3rd-party vote = loss of 2nd Amendment?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 3rd-party vote = loss of 2nd Amendment? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:07:42 AM EDT

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58073

3rd-party vote = loss of 2nd Amendment?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 11, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Sandy Froman

Some conservative leaders are saying they might back a third-party candidate if the GOP nominee is not pro-life. While the principles and values underlying their point of view are understandable, there are serious unintended consequences to such action. Voting for a third party in 2008 could cost conservatives the Supreme Court, and with it the Second Amendment.

If conservatives vote for a third party, it will give the Democratic nominee the votes needed to win. It's a tough time for Republicans, and there aren't any votes to spare to keep Hillary Clinton from taking the Oval Office.

One thing the Democratic presidential candidates have in common is what sort of judges they will appoint to the Supreme Court. Not only did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama vote against Justice Alito (who was confirmed 58-42), they also voted against Chief Justice Roberts (who was overwhelmingly confirmed 78-22).

Even though the majority of their fellow Democrats supported Roberts, Sens. Clinton and Obama opposed him. That's because Clinton and Obama are committed to appointing judges that satisfy the leftist base of the Democratic Party. Given the liberal activist judges Clinton or Obama would appoint, you can count on those judges being anti-Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court teeters on a knife's edge right now, with moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote in every 5-4 decision last year. With your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms likely to be heard by the high court soon, splitting from the GOP means losing the hope of building a textualist, originalist court – one that would uphold the text of the Second Amendment in accordance with its original meaning.

Anything that could cost us our Second Amendment rights is unacceptable. So gun owners must say "no" to a third-party bid.

As I write this, the D.C. gun ban case of District of Columbia v. Heller (formerly named Parker v. District of Columbia) has been offered to the Supreme Court. The question before the court is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

We're all waiting to see whether the high court takes the Heller case. If the court does hear it, it will probably be another 5-4 decision.

Every Republican candidate – including current front-runner Rudy Giuliani – has promised to appoint originalists and textualists to the Supreme Court. Every Democrat candidate – led by Hillary Clinton – has promised to appoint justices who would continue supporting a liberal social agenda. History shows that the activist agenda includes holding that the Second Amendment does not give you the individual right to own a firearm.

And remember that 99 percent of federal cases never make it to the Supreme Court. Most federal appeals are decided at the circuit court level. There are critical gun rights cases pending in federal courts across the country. Those cases could shape gun ownership in America forever. The next president will pick dozens of federal appeals court judges who will make final decisions in federal cases involving your gun rights.

This is also about more than just the Second Amendment. There are other social issues in play as well. All these issues stand or fall together. They're all at stake in the 2008 elections, because the next president's appointees will decide their fate.

Consider the liberal wing of the Supreme Court. The most liberal justice, John Paul Stevens, is also the oldest. He turns 88 next April. The second most liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is a cancer survivor in her mid-70s. The third most liberal justice, David Hackett Souter, by all accounts hates life in D.C. A recent book on the Supreme Court, "The Nine" by Jeffery Toobin, says Justice Souter contemplated leaving the court after Bush v. Gore in 2000. These are likely the next justices to retire.

Whether vacancies on the Supreme Court are filled with liberal activist jurists or with conservative jurists faithful to the text of the Constitution depends in large part on the outcome of the presidential election.

It's ironic that many of the most outspoken critics of judicial activism are the same people threatening to promote a third-party candidate, risking the loss of the Supreme Court. It's also ironic that the issues these leaders are outspoken about are decided by the Supreme Court, not by the president.

Many of us have fought for years to restore a Supreme Court faithful to the text and meaning of the Constitution. It's almost within our grasp. It would be a tragedy of historic proportions to lose that fight now.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:11:23 AM EDT

[#1]

No

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:19:58 AM EDT

[#2]

She has a point and while I don't like Rudy any more than Hitlery or Osama, I would rather vote for him than a 3rd party. Voting a 3rd party is the same as casting a vote for the Dems. 3rd parties have never stood a chance in an election and will not stand a chance in this one. The players are just too big. You can deny it all you want, but if you vote for a 3rd party, you voted for Hitlery because you took a vote away from the GOP candidate.

People who think voting for a 3rd party is effective are as delusional as the looney leftists.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:20:44 AM EDT

[#3]

Go ahead, put a dem in the Whitehouse and GOODBYE to the Supreme Court.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:27:31 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Spot on. 2008 is about hanging on to the white house. Nothing more.

While I don't like Rudy, he'd still be better than Hillary or Osama.

He's just like them. no better.

Not even close. He is far from perfect, but he ain't a commie.

Sure.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:28:50 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Spot on. 2008 is about hanging on to the white house. Nothing more.

While I don't like Rudy, he'd still be better than Hillary or Osama.

He's just like them. no better.

Yeah, I mean, Rudy's socialized medicine plan and position on the GWOT is just the same as Hill... wait a minute...

Yep. World of difference between the two.

Hillary is a douchebag commie.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:29:57 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Spot on. 2008 is about hanging on to the white house. Nothing more.

While I don't like Rudy, he'd still be better than Hillary or Osama.

He's just like them. no better.

Not even close. He is far from perfect, but he ain't a commie.

i24.tinypic.com/xnx5w7.jpg

Sure.

Three names...Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Want another commie sitting on the Supreme Court?

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:30:07 AM EDT

[#7]

It would also depend on the third party also. This discussion assumes a third party on the right. What if the "thrid party" is Algore, or a Shehann clone from the left, drawing needed support from the presumtive nominee/president-elect.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:42:34 AM EDT

[#8]

How wacked are these people that think voting for rudy will preserve the 2nd?

Hey rudy, tell us what you think about the 2nd?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons... oh, wait, I've got to take this call from my wife. Hi, honey, no, nothing important, what's up?"

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:42:41 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Spot on. 2008 is about hanging on to the white house. Nothing more.

While I don't like Rudy, he'd still be better than Hillary or Osama.

He's just like them. no better.

Not even close. He is far from perfect, but he ain't a commie.

i24.tinypic.com/xnx5w7.jpg

Sure.

We still have much better odds of him not touching our guns than we do with Hillary or Osama. With him, it's a maybe. With 'them', it's a certainty.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:43:30 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Go ahead, put a dem in the Whitehouse and GOODBYE to the Supreme Court.

Go ahead, put Rudy in the whitehouse and GOODBYE to the 2nd Amendment.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:46:21 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Go ahead, put a dem in the Whitehouse and GOODBYE to the Supreme Court.

Go ahead, put Rudy in the whitehouse and GOODBYE to the 2nd Amendment.

Expand on that.

Explain the actions that Rudy would personally take to destroy the 2nd.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:47:17 AM EDT

[#12]

WorldNetDaily is uncanny in its predictive reliability.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:48:28 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Spot on. 2008 is about hanging on to the white house. Nothing more.

While I don't like Rudy, he'd still be better than Hillary or Osama.

He's just like them. no better.

Not even close. He is far from perfect, but he ain't a commie.

i24.tinypic.com/xnx5w7.jpg

Sure.

Three names...Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Want another commie sitting on the Supreme Court?

I had always been taught that supreme court justices served for life. Then after they retired or died then they were appointed by the President. How soon are we looking at needing a new Justice?

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:49:15 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

We still have much better odds of him not touching our guns than we do with Hillary or Osama. With him, it's a maybe. With 'them', it's a certainty.

Rudy has spent 30 years as one of the countries leading anti-gun-rights activists!!! Even Hillary and Obama don't have those credentials. Have you forgotten how many anti crusades he LEAD!!! He wasn't just a follower of the brady movement, he was one of thier biggest LEADERS!!!
Rudy has made it his mission in life to kill the 2nd.

If Rudy gets the GOP nomination, then we have a duty to vote 3rd party. Hell, Bill Richardson would be a better choice than Rudy.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:51:06 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Three names...Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Want another commie sitting on the Supreme Court?

David Souter?

John Paul Stevens?

I trust Rudy to pick SC justices about as much as I trust him to veto gun legislation.

NOT AT ALL.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:52:22 AM EDT

[#16]

+1 on Clasky's comments

I do believe this is how Clinton got elected in '92........alot of conservatives voted for Perot instead of Bush Sr.

And then the AWB got passed!!

We have to learn from our mistakes.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:52:45 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Go ahead, put a dem in the Whitehouse and GOODBYE to the Supreme Court.

Go ahead, put Rudy in the whitehouse and GOODBYE to the 2nd Amendment.

Expand on that.

Explain the actions that Rudy would personally take to destroy the 2nd.

What do you think he's been doing for 30 years? He will keep doing exactly what he has been doing all his proffesional career. Attacking gun rights from every angle possible.
You think he will suddenly stop?

Are gun owners really are that stupid, that we would vote FOR one of the countries leading anti-gun activists?

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:53:07 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Spot on. 2008 is about hanging on to the white house. Nothing more.

While I don't like Rudy, he'd still be better than Hillary or Osama.

He's just like them. no better.

Not even close. He is far from perfect, but he ain't a commie.

i24.tinypic.com/xnx5w7.jpg

Sure.

Three names...Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Want another commie sitting on the Supreme Court?

I had always been taught that supreme court justices served for life. Then after they retired or died then they were appointed by the President. How soon are we looking at needing a new Justice?

Stevens is in his upper 80's and Ginsburg is in her 70's and is a cancer survivor.

The next president will probably appoint 2.

ETA: Maybe 3 - Souter is reported to hate living in DC.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:53:52 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Go ahead, put a dem in the Whitehouse and GOODBYE to the Supreme Court.

Go ahead, put Rudy in the whitehouse and GOODBYE to the 2nd Amendment.

Expand on that.

Explain the actions that Rudy would personally take to destroy the 2nd.

What do you think he's been doing for 30 years? He will keep doing exactly what he has been doing all his proffesional career. Attacking gun rights from every angle possible.
You think he will suddenly stop?

Are gun owners really are that stupid, that we would vote FOR one of the countries leading anti-gun activists?

You don't have an answer then do you?

Explain what he will do as President. Go ahead. How did he do it as mayor of NY, other than stepping up enforcement of existing laws?

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:54:48 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Three names...Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Want another commie sitting on the Supreme Court?

David Souter?

John Paul Stevens?

I trust Rudy to pick SC justices about as much as I trust him to veto gun legislation.

NOT AT ALL.

Here is a dime. Buy a clue...

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:55:28 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Go ahead, put a dem in the Whitehouse and GOODBYE to the Supreme Court.

Go ahead, put Rudy in the whitehouse and GOODBYE to the 2nd Amendment.

Expand on that.

Explain the actions that Rudy would personally take to destroy the 2nd.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:55:58 AM EDT

[#22]

I'll vote 3rd party for sure. The GOP needs a clear message that democrats won't be tolerated on the Republican ticket.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:56:04 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Go ahead, put a dem in the Whitehouse and GOODBYE to the Supreme Court.

Go ahead, put Rudy in the whitehouse and GOODBYE to the 2nd Amendment.

Expand on that.

Explain the actions that Rudy would personally take to destroy the 2nd.

www.binarystorage.net/clients/or/pics/rudyguncontrol2.jpg

I'm talking about actions, not sound bites.

ETA: Not to mention that Congress would have to pass that law - the President does not pass legislation.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:57:30 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Spot on. 2008 is about hanging on to the white house. Nothing more.

While I don't like Rudy, he'd still be better than Hillary or Osama.

He's just like them. no better.

Not even close. He is far from perfect, but he ain't a commie.

i24.tinypic.com/xnx5w7.jpg

Sure.

Three names...Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Want another commie sitting on the Supreme Court?

I had always been taught that supreme court justices served for life. Then after they retired or died then they were appointed by the President. How soon are we looking at needing a new Justice?

Stevens for sure has only been hanging on there so Bush can't name his replacement. Had Kerry won in 04 he would have retired. He is 87. Kennedy and Ginsburg are getting up there too. So several will be coming up.

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:58:40 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Go ahead, put a dem in the Whitehouse and GOODBYE to the Supreme Court.

Go ahead, put Rudy in the whitehouse and GOODBYE to the 2nd Amendment.

Expand on that.

Explain the actions that Rudy would personally take to destroy the 2nd.

www.binarystorage.net/clients/or/pics/rudyguncontrol2.jpg

I'm talking about actions, not sound bites.

ETA: Not to mention that Congress would have to pass that law - the President does not pass legislation.

Exactly. And historically, congressional elections usually fall in line with the presidential election.

Republican congress + Republican white house != more gun control

Democrat congress + Democrat white house = more gun control

Posted: 10/11/2007 10:59:00 AM EDT

[#26]

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:00:19 AM EDT

[#27]

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:00:57 AM EDT

[#28]

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:01:33 AM EDT

[#29]

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:02:18 AM EDT

[#30]

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:02:52 AM EDT

[#31]

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:03:33 AM EDT

[#32]

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:03:49 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
www.binarystorage.net/clients/or/pics/rudyguncontrol9.jpg

You don't have an argument of your own, do you?

You have nothing but someone else's sound bites.

That's weak.

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:08:39 AM EDT

[#34]

A third-party vote should be viewed as one step away from armed resistance.

That said, even if the Second Amendment goes away, it does NOTHING to the RKBA.

Rush was talking to a guy the other day who posed an interesting question:

"What if the entire Bill of Rights was done away with tomorrow? The First Amendment, the Second, the Fourth, etc. All of them, gone in one fell swoop. Now, what changes?"

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:11:26 AM EDT

[#35]

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:15:30 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Go ahead, put a dem in the Whitehouse and GOODBYE to the Supreme Court.

Go ahead, put Rudy in the whitehouse and GOODBYE to the 2nd Amendment.

Expand on that.

Explain the actions that Rudy would personally take to destroy the 2nd.

www.binarystorage.net/clients/or/pics/rudyguncontrol2.jpg

I'm talking about actions, not sound bites.

ETA: Not to mention that Congress would have to pass that law - the President does not pass legislation.

What is this thread about then?
The President does veto legislation, his VP casts tie breaking votes in congress, he issues Executive Orders, which have never been limited in scope. He runs the ATF, FBI and Justice Dept to act upon his direction and goals.

Why is it a concern to have hillary as pres, but not rudy? This thread supposes that voting third party will destroy the second, but voting for Rudy can't hurt the second? How does that make sense to you?

Rudy is clearly the most anti gun candidate of all time. If he is the GOP nominee, then no way in hell he will get my vote. I'll find someone else to vote for.
I see no difference between hillary and rudy, in fact I think rudy is worse, he has a much stonger anti-rights history, but neither will get my vote. If they are the 2 main choices, I absolutely will vote 3rd party!
If the GOP nominates Rudy, then fuck the GOP! They may as well have nominated Hillary or Obama for all I care. The party will be offically dead. I will vote for anyone who supports the 2nd and NEVER for either of those 2.

My loyalty is to my country and my principles, not party.

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:19:42 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
www.binarystorage.net/clients/or/pics/rudyguncontrol9.jpg

You don't have an argument of your own, do you?

You have nothing but someone else's sound bites.

That's weak.

I answered your question with rudy's own words saying exatly what he would do.
If he is elected he will wage war on the 2nd Amendment from inside the white house. He has over 30 years of history of that, why do you believe that he will act counter that history?
Show me another candidate that is more anti-gun than rudy. Who has a better anti-2nd rights record than Rudy?

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:22:55 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Go ahead, put a dem in the Whitehouse and GOODBYE to the Supreme Court.

Go ahead, put Rudy in the whitehouse and GOODBYE to the 2nd Amendment.

Expand on that.

Explain the actions that Rudy would personally take to destroy the 2nd.

www.binarystorage.net/clients/or/pics/rudyguncontrol2.jpg

I'm talking about actions, not sound bites.

ETA: Not to mention that Congress would have to pass that law - the President does not pass legislation.

What is this thread about then?

In case you didn't read the article (which you obviously did not), it's about Supreme Court nominations.

The President does veto legislation, his VP casts tie breaking votes in congress, he issues Executive Orders, which have never been limited in scope. He runs the ATF, FBI and Justice Dept to act upon his direction and goals.

EO's are limited in scope, despite arfcom tinfoil hat lore to the contrary.

Why is it a concern to have hillary as pres, but not rudy? This thread supposes that voting third party will distroy the second, but voting for Rudy can't hurt the second? How does that make sense to you?

RTFA. Seriously.

Rudy is clearly the most anti gun candidate of all time. If he is the GOP nominee, then no way in hell he will get my vote. I'll find someone else to vote for.

You have lost all credibility now. You really think Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Michael Dukakis, etc have better 2a positions?

I see no difference between hillary and rudy, in fact I think rudy is worse, he has a much stonger anti-rights history, but neither will get my vote. If they are the 2 main choices, I absolutely will vote 3rd party!

Good for you. You must be blind though, if you don't see the GWOT, socialized medicine, etc as issues that separate Rudy from Hillary. If you want to throw your vote away, go ahead.

If the GOP nominates Rudy, then fuck the GOP! They may as well have nominated Hillary or Obama for all I care. The party will be offically dead. I will vote for anyone who supports the 2nd and NEVER for either of those 2.

My loyalty is to my country and my principles, not party.

If your loyalty is to your principles, you should vote for the candidate that is closest to your principles that also has a chance to win. For most of us here that is Rudy.

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:22:56 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
www.binarystorage.net/clients/or/pics/rudyguncontrol9.jpg

You don't have an argument of your own, do you?

You have nothing but someone else's sound bites.

That's weak.

Uhhh, yeah, Rudy's sound bites -- The words from the candidate's own mouth. That's not weak, that's evidence.

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:23:27 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
www.binarystorage.net/clients/or/pics/rudyguncontrol9.jpg

You don't have an argument of your own, do you?

You have nothing but someone else's sound bites.

That's weak.

I answered your question with rudy's own words saying exatly what he would do.
If he is elected he will wage war on the 2nd Amendment from inside the white house. He has over 30 years of history of that, why do you believe that he will act counter that history?
Show me another candidate that is more anti-gun than rudy. Who has a better anti-2nd rights record than Rudy?

Actually, those were statements of opinion, not a platform or plan of action.

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:24:00 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
www.binarystorage.net/clients/or/pics/rudyguncontrol9.jpg

You don't have an argument of your own, do you?

You have nothing but someone else's sound bites.

That's weak.

Uhhh, yeah, Rudy's sound bites -- The words from the candidate's own mouth. That's not weak, that's evidence.

I meant they came from another source. He couldn't make the argument himself so he posted someone else's work.

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:25:13 AM EDT

[#42]

If your loyalty is to your principles, you should vote for the candidate that is closest to your principles that also has a chance to win. For most of us here that is Rudy.

riiiiiiiiiiight.

He's about as far as he can get from most people's principles here. The ONLY two reasons I've heard for WHY he should win are (a) SCOTUS appointees and (b) he's not Hillary. Both of those can be fulfilled by anyone without an R after their name, so why does it have to be Rudy?

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:27:14 AM EDT

[#43]

Absolutely correct. If, by voting for a third party, or by staying home, we permit Hillary Clinton or for that matter any of the libtards in the Democratic Party to win, we are subject to forfeiture of our 2nd Amendment rights at some later date.

UNLESS...by deciding in our favor soon, the SCOTUS sets a precedent that is too hard to overturn. Right now that is a crap shoot.

Frankly, I'm not too sanguine about our future Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:29:40 AM EDT

[#44]

RON PAUL 2008

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:30:59 AM EDT

[#45]

3rd page = ownage.

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:32:08 AM EDT

[#46]

I think that the premise of the original question is preposterous.

First of all, the government does not grant us our rights, and they have no authority to take away our rights. Their sole purpose is to defend and secure our rights, as specified in our founding documents.

So, they have no grounds.

However, they DO have POWER(not to be confused with authority) to basically do whatever they wish to do, because we have very unwisely ceded far too much power to governmental structures because of laziness, and they took advantage of every inch of that.
Should they decide to be an oppressive government(even more than they are now, I mean), then they can definitely bring power to bear against you, and try to imprison or even kill you, if you try to keep or defend your rights.

It's up to you whether you decide to knuckle-under to the shitheads, or be a man.
You have no rights that you are not willing to defend with your life, if need be.
If you are willing to let a bunch of black-robed jackasses with a political agenda tell you that you have no more rights, then you deserve what you get.

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:38:50 AM EDT

[#47]

Why is it the only ones I see obsessing over Giuliani are Paul supporters and the media?

Who the hell here supports Giuliani anway?

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:48:41 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

If your loyalty is to your principles, you should vote for the candidate that is closest to your principles that also has a chance to win. For most of us here that is Rudy.

riiiiiiiiiiight.

He's about as far as he can get from most people's principles here. The ONLY two reasons I've heard for WHY he should win are (a) SCOTUS appointees and (b) he's not Hillary. Both of those can be fulfilled by anyone without an R after their name, so why does it have to be Rudy?

1. National security and GWOT
2. No socialized medicine

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:52:27 AM EDT

[#49]

The only sensible thing to do is to get some true american to file the proper papers under the name "None Of The Above".

This person should NOT campaign at all and not make any media appearances.

Easy election.

Posted: 10/11/2007 11:56:36 AM EDT

[#50]

at this point we have only the supreme court left to hang our faith on. if SCOTUS takes a *real* hard look at heller in it's full scope, and rules in our favor, then we don't really have to worry about candidates stances on gun control ever again. if they take a very narrow view, or decide not to see it at all, then this is our endgame now.

rudy is NOT pro-gun, and i have a real hard time believing that a man with one of the longest, most consistant, anti-gun records in government will be nominating pro-gun SCOTUS justices.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 3rd-party vote = loss of 2nd Amendment? (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us