Examining The Gun-Control Topic from a Rational Perspective (Part 3)
A Rational Approach To The Issue Needs To Come From All Sides
I thought that part
2 of my examination of the gun-regulation debate was the last one. The
main issue with hot button political topics is that many become very
emotional. I can understand why. Gun violence results in the loss of
loved ones. The danger and threats from it become very real for many.
However, when people let their emotions consume them, they start to
abandon logic and reason, and embrace rhetoric. When people become
emotional, they become blind to the facts and the research. People can't make sound decisions when in a emotional state. This applies to those on both sides of the political spectrum.
A topic such as this one requires everybody to become a part of the discussion on a equal basis free of rhetoric, absurd conspiracy theories, and fear-mongering. Fear and paranoia reign supreme. Approaching the gun control topic means that people will have to put asides their prejudices and biases, and approach the issue from a rational perspective. The formation of opinions based on the statistics and data, free from political slants and biases. The person voting on the issue instead of the party. Voting on the issue on their own terms, and not how others want them to vote.
When people become emotionally charged, they will only see things from a single perspective. They often want to call their own shots without involvement of others. On either side of the political spectrum, one can't just declare "screw it" and do their own thing. This is counter-productive and only fuels the seeds of discontent. While a considerable amount of the emotional hyperbole regarding this topic comes primarily from those with a Conservative slant, it's not restricted to them alone. This happen on the other side as well. People who are emotionally charged will look for confrontation instead of cooperation. Declaring "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15" is not going to promote a healthy examination of the issue. It will only further fans the flames of discontent on an already very polarized issue.
This issue will require everybody to come to the table. Their has to be a equal non-partisan agreement in place. In theory, this should already be a given as in theory, gun-regulation is a safety/health issue and not fundamentally a partisan one. Yet, unfortunately, many have made the gun-control debate into another partisan Democrat-vs.-Republican issue (those on both sides share the blame).
A topic such as this one requires everybody to become a part of the discussion on a equal basis free of rhetoric, absurd conspiracy theories, and fear-mongering. Fear and paranoia reign supreme. Approaching the gun control topic means that people will have to put asides their prejudices and biases, and approach the issue from a rational perspective. The formation of opinions based on the statistics and data, free from political slants and biases. The person voting on the issue instead of the party. Voting on the issue on their own terms, and not how others want them to vote.
When people become emotionally charged, they will only see things from a single perspective. They often want to call their own shots without involvement of others. On either side of the political spectrum, one can't just declare "screw it" and do their own thing. This is counter-productive and only fuels the seeds of discontent. While a considerable amount of the emotional hyperbole regarding this topic comes primarily from those with a Conservative slant, it's not restricted to them alone. This happen on the other side as well. People who are emotionally charged will look for confrontation instead of cooperation. Declaring "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15" is not going to promote a healthy examination of the issue. It will only further fans the flames of discontent on an already very polarized issue.
On one hand, I can understand why Beto
O'Rourke feels this way, and his anger is justified. His home-town has
recently been the site of a massive shooting that was a result of absurd
and violent political rhetoric. He is emotionally charged. I don't
blame him for the way that he feels.
The issue has entered into a state of political purgatory where people say words, and nothing happens. People who cry for any sort of action are painted as radicals by a lobbyist group that promotes several fallacy's not rooted in reality. It can get very frustrating. The misinformation and stereotypes of the gun-control topic have defined the conversation far more than actual factual interpretation.
The issue become even more polarized when people that still embrace guns rights or are even gun owners are painted as "anti-gun extremist" because they feel that certain types of guns shouldn't be on the marketplace or that certain people with violent tendencies shouldn't have them. This does not promote a healthy dialogue. Not approaching this issue from a rational perspective for years is leading to this outburst of emotions. We are the blame for dismissing this issue for so long.
The issue has entered into a state of political purgatory where people say words, and nothing happens. People who cry for any sort of action are painted as radicals by a lobbyist group that promotes several fallacy's not rooted in reality. It can get very frustrating. The misinformation and stereotypes of the gun-control topic have defined the conversation far more than actual factual interpretation.
The issue become even more polarized when people that still embrace guns rights or are even gun owners are painted as "anti-gun extremist" because they feel that certain types of guns shouldn't be on the marketplace or that certain people with violent tendencies shouldn't have them. This does not promote a healthy dialogue. Not approaching this issue from a rational perspective for years is leading to this outburst of emotions. We are the blame for dismissing this issue for so long.
With that noted, Beto, being in a emotionally charged state of
mind, is counter-productive. When people embrace this mindset, they give
in to impulsive behavior. He assumes a level of immaturity and instead
of promoting cooperation, he employs the language of confrontation and
division. His words become fodder for those money-driven lobbyist that
will his phrase as ammunition (pun intended) against him.
This issue will require everybody to come to the table. Their has to be a equal non-partisan agreement in place. In theory, this should already be a given as in theory, gun-regulation is a safety/health issue and not fundamentally a partisan one. Yet, unfortunately, many have made the gun-control debate into another partisan Democrat-vs.-Republican issue (those on both sides share the blame).
Examining The Gun Regulation Issue
In order to
approach this topic from a rational perspective, we must realize what
the gun-regulation topic is and isn't. The gun-control debate is to
prevent those who have the intent to cause harm (either to themselves or
others) from getting easy access to firearms while trying to stop the
selling of high-powered firearms that have only military applications.
Weapons that have only a purely offensive purpose. This is essentially
the issue in a nutshell.
Handguns and sporting rifles were never part of the dialogue. Both serve as much of a defensive purpose than a offensive one. While they can be used offensively, one can't mow down large amounts of people in very rapid success with such guns. When one highlights that a crime was prevented because someone carried had a gun on them, good for them. The Facebook memes highlighting this are moot as hand-guns were never part of the debate. If one wants to own them and they can demonstrate responsibility in handling them, then get one.
Their was never a time in our history, either in the past or now, that
the Second Amendment was threatened or their was a possibility of people
firearms being taken away. This is NRA fear-mongering that has no basis
in reality. Despite them having different meanings, a whole generation
of people have been raised that
the phrases "gun regulation" and "anti-Second Amendment" mean the same
thing, and thus, can be used interchangeably. This is where one
encounters those Facebook memes of where the Democrat Party are
"anti-Second Amendment".
The words "anti-Second Amendment" was used as a substitute for "gun regulation" to purposely create a politically charged meme based on knowingly misinterpreting phrases. A word redefine many fell for. This debunks the whole "their against the Second Amendment" fallacy. While the Democrat Party feels that gun-regulation is needed, they still believe that people have a fundamental right to bear arms. So no, their not going to take guns away from people and send them to concentration camps. I've looked throughout official Democrat Party doctrine to see where this action is advocated, and I couldn't find it anywhere.
Handguns and sporting rifles were never part of the dialogue. Both serve as much of a defensive purpose than a offensive one. While they can be used offensively, one can't mow down large amounts of people in very rapid success with such guns. When one highlights that a crime was prevented because someone carried had a gun on them, good for them. The Facebook memes highlighting this are moot as hand-guns were never part of the debate. If one wants to own them and they can demonstrate responsibility in handling them, then get one.
Their are a
lot of misinterpretations and fallacies on the issue. Gun-regulation
does not equal to taking gun away from people, or to prevents
wall-abiding citizens from getting one. This is a fallacy meant to cause
fear, anxiety, and paranoia. It's possible to support gun-regulation
while being a gun-owner because gun-regulation doesn't equal to a gun
ban or a repeal of the Second Amendment. Because it's possible to
believe in gun regulation while even being a gun owner, supporting such
legislation doesn't make that person anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, or
anti-American.
A person's gun rights are not violated because the sale of guns
are still permitted, even when their more regulation. This isn't
different from the paperwork that a person is required to fill when
purchasing a new car. Anyone has the right to own and drive a car as
long as they meet the appropriate conditions and requirements. Nobody's
right to car ownership have been robbed and is self-imposed on the
person who does not meet the conditions. The right is still their if
that person to peruse it at a later time.
This mental picture can be applied to firearms as we. A person can pursue gun ownership if they choose to embrace it and meet the conditions and requirements. The right is still their, but the prerequisites have to be met if the person decides to pursue that choice. Gun regulation doesn't rob people of the right to own basic firearms. Law-abiding people are not hindered from owning a basic firearm. Despite many using the terms "gun-regulation/control" and "anti-gun" interchangeably, they are fundamentally different. Gun control/regulation doesn't fundamentally ban access to basic firearms or rob gun rights, where as people who are anti-gun are opposed to all firearms.
The gun-control topic is a safety/health issue, and not a partisan one.This mental picture can be applied to firearms as we. A person can pursue gun ownership if they choose to embrace it and meet the conditions and requirements. The right is still their, but the prerequisites have to be met if the person decides to pursue that choice. Gun regulation doesn't rob people of the right to own basic firearms. Law-abiding people are not hindered from owning a basic firearm. Despite many using the terms "gun-regulation/control" and "anti-gun" interchangeably, they are fundamentally different. Gun control/regulation doesn't fundamentally ban access to basic firearms or rob gun rights, where as people who are anti-gun are opposed to all firearms.
The right to gun ownership is defined in the Constitution as the
Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. A document that defined our
rights based on the opinions and views of the Founding Fathers. Because
this right had to be specifically defined, gun ownership is not a
fundamental human right or a God-Given
one. Fundamental human rights are those that are implied, but doesn't
exist on paper. If it's coded, it's not a fundamental human right. While
the protection of ourselves and others is a human rights, the manner
which we do are defined by the coders. Our right to own firearms was
determined by the Found Fathers and the Government, not bestowed upon us
as natural human reaction or from the heavens. YouTuber Knowing Better
does a great examination of the topic (linked in the YouTube video
below).
The words "anti-Second Amendment" was used as a substitute for "gun regulation" to purposely create a politically charged meme based on knowingly misinterpreting phrases. A word redefine many fell for. This debunks the whole "their against the Second Amendment" fallacy. While the Democrat Party feels that gun-regulation is needed, they still believe that people have a fundamental right to bear arms. So no, their not going to take guns away from people and send them to concentration camps. I've looked throughout official Democrat Party doctrine to see where this action is advocated, and I couldn't find it anywhere.
Paranoia And The NRA's Exploitation Of It
When paranoia
reigns supreme, people often become their own worst enemies. The issue
to buy a gun isn't based on whether they feel they need to protect
themselves, but because some invisible boogeyman is after them. They see
things not there, and react to it in a confrontational way.
Many will feel that they are "under assault" when their is simply only a difference of opinion. They start to believe that those concentration camps the the Democrats are secretly plotting to send people to as hinted by the NRA become very real. They believe that gun regulation does mean stripping people from their firearms. If the NRA declare that some random politicians wants to take away their guns, they will blindly believe the statements without fact-checking whether the claim has actual validity. They will just assume that it's true, because it fits their worldview.
(amended and updated 3/14/2020)
The rhetoric pushed by the NRA became so extreme that President George H.W. Bush reigned from it. This was after the organization, with Wayne LaPierre's full support, published a controversial newsletter. This occurred after shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing. The terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, blew up the building because he had a imaginary vendetta against the Federal Government and believed the rhetoric that many were proclaiming about how the government wanted to take away people's firearms and disenfranchise them among other things. He believed that the Federal Government was the newest incarnation of Nazism. The NRA published a newsletter calling the ATF "jack-booted thugs", thus insulating that they, among with their leadership, were Nazi's. The newsletter then proceeded to call those involved within Federal law enforcement as criminals that will kill at will. These accusations were beyond absurd and their was no merit behind them. Bush resigned as a result because he didn't want to be associated with a organization that spread constant lies and used fear as a way to control and manipulate people to their views.
This is why in part 2, me calling the NRA a cult isn't that far from truth. Many will blindly accept their rhetoric as truth, regardless of whether it's factual or not. Like any cults, the use of fear-mongering as a tool to enforce its social order or to con people into give them more money. As in the vast majority of cases, the cult leaders often don't believe their own rhetoric, and only see it as a manner to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Whether this is the case with the NRA is still to be seen.
The NRA wants the Second Amendment interpreted as owning anything to your hearts content without regulation because this interpretation greatly benefits them financially. Scaring potential members help their bottom line. They wouldn't be involved in people's gun rights if their wasn't a financial or economic incentive. They will demonize anything that is a threat to their revenue.
Many will feel that they are "under assault" when their is simply only a difference of opinion. They start to believe that those concentration camps the the Democrats are secretly plotting to send people to as hinted by the NRA become very real. They believe that gun regulation does mean stripping people from their firearms. If the NRA declare that some random politicians wants to take away their guns, they will blindly believe the statements without fact-checking whether the claim has actual validity. They will just assume that it's true, because it fits their worldview.
(amended and updated 3/14/2020)
The rhetoric pushed by the NRA became so extreme that President George H.W. Bush reigned from it. This was after the organization, with Wayne LaPierre's full support, published a controversial newsletter. This occurred after shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing. The terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, blew up the building because he had a imaginary vendetta against the Federal Government and believed the rhetoric that many were proclaiming about how the government wanted to take away people's firearms and disenfranchise them among other things. He believed that the Federal Government was the newest incarnation of Nazism. The NRA published a newsletter calling the ATF "jack-booted thugs", thus insulating that they, among with their leadership, were Nazi's. The newsletter then proceeded to call those involved within Federal law enforcement as criminals that will kill at will. These accusations were beyond absurd and their was no merit behind them. Bush resigned as a result because he didn't want to be associated with a organization that spread constant lies and used fear as a way to control and manipulate people to their views.
This is why in part 2, me calling the NRA a cult isn't that far from truth. Many will blindly accept their rhetoric as truth, regardless of whether it's factual or not. Like any cults, the use of fear-mongering as a tool to enforce its social order or to con people into give them more money. As in the vast majority of cases, the cult leaders often don't believe their own rhetoric, and only see it as a manner to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Whether this is the case with the NRA is still to be seen.
The NRA wants the Second Amendment interpreted as owning anything to your hearts content without regulation because this interpretation greatly benefits them financially. Scaring potential members help their bottom line. They wouldn't be involved in people's gun rights if their wasn't a financial or economic incentive. They will demonize anything that is a threat to their revenue.
Their Are Valid Points........
As absurd and
confrontational as Beto's language is, many valid points are brought
up. One wonders why AR-15 and AK-47 were permitted to being sold to
consumers in the first place. They only have military applications.
Claiming that one needs to defend their property or life with a AR-15 or
AK-47 is like claiming that one needs to flamethrower or a tank to kill
roaches or need a F-15 of Mig-29 Fulcrum to go deer hunting (that
sounds cool actually!). Massive overkill for the intent that these
weapons were intended. Does one feel that land-mines, grenade launchers
and mounted gun positions are necessary as well? The only time one would
have items like those is if they were finding things, or if their
paranoia reign supreme. When people become emotional, that becomes a
common occurrence though.
The AR-15 should be permitted as long as their were modifications imposed on it, as what was in place during the assault-weapon ban. That's right, it was still legal to buy a AR-15 during the assault-weapon ban as long as their were modifications applied to it that removed the rapid-fire mechanism.
New sells of these guns should be ban, and those that have been used in crimes need to be destroyed. At the same time, I also feel that those who do current own the gun should only turn them in on their terms in a voluntary fashion. They can't be forced to surrender their guns. It's only on their own accord that they choose too. At the same time, this is the reason why these gun owners do have to be part of the conversation as well. They need to be active participants, but like Beto, they can't dominate or control the conversation either.
The AR-15 should be permitted as long as their were modifications imposed on it, as what was in place during the assault-weapon ban. That's right, it was still legal to buy a AR-15 during the assault-weapon ban as long as their were modifications applied to it that removed the rapid-fire mechanism.
New sells of these guns should be ban, and those that have been used in crimes need to be destroyed. At the same time, I also feel that those who do current own the gun should only turn them in on their terms in a voluntary fashion. They can't be forced to surrender their guns. It's only on their own accord that they choose too. At the same time, this is the reason why these gun owners do have to be part of the conversation as well. They need to be active participants, but like Beto, they can't dominate or control the conversation either.
This Article Is Still About Beto After All! (Their Are Reservations About Him)
While one can
understand the reasons for Beto's feelings, his remarks were extremely
counter-productive and hostile. Not good for a politician that I still
have strong reservations about. In a conversation that needs to have as
many people on board, his outburst will further spread the flames of
discontent. He needs to be a equal partner on the topic, not the one
trying to dictate the dialogue on his own terms.
I voted for him in the 2018 Mid-terms here in Texas. I sat looking at the ballot for about 10 minutes before voting, as I had very mixed feelings. I felt that Beto hadn't done anything to win my vote. At the same time, I felt nothing but bitter anger and discontent against Ted Cruz. This is why I admit that my vote was more of one against Ted Cruz than it was for Beto, even though I technically voted for him.
Despite my grievances against both politicians, I feel that as a Independent, and as someone who crusades against misinformation, both politicians need to be defended when false claims are made. Debunking false claims is essential, regardless of political affiliation. I defended both Ted Cruz and Beto in the Mid-terms. At the same time, defending someone is still far from endorsing him.
To me, Beto is the representation of a candidate that is likely to preserve the status quo of the current money-corrupted DNC as defined by Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. A political party that in 2016, when presented the choice between loosing the election or their billion-dollar donors; chose to loose the election instead. The DNC that already painted Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as hell-bent Commies out to destroy Capitalism, hates corporations, and America in general, even though they are non of those things. The DNC will do anything to prevent them from getting the nomination, even if they successful achieve the requirements based on their merit. The DNC will find a way to manipulate the system to prevent Sanders or Warren from getting the nomination. They will employee CNN to do their bidding. CNN has a bias against Bernie Sanders as well. The DNC will use the same rhetoric that Conservatives uses to discredit them.
I voted for him in the 2018 Mid-terms here in Texas. I sat looking at the ballot for about 10 minutes before voting, as I had very mixed feelings. I felt that Beto hadn't done anything to win my vote. At the same time, I felt nothing but bitter anger and discontent against Ted Cruz. This is why I admit that my vote was more of one against Ted Cruz than it was for Beto, even though I technically voted for him.
Despite my grievances against both politicians, I feel that as a Independent, and as someone who crusades against misinformation, both politicians need to be defended when false claims are made. Debunking false claims is essential, regardless of political affiliation. I defended both Ted Cruz and Beto in the Mid-terms. At the same time, defending someone is still far from endorsing him.
To me, Beto is the representation of a candidate that is likely to preserve the status quo of the current money-corrupted DNC as defined by Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. A political party that in 2016, when presented the choice between loosing the election or their billion-dollar donors; chose to loose the election instead. The DNC that already painted Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as hell-bent Commies out to destroy Capitalism, hates corporations, and America in general, even though they are non of those things. The DNC will do anything to prevent them from getting the nomination, even if they successful achieve the requirements based on their merit. The DNC will find a way to manipulate the system to prevent Sanders or Warren from getting the nomination. They will employee CNN to do their bidding. CNN has a bias against Bernie Sanders as well. The DNC will use the same rhetoric that Conservatives uses to discredit them.
Conclusion
While I (and
everybody) have ideas, their isn't a perfect solution. Can gun violence
be eliminated? No it can. However, can it be greatly reduced though? Yes
it can. This will require everybody placing their prejudices aside and
working together in a manner where people's gun rights are still
protected, and yet, prevent the easy accessibility of high-powered
weapons to those that have the intent of those who can cause harm to
themselves and others. Everybody will have to be a part of the
conversation and have to be represented.
This topic isn't as black-and-white as many make it out to be, as their is a lot more than what meets the eye. Addressing this topic though requires everybody coming to the table free from bias, prejudices, rhetoric, and conspiracy theories and working together. These gun-owners have to be involved in the process and vice-versa. They have to be active participants as well, and they will have to work together as well. Those at the table can't approach a "it's my way or the highway". This is counter-productive and nothing gets done.
As noted in the last article, I'm not going to tell people how to vote. This article is mostly intended on letting you know how I feel about the article. If you agree with me, then more power. If you respectfully disagree with me on equal terms, then that's fine too.
If one feels that gun regulation isn't necessary from a rational interpretation of the issue, then vote in that manner. If one feels that gun regulation is necessary from a rational interpretation of the issue, then vote accordingly. However, don't define that vote based on baseless claims, empty rhetoric, and absurd conspiracy theories that have now basis in reality. Vote on the issue based on its rational interpretation of the issue. Do not base that vote on emotionally-charged content either, regardless of whether it comes from.
For me, someone who is a Independent and politically agnostic, my vote will be based on the issue, and not how others want me to vote. Don't vote how the Republicans, Democrats, or the NRA tells you to vote. Don't base that vote on the fears of invisible boogeymen. If you vote for your party instead of the issue, or vote because you feel that "their" out to get you, then the system just failed.
This topic isn't as black-and-white as many make it out to be, as their is a lot more than what meets the eye. Addressing this topic though requires everybody coming to the table free from bias, prejudices, rhetoric, and conspiracy theories and working together. These gun-owners have to be involved in the process and vice-versa. They have to be active participants as well, and they will have to work together as well. Those at the table can't approach a "it's my way or the highway". This is counter-productive and nothing gets done.
As noted in the last article, I'm not going to tell people how to vote. This article is mostly intended on letting you know how I feel about the article. If you agree with me, then more power. If you respectfully disagree with me on equal terms, then that's fine too.
If one feels that gun regulation isn't necessary from a rational interpretation of the issue, then vote in that manner. If one feels that gun regulation is necessary from a rational interpretation of the issue, then vote accordingly. However, don't define that vote based on baseless claims, empty rhetoric, and absurd conspiracy theories that have now basis in reality. Vote on the issue based on its rational interpretation of the issue. Do not base that vote on emotionally-charged content either, regardless of whether it comes from.
For me, someone who is a Independent and politically agnostic, my vote will be based on the issue, and not how others want me to vote. Don't vote how the Republicans, Democrats, or the NRA tells you to vote. Don't base that vote on the fears of invisible boogeymen. If you vote for your party instead of the issue, or vote because you feel that "their" out to get you, then the system just failed.
Links of Interest
O'Rourke Promises To 'Take Your AR-15,' But Americans Are Split On Buybacks
NPR
WWW.NPR.ORG
Did CNN Stack the Audience Against Bernie Sanders at His Town Hall?
Paste Magazine
WWW.PASTEMAGAZINE.COM
Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders Campaign
NYTIMES
WWW.NYTIMES.COM
2016 Democratic National Committee email leak
Wikipedia
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Was the Odessa Shooter a Beto O’Rourke Supporter?
Snopes
WWW.SNOPES.ORG
Snopes
WWW.SNOPES.ORG
Baseless Claim of Odessa Shooter’s ‘Beto Sticker’
FactCheck.org
WWW.FACTCHECK.ORG
Deceptive Second Amendment Ads
FACTCHECK.ORG
WWW.FACTCHECK.ORG
Did George H.W. Bush Resign from the NRA?
Snopes
WWW.SNOPES.ORG
Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA
FRONTLINE
WWW.PBS.ORG
FRONTLINE
WWW.PBS.ORG
National Rifle Association (Criticism)
Wikipedia
WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Wikipedia
WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Wayne LaPierre (Criticism)
Wikipedia
WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
N.R.A. Seeks Distance From Russia as Investigations Heat Up
NYTIMES
WWW.NYTIMES.COM
NRA in crisis: how the gun group became ensnared in the Russia inquiry
The Guardian
WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM
Gun deaths in US rise to highest level in 20 years, data shows
The Guardian
WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM
The Guardian
WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM
About Underlying Cause of Death, 1999-2017
The CDC
CDC.GOV
America's gun culture in charts
BBC
WWW.BBC.COM
Gun violence in the United States
Wikipedia
WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Crime in the United States
Wikipedia
WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Fact-checking figures about gun violence in Texas
POLITIFACT
WWW.POLITIFACT.COM
How many guns are on the streets in the United States?
POLITIFACT
WWW.POLITIFACT.COM
U.S. Leads World in Mass Shootings
The Wall Street Journal
WWW.WSJ.COM
Exposing Fake News and Click-bait Part 2(October 2018)
Beto And Ted's Embellished Adventure (Ted Cruz vs. Beto O'Rourke Special Edition)
Kixmiller Pigeon
RKIXMILLER.DUDAONE.COM
Beto And Ted's Embellished Adventure (Ted Cruz vs. Beto O'Rourke Special Edition)
Kixmiller Pigeon
RKIXMILLER.DUDAONE.COM
Examining The Gun-Control Topic from a Rational Perspective (Part 1)
Kixmiller Pigeon Mrk2
KIXPIGEON.BLOGSPOT.COM
Joe Biden says he will champion a ban on assault weapons, not all guns
PolitiFact
WWW.POLITIFACT.COM
PolitiFact
WWW.POLITIFACT.COM
Comments
Post a Comment