Maybe it's time for more of America to please check your guns
A few days after a family was gunned down near Carnation, Cabela's polite request for customers to check their guns puts one shopper on edge.
On Thursday, I made a much-anticipated trip to Lacey to visit Cabela's, the mega store for outdoor gear.
Anticipating the 185,000 square feet of discount fishing rods, fish finders, GPS systems, boats, sleeping backs, hiking boots and camping knick knacks, I expected to feel like Paris Hilton shopping for handbags at a Coach store.
But a day after news broke of an entire family murdered near Carnation by two other family members -- one who allegedly told police "she was tired of everybody stepping on her," I saw this sign posted at the Cabela's entry:
"All firearms & bows that are brought in for repair; service or trade, must be opened & checked in at the Greeter's Desk. This does not apply to conceal/carry permit holders.Thank you, Cabela's.
Three generations of the Anderson family were killed in their home on Christmas Eve. The accused are a family member, Michele Anderson, and her boyfriend, Joseph McEnroe. He had a revolver. She had a semi-automatic.
I shouldn't have been surprised that guns were sold at a big sporting goods stores. And I wouldn't presumptively associate anyone at a Cabela's with crime. Most hunters I know are serious about gun safety.
But the news from Carnation and the gentle request that people check their guns put me on edge.
I grew up with a healthy respect for guns. My dad, as a cop, went to work every day with one strapped to his side. As a kid, my brothers and I shot b-b guns and .22s when we camped in the woods. I once blasted skeet with a shotgun so powerful it bruised my shoulder.
So yes, I've enjoyed guns, and I can understand why people collect them. But I've never understood why our nation has this bitter argument over regulating guns. When cops take the lead on calling for gun control, what's left to argue?
In November, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would take the first case in 68 years directly involving the 2nd Amendment. Some gun owners say the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.
Well, here's what it says:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I think the debate is crazy. We don't allow people to own nuclear weapons, so clearly there's a limit. We accept regulations on automatic weapons and concealment. In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be of use to a militiaman.
So what's a reasonable militiaman need these days?
The Anderson killings remind us we need to do more to make it less likely that guns are used in crimes. The irony, of course, is that many proposed gun reforms would not have changed the outcome of gun violence. That may even be the case with the Anderson family. We don't know yet whether added delays on buying guns or extended background checks could have prevented the murders. Michele Anderson and Joseph McEnroe got their guns legally last summer, the P-I reported.
Some of those thoughts went through my head on Thursday at Cabela's. I passed displays of sleeping bags and rain gear and found myself at the gun showroom, which was much bigger than the fly fishing area. The room was packed with dozens of people, mainly men and boys, looking at shotguns, hand guns, rifles, used weapons and even a civilian version of the Army's Colt M4 carbine. It looked plenty cool and lethal.
Nearby were displays of safes in which to keep your Cabela's guns locked and unloaded, perhaps an attempt to suggest that there are sufficient means already available to keep guns beyond the reach of bad guys, or bad impulses. I'm not convinced.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Sun, Dec 30, 9 a.m. inappropriate
Gun control does not apply to criminals: Criminals don't, by definition, obey the law. More gun regulation would simply increase the number of defenseless victims available for criminals to exploit. You might think that is what police are for. They are only minutes away, right? They are minutes away when seconds count... Since Cabela's openly allows concealed carry permit holders in it's stores, that was likely the safest place you visited on that day.
Posted Sun, Dec 30, 12:02 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Gun control does not apply to criminals: Actually, unless you've been trained in how to use a handgun, putting a handgun in the hands of an untrained individual is more dangerous than a criminal with a gun.
Second, if a criminal thinks that a family has a handgun in their possession, then the first thing they could do is to enter the home with weapons drawn. Now, how long does it take to pull a pistol from its lock box and remove the trigger lock? (And if it's not in a lock box with a trigger lock, it better be unloaded, unless you're willing to have your kids shoot each other accidently while playing around with "daddy's toy".)
Finally, how many people out there could shoot to kill. It's not an easy decision to take another's life. Could you live with yourself after shooting a teenager who broke into your home? (And to find out that the pistol he was waving was a toy replica?)
Handguns are useless in a militia except for close in combat. Rifles are the best weapon for combat, and if you take the 2nd Amendment at its word, then ownership of a firearm means you must also join a "well regulated" militia. And that's the National Guard. Own a rifle, join the National Guard... Oh wait, they can't handle that many people, not enough budget to cover that many people, so there will be a waiting list to join, and when you join, you get your rifle.
Seriously though, we need to regulate gun ownership in this country. We don't need rifles to "protect ourselves from the government." Our military isn't that strong, and most of the men and women would revolt if the president tried to enforce his will militarily.
Posted Sun, Dec 30, 8:16 p.m. inappropriate
What is next...: Unfortunately people that commit crimes like these don't say "damn I don't have a gun so I guess I won't kill you" Kitchen knives, baseball bats, screw drivers, cars, setting fires etc are just as deadly and have been used in homicides.
Perhaps if you published the statistics regarding what type of weapon
was used in the commission of homicides in our area before determining that something should be regulated and intelligent debate could occur.
My personal hot button is video games that have created a generation that has no regard for human life. If you get mad you just blow someone away.
Senseless acts like what just happened in Carnation are rooted in mental disfunction that has been left untreated. When they snap they use what ever weapon is available to do these unthinkable acts.
Posted Sun, Dec 30, 9:56 p.m. inappropriate
On Edge???: What put me on edge Mr. Orr was your dramatizing over the sign.
Clearly the sign was put there so that those LEGAL gun owners who had brought their firearms to be serviced would remember to check those firearms. My guess this had as much to do with the saving of confusion as to whether or not someone was bringing in their own firearm as opposed to wandering around with store merchandise.
Your disclaimer about dad being a cop (I'm one now and have been for 14 years) and shooting firearms as a kid does nothing to reduce the fact that you are over dramatizing some feeling upon seeing a sign that had absolutely nothing to do with causing alarm.
There are plenty of arguements for various gun laws and perhaps if laws that are currently on the books were better enforced then your fears would be somewhat reduced.
FWIW I have to assume you had never heard of Cabelas before you walked into that store. Their bread and butter is the hunting and fishing market.....of course they are going to have guns. Have you ever seen a Cabelas magazine.
In the end your article was much ado about nothing.
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 7:46 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Gun control does not apply to criminals: "(And if it's not in a lock box with a trigger lock, it better be unloaded, unless you're willing to have your kids shoot each other accidently while playing around with "daddy's toy".)"
My dad kept a loaded .45 revolver under his side of my parents' bed all throughout my childhood. We knew it was there, and we knew we were never to touch it unless we felt our lives were in danger. All of this lock box and trigger lock stuff is just a crutch for bad parenting. If you can't teach your kids to use and respect the power of firearms, you probably shouldn't have them in your house. But that's no reason to take them away from competent people.
"...and if you take the 2nd Amendment at its word, then ownership of a firearm means you must also join a "well regulated" militia."
Don't forget that *everywhere* in the Constitution, the words "the people" refer without exception to the citizens of the country... except in the Second Amendment? And the Bill of Rights is formulated to protect the people from their government... except in the Second Amendment? To say that the Second Amendment only protects the National Guard is analygous to saying the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press only extends to the Government Printing Office. Pure statist bunk.
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 8:58 a.m. inappropriate
Gives us??? Gives us???: "Some gun owners say the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to ..."
This is strictly incorrect. Illiterate gun owners (and others) believe the [Constitution] gives them rights; literate gun owners and others understand that the [Constitution] merely protects rights which existed before there was a Constitution and which are not dependent on the Constitution for their existence.
In fact, a casual reading of the 2nd amendment leads quickly to the understanding that it merely forbids government from interfering with the right to keep and bear arms which we have from birth, and explains that without such a right a well-regulated militia, which it says is necessary, would not be possible. It "gives us" nothing.
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 9:04 a.m. inappropriate
Guns are just tools.: "But the news from Carnation and the gentle request that people check their guns put me on edge."
It is silly to be scared that people who wish to have their firearms serviced or looked at are asked to check their guns. It is a normal practice for that type of activity at large stores that sell firearms.
If it was the fact that people with ccw permits were allowed to have their concealed guns that should not scare you either. I have my ccw permit & carry my gun everywhere legally allowed. You would not even notice me as being any different from other folks around as you walk by me at the mall or sit next to me in a movie theater. Anytime you go into public you pass by many law abiding armed citizens without even realizing it. There are after all over 70 Million law abiding gun owners in the US, and we don't all own them just to hunt a deer or to hang on a wall in a collection. The fact that I carry mine concealed helps folks such as yourself who have a strong fear of guns rest easier as they pass by both law abiding citizens armed for self defense as well as armed law breaking criminals who are not even allowed to touch a gun who are looking for their next victim. Both carry weapons, but only the criminals should concern you.
Evil people exist in this world, they always have, they always will. No amount of legislation will keep evil people from doing evil deeds - just look at the legislation banning drugs - drugs are illegal yet drugs still are everywhere. The only options we have are to prepare ourselves to be ready to defend against evil deeds, and to place evil people who do evil deeds into jail for a very long time, if not for life. I hear way too often of people committing crimes who were on parole after only serving a small fraction of their prison term. Perhaps we should leave criminals where they belong - behind bars.
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 9:23 a.m. inappropriate
poster child for educational improvement: The author of this "article" is a sad example of the failure of our educational system to teach even a basic level of reading and writing skills. He couldn't even understand a simple sign at Cabela's. I've always wondered why road signs were starting to be pictures. Now I know it's for the educationally challenged!
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 9:32 a.m. inappropriate
RE: poster child for educational improvement: Very good point. I once saw a road sign that said "Warning: Road is wet when raining" - I wondered at the time why such a sign would be needed. Now we know why. :)
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 11:11 a.m. inappropriate
RE: What is next...: For homocide by type of weapon, guns are far and away the leading cause/weapon:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
In 2005 in the US, guns were used as the weapon in 67.97% of homocides.
I don't know if you've ever been in a serious fight, but its a lot harder to kill someone with a knife, blunt object,etc., then a gun. Pulling a trigger is really easy, and doing lethal damage with that one trigger pull is easy.
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 12:11 p.m. inappropriate
Under current interpretations of the First Amendment, which have no historic foundation, pretty vile pornography is protected free speech, while honoring Christmas is subject to mouth-foaming attack by secularists all in the name of "tolerance."
Any wonder why so many out there are so eager to define a horse as having horns and an udder in the way they read the Second Amendment? The plain and simple operative language is, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment's applicability to the states via the 14th Amendment should no more be in question than the applicability of the First or Fifth Amendments.
Those who either oppose guns or simply find them icky will do everything they can to parse the plain language of the Second Amendment. Let's all remember that when it was adopted, the experience of British intrusion into the private homes and affairs of American colonists was still fresh, and the affirmation of pre-existing Common Law rights of self-defense and the ownership of weapons was seen as a check against tyrannical governmental power and authority.
Dictatorships seek first to disarm their citizens, then they quash their rights of speech, conscience, and political involvement.
While it's not at all unusual to see a sign in a sporting goods store asking patrons to check their firearms brought in for repair or whatever, that shouldn't be grounds for wandering off into flights of fear-based fancy about why guns are creepy. Guns aren't creepy, people are creepy.
Interestingly, the most passionate gun rights defenders I've ever encountered are women who've been the victims of violent crime. I know one whose bedroom was broken into, and she successfully repelled the invader by firing a handgun at him and wounding him.
Also, let's not forget the recent heroism of Jeanne Assam, the 42-year old former Minneapolis police officer who shot with her own personal weapon, a handgun, the man who murdered several people at a Colorado-based mission organization then a church.
Who here among you isn't glad she had a handgun and used it?
No law says you're required to own a gun. But there is a law that says I have a right to own a gun.
The Piper
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 12:23 p.m. inappropriate
Another example of illiteracy:: "In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be of use to a militiaman."
Actually, the Supreme Court ruled that, in the absence of evidence, it could not say that a sawed-off shotgun was protected. In fact, plenty of evidence was available; since there was no representation for the Defense, that evidence was never presented.
Maybe it's time for Mr. Corr to research the facts before he touches the keyboard.
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 4:25 p.m. inappropriate
Maybe I am a dummie.: As readers of the comments can tell, it's been an interesting response to this posting, including critical reactions from this blog: and and this blog:, among others. I was told that Glock Talk took up the discussion but I couldn't find what was said. I also received many emails.
I expected criticism from the left that I was too sympathetic with gun owners. Instead, the gripes come mainly from gun-rights advocates who argue:
1. Guns don't kill people. People (criminals) kill people.
2. You don't understand the 2nd Admendment, dummie.
3. You can't read the Cabela's sign, dummie.
4. You hate Cabela's and its customers.
5. You hate guns.
6. You're a lousy writer.
7. You are a lefty numb nuts obviously sucking up with Democrats to get a job somewhere.
I got a follow up email, apologizing for the numb nuts reference, but only for that.
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 4:55 p.m. inappropriate
Check History, Casey.: Casey,
I know you're not a stupid man, so I'm guessing your latest op-ed was purely for rhetorical posturing, right? You know, . . . applying for a job in a predicted Democrat administration?
We both know that there is no mention of hunting in the Constitution. The clear intent of the framers was that the ordinary citizenry would be armed as needed to rebel against a federal government which had stopped representing the people. Linkage of the Second Amendment to hunting is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
For all of the founders' genius and foresight, they could not have foreseen the technological advances made in weapons. At the time of the Constitution's drafting and ratification, state and private militias were commonplace. I don't buy the argument that the National Guard eliminates the need for public militias any more than you would buy into a government body being formed to eliminate the need for a free press. The Guard units use federally supplied equipment which could be recalled at any time for pretty much any reason.
You seem to be proposing that lots of people "check" their guns. What exactly will that achieve? Professor John Lott's research clearly shows the relationship between more guns and less crime. I fact, I think his book on the subject is similarly titled.
So then, if you're not just going for the rhetorical cheap shot, if your arguments are to carry any weight, I'd like you to answer your own question: "So what's a reasonable militiaman need these days?" If you agree, as I hope you do, that the intent of keeping the populace armed is to protect against government, then just what weapons do you see a militia needing against say. . . the First Infantry Division? Or the Washington National Guard for that matter? What weapons will they bring to bear, and what weapons do you suggest in defense, . the "b-b guns and .22s" of your camping youth?
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 5:16 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Check History, Casey.: I think this gets to a good issue which is, what was intended by the 2nd Amendment?
I'm ignorant on the historical context of that amendment, but if, as you suggest, the point was to allow an average citizen to defend himself against any threat posed by government, then the argument takes you to a citizen armed with Cobra attack helicopters, nukes, armor-piercing bullets, etc. Frankly, I don't think that's the strongest argument for a gun-rights advocate.
But what if, as you seem to suggest, the 2nd Amendment is so encompassing that regulation or restriction is not allowed? Well, then, gun control advocates would have to see where they could get on amending the amendment. I'm doubtful, however, that effort would get far. Changing the Constitution is very difficult.
So nothing changes. It would be nice to see both sides of this debate finding areas where they can work together to end gun violence.
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 5:48 p.m. inappropriate
Are you a gun owner? If not, would you ever consider owning one?
As a journalist, I'm sure you're hardcore passionate about your First Amendment rights such that you'd go to jail rather than disclose the source of information. And if someone authored a proposal to outright ban downtown strip shows, you'd be incredibly sympathetic to the T & A artistic expression arguments.
Maybe you should consider gun owners equally passionate about their Constitutional rights?
You can consider the comments that you almost dismissively refer to as "gripes" as passionate exhortations on behalf of personal freedom in the face of encroaching governmental and, in some quarters, cultural hostility toward them.
It's fascinating that one of the blog's you mention, Horse's Ass, that picked up this thread, you find a large number of very left-oriented libertarians who also regard their gun rights as something not to be trifled with, so this isn't just us righty-tighty wingnuts that get upset by this.
Gun owners aren't troglodytes, nor should they - and their passionate statements of defense of their rights - be regarded as such. Cut them some serious slack!
The Piper
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 6:13 p.m. inappropriate
Dear Gun Nuts: Since you all think you're experts on history, I'm sure you know that the militias had been around for 6 decades prior to the Revolutionary War. They were used for a similar purpose as the National Guard is today. People were required BY THE GOVERNMENT of some colonies to serve. The militias weren't armed to fight the government.
The British were occupying and exploiting the colonies they helped create but they weren't the local government. And, the army that was formed to fight the British was different from the militia groups that helped with initial skirmishes.
So, doesn't it seem logical that when people from that time referred to the right of the militia to be armed, they were referring to those groups they'd had around for 60 years who supported the government?
Read the history you keep alluding to and stop selectively interpreting to support your own paranoid view. Nothing in the constitution says everyone should be able to carry what ever weapon they choose. It's nuts.
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 9:23 p.m. inappropriate
More crime occurs where more gun control exists: Brady A grade States account for 24% of the violent crime in America, while only accounting for 12% of the States.
Those same 6 States have a total of 332 Reporting Municipalities that report 100 or more violent crimes per year, with a total of 1366 reporting municipalities. Brady D States which account for 23% of the States and have 583 reporting 100 or more violent crimes per year, with a total of 4343 reporting municipalities. 23% of the States account for 7% of 100+ violent crime reporting Municipalities, while the 12% of Brady A States have 4% of the 100+ crime reporting municipalities.
Posted Tue, Jan 1, 7:09 a.m. inappropriate
What the sign says.: ""All firearms & bows that are brought in for repair; service or trade, must be opened & checked in at the Greeter's Desk. This does not apply to conceal/carry permit holders.
Thank you, Cabela's."
It's a safety check to ensure a firearm brought in for service is not loaded.
A similar practice is done at the Washington Arms Collectors events. All hand guns have the actions open and a nylon tie run throught the barrel.
Posted Tue, Jan 1, 11:21 a.m. inappropriate
Never a logical response - always a derogatory GUN NUT insult: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." ~~ Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, in "Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuehrer's Headquarters 1941-1942", Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaeum Verlag, Bonn, 1951)
Twenty-seven words first published in 1790 are now the source of the bitterest controversy the USA has seen since the 1960s if not since the War Between the States a century before that. They are central to an issue that splits left and right, male and female, white and nonwhite, North and South, East and West, wealthy and not-so wealthy.
They are:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Let's get this straight right away. First of all, the inalienable right of individuals to keep and bear arms as a check on a tyrannical government predates our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. This, among other things, was clearly and eloquently expressed in Sir William Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries On The Laws of England." Hence, the Founders were operating within a long historical tradition based upon English common law.
Secondly, the term "well-regulated" meant something quite different two centuries ago. It is not today's definition of "controlled," "limited," or "restricted" but was instead defined as "having proper kit and provisions" or in the case of objects or machinery, "properly maintained and kept in good repair." The next is the Constitutional definition of the "militia," and this what requires detailed explanation. The militia issue was extensively debated during the 1787-89 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and today has sadly been ignored by both sides in this issue.
Founder George Mason explicitly wished to have it clearly spelled out that the militia was "of the whole people," in effect, a "general militia" that was affirmed in the Second Amendment and the 1792 Militia Act. Mason and his supporters feared the development of "special militias"–ones much like the Puritan "Roundheads" led by Oliver Cromwell and their opponents, the "Cavaliers," in the English Civil War of 1642-57. Special militias are nothing more than state-sanctioned paramilitary groups--witness the German Nazi SA and its successor the SS as well as the Italian Fascist "Blackshirts." In those cases, Nazi/Fascist Party membership was strictly required to join them as well as to legally own a firearm of any kind in either of those countries at the time.
These two groups were little different than standing armies. The difference is that they were created and used by the German and Italian governments to bypass any laws against using the military domestically against the people (or in the absence of such laws, to forestall the military's unwillingness to do so)–in order to crush dissent and terrorize opponents. (Sound familiar?) Cromwell used his Roundheads to do much the same thing, even having King Charles I beheaded after a bogus trial, later closing Parliament and then invading Ireland with plans to wipe out the Catholic population, killing those of his comrades and anyone else who refused to comply.
Michael E. Kreca is a staff writer for Ether Zone. Michael E. Kreca lives in San Diego and has been a financial reporter for BusinessWeek, Knight-Ridder and the Financial Times of London. He can be reached at mkreca@connectnet.com
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 10:25 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Dear Gun Nuts: "So, doesn't it seem logical that when people from that time referred to the right of the *militia* [emphasis mine] to be armed, they were referring to those groups they'd had around for 60 years who supported the government?"
Then why does it say "...the right of the people..."? *Everywhere* in the Constitution, "the people" are all the citizens, not just those engaged in an activity organized by the government. Why would "the people" suddenly change its meaning just because it follows a phrase saying that militias are a good thing? That is something I've never heard a state-power advocate explain - *how* the phrase "the people" changes from a clear meaning in every other part of the Constitution, to a murky and ill-defined one in this one sentence alone.
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 11:58 a.m. inappropriate
RE: More crime occurs where more gun control exists: That doesn't seem to track with the FBI statistics by state:
Crime rates by states
To make sure, you're not saying that the states with highest populations have the most crimes? Because if your unnamed 12 states are also the most populous states, then your "statistics" are fatally flawed. By the way, how do you explain why European homicide rates are so low? Guns are strictly controlled there.
I'm not against owning rifles, I own a rifle myself, I'm against the ownership of handguns, which are useless in "rebelling against the tyranny of government". Which is odd, since the Federal government has been more than willing to put down rebellion against itself. (See "The Whiskey Rebellion") The 2nd amendment is more about providing a last stand protection against any invasion of the U.S.A. from foreign nations. (Any nation that has ever contemplated invading the U.S. has to take into fact that it's facing an armed populace, not just an army.)
Posted Fri, Jan 4, 4 p.m. inappropriate
Be responsible for your own phobia: Casey, see someone about treatment for your phobia -- by definition an unreasoning fear. Your unease in being in the presence of a law-abiding person with a gun is no more rational than the unease of some Americans of generations past in being in the presence of a person with black skin. Your attempts to rationalize your feelings have all been made before, and none of them stand up to true rational scrutiny.
For example, "When cops take the lead on calling for gun control, what's left to argue?" I suggest you may want to solicit answers from people like Corey Maye, John Coffin, Kathryn Johnston, Alberta Spruill, Robin Pratt, Mario Barcia, Jr., Robert Howell, Timothy Brockman... a partial list of people who would be dead if they had not had guns to defend themselves from corrupt or incompetent law enforcement, as well as people who died or had a family member die because they did not. You may also want to interview Suzanna Gratia Hupp and thousands like her who had loved ones killed by criminals because by law they were unable to possess a gun somewhere.
And, of course, let's not forget those great LEOs from New Orleans, P. Edwin Compass III and Warren Riley, who illegally disarmed their entire citizenry post Katrina, leaving them at the mercy of brigands, and are now paying a price for their arrogance (deservedly so) in the courts.
Here's a flash: revealed wisdom is not an accessory that comes with every police uniform.
The debate is over: when guns are kept accessible to the man who obeys laws, crime goes DOWN, violence goes DOWN, and civic stability goes UP.
It's time that you, and others like you, stopped attempting to force everyone else in the country to surrender their rights to cater to your personal phobias.
Posted Wed, Jan 16, 1:15 p.m. inappropriate
online pharmacy: best canadian meds
order fda phentermine online
alprazolam xr
hydrocodone overnight
cheap phentermine no prescription
cheap 37 5 phentermine
cheap valium si
delirium ambien duration
extra cheap phentermine
online ordering propecia
phentermine hydrochloride
Posted Thu, Jan 17, 3:36 a.m. inappropriate
online drugstore: Guaranteed cheap price
buy codeine
buy lorazepam
buy ativan
buy butalbital
buy acyclovir
buy clonazepam
buy valtrex
buy lortab
buy zyban
Posted Thu, Jan 17, 2:06 p.m. inappropriate
brand and generic drugs: Free prescription
adipex online without a prescription
adderall xr
cialis overnight
discount phentermine
generic ambien without presciption
difference between oxycodone hydrocodone
guaranteed cheapest viagra
female viagra
generic adipex
hydrocodone with apap