West with a pocket knife, don’t think so.

Feb. 28 2018 12:17 PM
Kay Schultz from Olympia, Washington

I love Radio Lab.

Thank you for bringing the history of gun control to the conversation. I had the honor of listening to Bobby Seale last year. He talked a little about the history of the Black Panthers, community, and gun control. He ended the talk with how for the current generation, environmental sustainability is what is important!

Feb. 27 2018 07:46 AM
joe defiant

Remember when people actually listened to this podcast?

I'm offended by this episode. It contains micro aggressions against victims of statism like me. Please take it down.

Feb. 27 2018 12:16 AM
curt sheldon from Texas

Howdy! Please search my name on reverb nation "curt sheldon" and my original song called "gun totin' texan". It's free to listen to and tell me if you liked it. Thanks!

Feb. 26 2018 03:20 PM
Michael Hollifield from Atlanta

It would be good to see those who support the NRA make a sincere effort to understand those with whom they disagree instead of offering up their rhetoric about “they” wanting to “take your guns” take your “freedom” about "they" being "Euro-socialists" and hating gun owners. Sincere, rational people can engage in civil discourse without straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, and ascribing motives to people they do not know and which seldom play a role in the thinking or behavior of most people.

My concerns are, as those of many other people, are that the United States has more mass shootings and proportionally far more gun deaths than any democratic nation on earth. We have experienced a drop in violent crime for years with the exception of mass shootings and that drop would almost certainly have been even more pronounced without the deaths from gun fire. 1.2 million Americans have died from guns since 1968, more than all our wars combined. 32, 000 deaths a year come from the use and misuse of firearms and few of those are cases of self defense. This is not necessary, justified, nor it is the cost we must pay for “freedom” construed as buying whatever gun suits one’s fancy.
And “freedom” has become a useless, vacuous phrase invoked by demagogues representing the narrow interests of the gun lobby. The people of Norway, Canada, Denmark, England, and Australia justly consider themselves just as free as Americans and they do not allow legal access to AR-15s by 18 year olds and their countries to be flooded by military grade weapons which can be easily obtained legally or illegally and brought into a variety of public settings.
Stop and think before you disparage others and give an actual argument instead of absurd comparisons with cars, unfounded claims, and sources which have no credibility. Read more (and reliable sources too) and emote less if you want to be taken seriously instead of merely opposed.

Feb. 25 2018 10:27 PM
Michael Hollifield from Atlanta

Frank Turk. Wikipedia is not a serious source for anything and the argument you mention is justly dismissed in the podcast as embarrassing for good reasons.
There is not a constitution in the democratic world which gives its citizens the right to engage in armed revolt against its political authority. No constitution gives rights to act against the very constitution itself let alone to destroy the government it established. That would be both bizarre and contradictory.

In fact the Constitution clearly and forcefully disdains anything resembling a right of revolution, as it gives Congress the powers “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, including suppressing insurrections and invasion. The Constitution defines treason in Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies.” Those those suspected of treason may not avoid prosecution by fleeing to another state, as the Constitution says in Article IV, Section 2, that
“[a] Person charged in any State with Treason . . . and found in
another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the
State from which he fled, be delivered up . . . .”

In other words, the Constitution specifically and explicitly gives the government the power to forcefully suppress anything even vaguely resembling revolution. Such revolt or revolution is by constitutional definition an act of treason against the United States. The militias identified in the second amendment are thus to be used to suppress, not cause, revolution or insurrection. The Calling Forth Act of 1792, gave the president broad powers to use state militias to enforce both state and federal laws in instances where the law is ignored or in cases of open insurrection. And The Second Congress passed this Act shortly after the passage of the Bill of Rights. And as I am sure you know George Washington used the militia against those participating in the “Whiskey Rebellion.”

As the distinguished legal scholar Roscoe Pound noted, “a legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted . . . . In the urban industrial society of today a general right to bear efficient arms so as to be enabled to resist oppression by the government would mean that gangs could exercise an extra-legal rule which would defeat the whole Bill of

Any so-called right of insurrection or revolution is carried out against the government, which means against that government’s Constitution as well; including the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. One cannot carry out a right of revolution against the government while at the same time claiming protections within the legal revolutions provided by the political process are recognized by the Constitution.” (I think that the paramilitary clowns who occupied the federal bird sanctuary in Oregon recently are learning that lesson.)

Feb. 25 2018 10:11 PM
Michael Hollifield from Atlanta

The entire language of this amendment is replete with military usage in the meanings of the day of “militia” “well-regulated” “keep and bear arms” and “the people” and this was clearly understood and accepted by scholars until a conservative court decided to supplant this meaning with that of contemporary conservative ideology.
What role could the “well regulated” have in relation to any an individual’s right? How does individual gun ownership in contrast with that of an organized, legally sanctioned, trained body under the jurisdiction of the central government have anything to do with the “security of a free state”?
To have arms did not mean to “bear arms” in the understanding of these critical terms at the time this amendment was drafted. Neither did “to keep arms” mean to keep weapons at home for protection against bears or other individuals with criminal intent. As the historian Garry Wills pointed out to bear arms is, in itself, a military term. One does not bear arms against a rabbit. Furthermore, “arms” was not understood as synonymous with “guns” but included cannons and any other instruments of warfare. Patrick Henry noted the militia’s arms include “regimentals, etc.”—the flags, ensigns, engineering tools, siege apparatus, and other “accoutrements” of war.
The phrase “the people” has had numerous political meanings going back to the Roman republics but at no time before the passage of the Second Amendment could any man be considered a militia member just by picking up his gun and proclaiming himself one. And neither can an anti-government para-military group of malcontents merely claim they are a “militia” enforcing what the government should be enforcing. But the militia as “the people” was always understood in the corporate sense, as a body and there can be no one-person militia; one must be formed into groups.
The militia were state run organizations subject to the authority of the federal government which was further clarified with the passage of the Militia Act of 1792. In 1794 George Washington led nearly 13,000 members of the militia against those engaged in the uprising known as the Whiskey Rebellion. Even a cursory reading of the Constitution reveals that no one can invoke a “right” to take up arms against the government but it is in fact treasonous to do so.
However, the worry at the time was the history of standing armies and their possible misuse. A similar rationale lay behind the third amendment against quartering troops on the civilian population. These are anachronistic concerns of the distant past. The militias proved to be largely ineffective in war in the face of trained, standing, professional armies and were recast as the National Guard. There is no need for a third amendment when a government is authorized to build military bases here and abroad for quartering soldiers. And the second amendment is as anachronistic as the third.

Feb. 25 2018 10:02 PM
Youssef from Philadelphia

To Frank Turk, be careful about citing statistics. A statistically anomalous number of deaths in America are due to foreign Islamic terrorists (far less than one in 9300 Muslims are involved in terrorist actions to compare to your figure on Nra members) yet we pour a disproportionate amount of funding (billions?, trillions?) and vitriole into stopping these people, going so far as to blacklist refugees and cheer the president when he metaphorically referred to them as "snakes" at cpac. I wager a vast number of those who feel stronger about the second amendment than the first ( supporting the Nra backed legislation to deny public funding to study the problem of gun culture violence and to gag doctors from being able to discuss gun fatality statistics with victims of gun violence) also have little sympathy for the vast majority of Muslims who never commit any crimes due to their religion. Why? We are all biased and we must admit that we are personally and emotionally blinded by our love or hate of things, be they a metal phallus worshipped like a golden calf or a group of people who have been demonized because of something they cannot control (I.e. Where they were born and how they were raised). I think die hard gun owners use every excuse to justify the legitimacy of ownership when it really boils down to love for the power to control life and death, dominance over subservience, not the supposed pleas of personal security and self defense. As you point out, far more people die in auto accidents, but people aren't fervently filling convention centers to learn about defensive driving and auto safety, they fervently fill convention centers to love guns. So admit it. You love guns, you don't care what I or anyone else has to say about it. I'll admit that I feel empathy for Muslims and I won't listen to those who think Muslims are a scourge. But what I will say is, love your guns, I have no problem with that. But do not dismiss the vast majority of Americans that want more restrictions in addition to mental health and social services expanded to prevent those who worship death from exploiting our broken system. We are the majority, and democracy demands we be heard.

Feb. 25 2018 08:19 PM
Dan from Texas

Good job on the podcast. I didn't hear this program back when it was originally aired. I especially liked the comments. I will admit that my knowledge of the litigation is limited. I found the discussion in the podcast, as well, as the post from Frank, to be enlightening. Overall, I found the podcast to be balanced. I don't own a gun, yet, but I will likely become a owner soon.
As for the grammar of the second amendment, I can see the confusion if the amendment is read in a vacuum. I can't remember who said it, but in the podcast, one of the guest said that the amendment is clear. The right doesn't point exclusively to the militia, but it points to "the people." I think the "the people" is defined in the first amendment. "The people" have a right to freedom of speech, to the freedom of the press, to the freedom to assemble, and to the right the bear arms.
To Chris, I support your point of view, but you should know that the second amendment has been litigated considerably. Reasonable minds can disagree on this subject. It is incumbent upon gun owners to do something about the individuals, such as mass shooters, otherwise, the law will be changed. The people has a right to assemble.

Feb. 25 2018 07:10 PM
Frank Turk from Little Rock, AR

Friends at RadioLab -

While this podcast was an interesting recap of your perspective on the current understanding of the right to bear arms, it wasn't even nearly realistic in expressing the origin of the 2nd amendment or the reason this is a foundational political right in the U.S. Even the Wikipedia article on this subject paints the picture that the intellectual source of the 2nd Amendment was political apprehension against tyranny - a perspective you miss entirely. Moreover, founding the "modern" gun rights discussion in Bobby Seal and the Black Panther Party overlooks, for example, US v. Cruikshank, Presser v Illinois, and US v Miller which were argued during reconstruction. What is even more stunning about the omission of these is that they are framing a mixed argument which is favorable to your way of wanting to read the 2nd amendment -- meaning, they are favorable to stricter gun laws, as when the Miller decision says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons." I suspect that one reason to avoid bringing them into view is that Cruikshank was a disgraceful act which allowed the KKK to pass all manner of anti-black legislation, including laws forbidding black people from owning weapons for self-defense.

That said, your lack of interest in the definition of "militia," the lack of interest in the role of guns in the south after reconstruction but before the Civil Rights Era, and your obvious lack of sympathy for the vast majority of gun owners who never commit any crimes with their guns (about 1 gun in 9300 is ever involved in a murder in the US -- compare that to 1 in 300 for automobiles), this story was not actually "More Perfect." Best wishes for the next time you work on this issue to do better.

Feb. 25 2018 07:55 AM
Paul from Vancouver, WA

Good podcast. I wish you would have started with the thoughts and quotes of writers of constitution, and the second amendment in particular. Some of those names are James Madison, Samuel Adams, Fisher Ames and Richard Henry Lee. Also you could point out their concerns on European nations restricting guns to their citizens and not wanting it to happen in the US. You could go back further to natural law and the right of a person to protect oneself. Your overarching reasoning is similar to Judge Posner. It is about the best policy, not the Constitution. He states the Constitution, Federalist papers and other writings on the Constitution should not be studied for one second. It is about the Judge’s decision determining good policy. Gun violence is a complex problem which will require multiple solutions, which I think can be done within the bounds of the Constitution.

Feb. 25 2018 02:19 AM
Kathy Collier from Winslow AR

Love Radio Lab, and especially More Perfect. Thanks Jad, for your awesome work.

Feb. 24 2018 09:06 PM

I love how Radio lab is nothing but a propaganda machine for the left. The constitution is very easy to understand. Only the willfully ignorant would disagree.

"A well tailored suit, being necessary to a sharp dressed man, the right of the people to keep and wear clothing, shall not be infringed."

If you don't like the law, change it. Don't just pretend you can reinterpret it. That's why we went to war with Britain.

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

Feb. 24 2018 06:38 PM
alex from Detroi

So if there are ~3.2 mil teachers, and 20% are going buy a firearm at around $500, is that not a $320 million subsidy to the gun industry?

Feb. 24 2018 03:30 PM

Penn and teller broke it down pretty well.

Feb. 24 2018 04:46 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Supported by