South Carolina Gov. Haley Supports Law Allowing Citizens to Carry Guns Without Permit or Training

nikki-haleyIf you thought South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley recently signing a bill into law that allows people to carry loaded guns into bars was fairly foolish, this is even worse.

Not only has she now made it legal for people to have guns inside of bars, she also announced that she supports a proposal that would allow people to carry concealed handguns without any sort of training or permits.

So now instead of assuring that all citizens who are legally carrying concealed handguns in public were doing so after the required training, anyone who felt like carrying a gun on them would be allowed to do so – legally.

That means someone who has never used a gun could go buy a handgun, shove it in their pocket and carry it around with them for protection legally without a single minute of training on how to properly use that weapon.

I know there’s a big debate on the Second Amendment in this country, but can we at least agree on some basic common sense things?  You know, like if we’re going to have citizens carrying loaded guns with them out in public, can we at least agree that they should have had some kind of training beforehand?

I know when it comes to guns many Americans can’t agree on most things, but can we at least agree on that?

So basically what Governor Haley has said is that she not only supports citizens carrying weapons into bars, but she doesn’t even care if they’ve had absolutely no training on how to properly use those weapons.

This is where I usually hit a wall when it comes to reasonable debates with what many refer to as “gun nuts.”  Just because as Americans we have a particular right (such as freedom of speech) doesn’t mean that there can’t be sensible rules and regulations on that right (such as not being allowed to jokingly yell “bomb” in an airport or “fire” in a movie theater).

Just because we have a Second Amendment right to own guns, doesn’t mean we can’t apply common sense when it comes to that right in a modern society.

There just has to come a point where you have to start questioning the sanity of those you oppose.  While I like to try to be as respectful to my opposition as possible (especially in face to face debates on issues) I would really find it difficult to keep my composure when debating someone who supports repealing the law that requires citizens who carry concealed weapons in public to have basic training.

Because at that point I just couldn’t take that person seriously.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Jim Wiggin

    I always wonder what is going through the minds of people who pose with guns and big smiles on their faces like Governor Haley. Does she even consider the purpose of that weapon, or the damage that a bullet from that weapon would inflict on a human being? Maybe she’s thinking about bad guys getting their comeuppance.

    • shutdafrtdoor

      Speaking personally, I don’t carry in hopes to “shoot or kill” someone. I carry for the safety of myself, my loved ones, and other productive members of society. Maybe in my case it harkens back to my upbringing of being robbed or seeing brutal displays of humanity. Maybe it lends to my oath when I enlisted. I could never imagine using deadly force unless needed. In fact, I don’t spend anytime dwelling on it at all. But when I hear about “bad guys” wreaking havoc on innocents I admit I think what the outcome might have been if an armed “good guy” would have been able to intercede.

      • Deb Furlin

        The point of this article is that any insane, bad guy, if this passed, can own a gun. There are limits that need to be in place. NO one is going to deny a sane, law-abiding person the right to buy and own guns. She wants to take away any limits.

      • shutdafrtdoor

        Thanks for chiming in…the purpose of my post is to have dialog with Jim. I completely understand the point of the article. Read my other posts.

    • Bernie Gill

      You are making a major assumption when you assume that there is ANYTHING going through their minds!

      • white trash religious teaparty

        there certainly is,,,(A) money,,,,(B) re-election ( SEE:pandering to the white trash low IQ “Christian” base)

      • Deb Furlin

        Exactly!!!

  • temp

    I’m confused about the loaded gun in bars issue. I’m a licensed gun owner with the right to carried a concealed weapon anywhere except schools, federal establishment or other government property that they specifically say I can’t. I’m in Massachusetts and I can carry in a bar. Other that the risk of someone doing something dumb while drunk, why couldn’t north Carolina residents not carry in a bar?

    • Charles Vincent

      Its illegal in some states to be in possession of a firearm while drinking/under the influence. Alcohol impairs ones judgement is the premise here.

    • white trash religious teaparty

      umm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, “doing something while drunk”…… ????
      dumb? geeee- that would be such a small pct( yeah right) of “trouble ” perhaps regressive white trash tea party scum can pass a law mandating alcohol is only served to idiots WITH a loaded firearm

    • temp

      Ok that makes sense. Mass doesn’t have such a rule, that’s what confused me.

  • MTersen

    This whole article is lying. Read the statutes for yourself.

    You still MUST have a concealed permit, MUST prove completion of the required firearm training course from a SLED approved institute or sherrif’s office, You are still not allowed to carry a CW onto a school, gov building or medical building.

    THE ONLY THING THIS CHANGES IS THE BARS. You can now carry into any building that 1. Isnt on the prohibited list, and 2. does not have a sign saying “NO WEAPONS ALLOWED. Anywhere that isnt prohibited or does not have a sign is fair game, including bars now. That is the only change.

    • Jbh Jbh

      reading comprehension fail.
      “she also announced that she supports a proposal that would allow people to carry concealed handguns without any sort of training or permits.”

      • SailorBRN

        Please, find me that announcement. This whole article seems to just over exaggerate one insignificant statute and one unverifiable announcement. Total hogwash.

  • shutdafrtdoor

    Even as a combat trained Army Vet, I’m glad I had the training for my CPL.

  • Bernie Gill

    The problem with these right wing wackos is that they are very selective in not only which rights they want to preserve, but also selectively choose which parts of the Constitution they want to quote…For instance, they quote the Second Amendment as their right to own a gun, but they selectively omit the first part of the Amendment which reads “In order to maintain a well equipped MILITIA….the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon”….They conveniently leave out the “In order to maintain a well equipped militia”….Now when the Amendment was passed, the US had NO standing army and the militia was the national defense, so it could be argued (quite convincingly), that out forefathers NEVER intended for everybody to have the right to own a gun!

    • Charles Vincent

      The second amendment does not say “”In order to maintain a well equipped MILITIA….the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon”.
      It actually 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.”

      You need to stop posting bogus crap.

      “Now when the Amendment was passed, the US had NO standing army and the militia was the national defense, so it could be argued (quite convincingly),”

      We had a standing army they were called the continental army, and state militias were called according to the state the came from i.e. Virginia or Kentucky state militia etcetera. and last the DC v Heller decision clearly stated that the right to bear arms is an individual right unconnected to participation in a militia.

      The only “WACKO” here is you, you ignorant monkey.

      • Bine646

        Got em

      • Bernie Gill

        Sorry, my quote was not exactly right (it was from memory), but the sentiment is correct…Furthermore there WAS no standing army when the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791…the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 when the Revolutionary War ended…Therefore it would appear that YOU are the moron, perhaps you should know what you are talking about before you start typing….IDIOT! And BTW, the only ignorant monkey would be….YOU!

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re forgetting the articles of confederation which did have a standing army. “The Articles supported the Congressional direction of the Continental Army,
        and allowed the states to present a unified front when dealing with the
        European powers. As a tool to build a centralized war-making
        government,” the us used the articles of confederation until the drafting of the constitution.” and this is a tidbit you glossed over,”Most of the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris ended the war. The 1st and 2nd Regiments went on to form the nucleus of the Legion of the United States in 1792 under General Anthony Wayne. This became the foundation of the United States Army in 1796.”
        You are still an ignorant monkey

        “Sorry, my quote was not exactly right (it was from memory), but the sentiment is correct”
        There is no excuse when you can copy paste the real deal you flatly misrepresented it, furthermore the sentiment isn’t correct please read federalist 29 so you dont look so stupid next time.

      • Bernie Gill

        Sorry moron, but I choose to use my brain on occasion, something you wouldn’t understand watching FAUX News and such. And I’ll type a bit slower this time so maybe you will understand…THERE WAS NO STANDING ARMY when the 2nd Amendment was ratified…you can deny FACTS all you want, but there you are…You ignorant idiot…

      • Charles Vincent

        Oh noeeess fuax news blah blah blah, the sources I used had nothing to do with fox news but way to be an even bigger moron Bernese.

        Just for reference;
        Most of the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 after the Treaty of
        Paris ended the war. The 1st and 2nd Regiments went on to form the
        nucleus of the Legion of the United States in 1792 under General Anthony
        Wayne. This became the foundation of the United States Army in 1796.”
        See it says most not all and the first and second regiments went on to become the army hence they were around between 1783 and 1791 you lose moron.

      • Bernie Gill

        I’ll type it one more time and very slowly there was NO US Army in 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was ratified. You are a typical right wing wacko like Ted Cruz And Rand Paul and figure that if you tell the same lie enough times it will become the truth. Go back under your rock!

      • Charles Vincent

        Hey moron the continental army was there between 1783 and 1791 check your reading comprehension. the first and second regiment became the army in 1792.

      • Bernie Gill

        Obviously english is NOT your first language. The Continental Army was disbanded at the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Most of the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris ended the war. The 1st and 2nd Regiments went on to form the nucleus of the Legion of the United States in 1792”

        Notice it says MOST, NOT ALL of the Continental army then notice that in the intervening years between 1783 and 1792 the 1st and 2nd regiment of the Continental army stayed around and became the Nucleus of the US army in 1792. If you cant read that you’re both a moron and ignorant of historical fact Bernese.

      • Bernie Gill

        One last time for the factually imparred. The Continental Army disbanded after the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783. The 1st and 2nd Regiments went back to being state militias. They became the nucleus of the US Army in 1792. The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791. Therefore there WAS NO US Army in 1791. Perhaps you should read your own words.

      • Charles Vincent

        I never said US army I said continental army the 1st and 2nd regimine were the part of the contenental army until 1792. Nowhere in any historical writing have I seen where those regiments went back to state militias prove they went and did not remain as a standing army in the interim which is what the passage I cited states, that they went on as in were in the standing army in the interim and after 1791 they then became the US army.

      • Charles Vincent

        No where does it say that the 1st and 2nd regime went back to the state militias. I said the CONTINENTAL army NOT the US army the 1st and 2nd became the US army later. In fact Washington clearly suggested to the Continental congress to keep a standing army as did Governor Morris

        Confederation period (1783–1787)

        Politically, the militia was highly popular during the postwar period, though to some extent, based more on pride of victory in the recent war than on the realities.[13]This skepticism of the actual value of relying upon the militia for national defense, versus a trained regular army was expressed by Gouverneur Morris:
        “…An overweening vanity leads the fond many, each man against the conviction of his own heart, to believe or affect to believe, that militia can beat veteran troops in the open field and even play of
        battle. This idle notion, fed by vaunting demagogues, alarmed us for our country, when in the course of that time and chance, which happen to
        all, she should be at war with a great power.”[14]

        Robert Spitzer, citing Daniel Boorstin, describes this political dichotomy of the public popularity of the militia versus the military value: “While the reliance upon militias was politically satisfying, it proved to be an administrative and military nightmare. State
        detachments could not be easily combined into larger fighting units; soldiers could not be relied on to serve for extended periods, and desertions were common; officers were elected, based on popularity
        rather than experience or training; discipline and uniformity were almost nonexistent.”

        General George Washington defended the militia in public, but in correspondence with Congress expressed his opinion of the militia quite to the contrary:

        “To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic
        life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in
        themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid,
        and ready to fly from their own shadows…if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter.”

      • melloe

        You need to check your time-line, but agree this screwed up court did interpret it that way. I notice you left out the rest of what they had to say.

      • Charles Vincent

        I can post it but is isn’t relevant to my point which is the op I replied to totally misrepresented it and was pretty much being ignorant. Also I presume you’re talking about the not unlimited portion to which the justices list an example of a law that would be in accordance with the constitution.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        constitution,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        does that include kids born here being citizens/ abortion legal/ the ACA being law?
        just checking: seems the regressive white trash tea party cherry picks a lot of readings

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re not on topic man.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        wow– my “faux pas”
        I didn’t read that WORD as the last insertion in your above edification?
        you do skate well Charles,,,,

      • Charles Vincent

        I took figure skating lessons in my youth lol

      • white trash religious teaparty

        that jes might explain the adipose tissue which moved in around your ankles

      • Charles Vincent

        nah i have legs like the Rockettes they be snazzy

      • white trash religious teaparty

        in leotards??????

      • Charles Vincent

        No lederhosen.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        ach du lieber!!

      • Pipercat

        Unwashed, of course!

      • Deb Furlin

        But it applies in principle. Can’t answer his question?

      • Charles Vincent

        He is talking about the ACA that’s not the topic I am talking about. His proposed question is ancillary at best.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        actually that’s erroneous— I was talking about how tea party trash cherry picks THEIR “favorite” constitutional laws whilst ignoring/shredding/ vilifying the ones that their 20 century JEEEESUS doesn’t like ( or profit from)

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s also not my argument nor was I cherry picking in the case of my argument. My argument was the constitutionality of the Heller decision not the ACA or abortion as in your original reply those are wholly separate topics and you know it. You also know that you used them in an attempt to distract and pull me off my original topic in an attempt to diffuse and deflect. I am not affiliated with the tea party so that reference is the same as the reference to the ACA and abortion.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        again; my topic 2 U was which/any/all country can threaten us militarily ( especially here at home)?
        the regressive tea party trash cherry picking the constitution is ” ancillary” or———— lateral—–or: peripheral. It is a topic of tremendous note but NOT what I asked you
        maybe Botswana?

      • white trash religious teaparty

        actually chuck baby I was initially asking what THREAT militarily this planet offers ( offres??) our usa !!! militarily: IE what country can even remotely jerk their weenie by “thinking” they dare invade us?
        maybe mars: I did see that movie and we got crushed until phil Robertson started playing his southern crappy “music” 🙂

      • Charles Vincent

        Russia, and China are both capable whether that is feasible is a different matter.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        ummmmm,,,,, the correct word is “WONT”
        I suspect Charlie V CAN answer; but in doing so weakens his position. FOX “news” strategy class 101

      • white trash religious teaparty

        yes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,quite correct. allow me 2 inquire: do U—-or any regressive “conservative” see ANY national THRESAT militarily to the USA????
        hmmmmmmmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, militia? when is the last time is was used? ( that kent state thing was pretty American– nuking college kids) yes I know— ohio national guard

      • Charles Vincent

        There are state militias all over as well as other militias. Just like I said just because you dont see them doesn’t meant they dont exist.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        didn’t answer my question (s)
        …………… wanna give it the ol’ follow-up “try”?

      • Charles Vincent

        Well its pretty clear that our government is becoming the threat. Remember the oath of office it clearly states to defend the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic that oath isn’t just for the government.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        I agree the govt is a threat of certain sorts,,,,,,,,,,,,, but: the white trash scum such as glenn beck and michelle ” no tits/ hates her life” malkin and idiots in the political tea party make it seem its ONLY OBAMA– he IS a threat: he is trying to get a level playing field for ALL americans,,,not just wealthy white trash
        if our government wants to they will flatten all the rednecks with ak-47s and shotguns. I still will pay to watch; me being in the cheering section.
        Obama knows the constitution inside and out— that’s the threat to tea party scum

      • Charles Vincent

        “he is trying to get a level playing field for ALL americans,,,not just wealthy white trash”
        This is false he is recycling bush policies and he is not leveling the playing field;

        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=63HNuL2tfNc

        “Obama knows the constitution inside and out”

        If he knows it then he has no excuse for violating fundamental constitutional rights;

        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=f5pur4-dfiY

      • Deb Furlin

        Which constitutional rights has Pres. Obama violated? WHICH ONES?

      • Charles Vincent

        The right to due process when he kill 3 American citizens with out due process. Watch the video interviews of professor Chomsky and you would have not needed to ask that question. there areothers but like I said watch the video links I posted.
        Obama and the NSA have also violated the 4th amendment. That’s just for starters.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        dude————- quoting a SINGULAR professor as the sole source backing you up is a bit limited; dontcha think?
        the drones killed scumbag muslims who ( evidently) were deemed a threat to the security of this nation.
        nsa violations??? why no legal repercussions? OHWAIT: they (only? no) targeted rightwing crybabies,,,, Hmmmm: when darrell Issa doesn’t have anything to get his teeth into on this I suspect there is nothing real to CHEW

      • Charles Vincent

        A violation is a violation it doesn’t matter where they fall politically. Yes the three who were assassinated where muslim but the fact remains that they were born US citizens and they are afforded due process of law as per the constitution period.
        The professor is a liberal and on the left side of the political spectrum i.e. hes one of your guys so to speak so your argument that he is only one professor is invalid he is one example among many.

        On the NSA your piss poor attempt to obfuscate is well nothing more than I dont have a valid argument to refute my assertion. The fact is congress thinks the NSA is violating the 4th amendment and so do at least two federal court judges, one of which is a Clinton appointee. This isn’t about party lines its about blatant violations of the bill of rights period.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        clouding the facts??? really? by asking– and garnering no real reply– why no legal repercussions have been administered?
        silly me

      • Charles Vincent

        Well the wheels of justice move slow, and rand Paul is attempting to bring legal repercussions in the case of the NSA. As to the other in the case of killing 3 citizens without affording them due process, my answer is congress is spineless and should have nailed Clinton, bush, and Obama to the wall already.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        also– ” imminent” threats to usa allows their demise legally
        of course: imminent is purely subjective

      • Charles Vincent

        Well the fact that the Obama administration even considered using drone strikes on US citizens on both foreign soil(killed 3) and here on domestic soil qualifies as imminent I would say.

      • Deb Furlin

        The threat to our Government is clearly the Tea Party.

      • Charles Vincent

        The tea party isn’t the problem intolerant people like you are the problem. people like you whether they land on the left or the right are the reason I am an independent.

        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=h2zYaKXeyXE

        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=4rdOYN8IPIA

      • Brian

        Paramilitary groups are not militias. The militia were disbanded and replaced with the National Guard. If you want to recognize paramilitary nuts as militias, then you are simply foolish. You’re also using as an argument a document written more than 200 years ago by men who could not have possibly predicted the direction arms would have gone in, considering their idea of a gun was a single shot, muzzle-loaded, flintlock musket that took ten seconds for a trained shooter to load.
        What’s more, in what way is the government becoming a threat? You disagree with them so they’re a threat? You’re being paranoid and seeing things that aren’t there, and you’re expecting your interpretation of a 200+ year old document to be the one that everyone sees as correct. Egotistical much? And even if the government is a threat, what is your $80 Soviet surplus Mosin Nagant M44 gonna do to drones, tanks, and mechanized infantry? The idea that the second amendment could ever be used for a fighting the government is hilarious and the absolute peak of stupidity. Rebellion against a first world government has been impossible since 1945.

      • Charles Vincent

        You need to read the dick act again chief they didn’t disband the militia they categorized them as organized and unorganized and those “paramilitary groups” are militia

        http://www DOT law DOT cornell DOT edu/uscode/text/10/311

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

        “What’s more, in what way is the government becoming a threat?”

        the Obama administration has violated the bill of rights repeatedly as did bush and Clinton etcetera.

        Obama has ordered the killing of (3)US citizens without due process and has violated the 4th amendment repeatedly.

        “And even if the government is a threat, what is your $80 Soviet surplusMosin Nagant M44 gonna do to drones, tanks, and mechanized infantry?”
        I dont own that firearm. way to ASSuME shit you dont know about me. Also riddle me this if rebellion or resistance against a “first world Government” is unwinnable why did we get our ass handed to us by the VC in Vietnam, and why are the terrorists such formidable opponents? Answer its called guerrilla warfare.

      • Voice Of Reason

        Charles, you are the WACKO. Lets not forget that there have been bad decisions by the Courts in general, and Specifically the Supreme Court in this matter. Let’s not forget also that the Supreme Court in it’s decision on guns stated: The Right To Bear Arms Is Not Unlimited!” Also there have been many totally unconstitutional decisions by the Supreme Court allowing for such stupid racist and unconstitutional decisions as “Separate But Equal!” Charles before you call someone else WACKO, Look in the mirror and see if you aren’t talking to yourself!

      • Charles Vincent

        Did you stop at not unlimited or did you read on past to the example they cited?
        They reviewed many documents supporting their decision. I hardly think they made an incorrect one in this case you dont have to like it but the fact is we have the right to bear arms period this right isn’t given by the constitution its a natural right of self defense this is clear in writings throughout history so deal with it, it isn’t going anywhere. People like you who like to reinterpret and blatantly misrepresent things are wackos.

  • Sam

    Is this woman crazy? Would she like to talk to Gabby Giffords, and the Moms & Dads of Sandy Hook? Plus, doesn’t she realize that guns and booze don’t mix very well? When are people going to start realizing that this isn’t the “Wild, Wild West” anymore? I think she is not only crazy, but she is also a complete idiot.

  • white trash religious teaparty

    well; shes as daft as palin but still pretty sexy ( in comparison to the USUAL flatchested religious scum such as malkin and coulter and dana P—-) so I guess I will get her drunk and show her MY “gun”…
    alcohol is wonderful when administered to repressed “Christian” women

  • melloe

    Guns in a bar. What could go wrong?
    I saw enough carnage in Nam and Africa, I don’t want to see it down the block. Only Sick people would carry a gun into a bar….

  • John Cross

    Sorry, but is this the bimbo governor? I will move to SC, buy a bunch of guns, and carry them around with me everywhere b/c WTF that is my RIGHT! I hope bazookas, anti-air missiles, and roadsides bombs are included, b/c what does it mean to be a US citizen if you can’t kill a few officials, police officers and governors now and then???

  • Elizabeth R. Lewis

    I wonder what she would think if one of the people who buys a gun without a permit is a psychotic convicted felon who goes after her or her family. Would she still propose that as a law? This woman, and those like her, are a danger to our way of life. Please, secede.

    • Charles Vincent

      MTersen 9 hours ago
      This whole article is lying. Read the statutes for yourself.

      You still MUST have a concealed permit, MUST prove completion of the required firearm training course from a SLED approved institute or
      sherrif’s office, You are still not allowed to carry a CW onto a school,
      gov building or medical building.

      THE ONLY THING THIS CHANGES IS THE BARS. You can now carry into any building that 1. Isnt on the prohibited list, and 2. does not have a sign saying “NO WEAPONS ALLOWED. Anywhere that isnt prohibited or does not have a sign is fair game, including bars now. That is the only change.

      • Deb Furlin

        “she also announced that she supports a proposal that would allow people to carry concealed handguns without any sort of training or permits.”

      • Charles Vincent

        Link the announcement in what ever article you’re citing.

  • FD Brian

    next up in South Carolina, no driver training or requirements or speed limits, fuck it, let all pile up on the highway.

  • MLR

    I totally understand people needing guns in rural areas. If I lived in such a place I would have an arsenal. I also completely understand having a gun in your home. We do have a right to bear arms in this country. What I don’t understand is why you need to take a gun in a public place, especially a bar. There are a LOT of unstable people out there WITH guns. I do not want to live in a place where some idiot doesn’t like the music I’m playing or the shirt I’m wearing or because I’m texting at a movie to make sure my baby is ok, and I get killed for it. Then the mofo gets off by simply saying HE was the one that feared for his life. WTF kind of country are f**ckn living in now?? We are turning into a f***ckn third world country right before our eyes! We sure as hell are starting to act like it! This gun violence bullshit is getting out of hand and not enough people seem to give a shit that children are getting massacred but oh, heaven forbid a woman need an abortion because oh no, we have to protect life. That’s downright f**ckn hypocrisy. These same f**ckn idiots need to use that same energy to also save precious children that ALREADY HERE ON THIS EARTH! But they find it easier to harass defenseless women. They should have enough “cajones” to harass wanna-be vigilantes that go around killing innocent children and teenagers!

  • Deb Furlin

    What an ignorant woman. All the people of her State need are a bunch of crazy people carrying guns!!!!

  • Kimmy64

    Wow.. who let the clowns in???