Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Because people use semi automatic weapons.....close to 600 million of them, to defend themselves 1,500,000 times a year against violent criminals that democrats keep letting out of jail, over and over again...
Okay, guy, you can pull all these fanciful numbers out... but an America without guns would be a good thing.
If you want to stop gun violence, or reduce it greatly, then you simply have to lock up violent gun criminals when you catch them.....but the democrats keep letting violent gun criminals out of jail...where they go on and murder people.....
We lock up 2 million people, more than any other country in the world including Communist China which has four times as many people. If locking people up was an answer, we'd be there already.
One Justice?The second and third words of the Amendment are "well regulated". So installing and enforcing full regulations on guns were clearly a high priority of the Founding Fathers.every attack on the 2nd should be fought tooth and nail, and then re-attacked.I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....
But....
This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......
As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....
Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'
Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”
From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...
Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?
Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.
The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.
The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.
Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.
If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.
There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.
Therefore they were allowing for regulation to be a reflection of the country as the country developed, and a regulation is not an "attack", but simply a reflection of where the country is at a given time.
The Amendment does not provide for absolute freedom on gun ownership for all Americans.
.
And as Scalia defined those limits....it was essentially banning guns from felons and the dangerously mentally ill.....that's it.........
You don't know what you are talking about.....
One Justice?The second and third words of the Amendment are "well regulated". So installing and enforcing full regulations on guns were clearly a high priority of the Founding Fathers.every attack on the 2nd should be fought tooth and nail, and then re-attacked.I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....
But....
This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......
As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....
Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'
Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”
From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...
Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?
Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.
The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.
The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.
Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.
If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.
There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.
Therefore they were allowing for regulation to be a reflection of the country as the country developed, and a regulation is not an "attack", but simply a reflection of where the country is at a given time.
The Amendment does not provide for absolute freedom on gun ownership for all Americans.
.
And as Scalia defined those limits....it was essentially banning guns from felons and the dangerously mentally ill.....that's it.........
You don't know what you are talking about.....
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
What exactly am I missing here? "Well regulated" seems pretty clear to me.
.
One Justice?The second and third words of the Amendment are "well regulated". So installing and enforcing full regulations on guns were clearly a high priority of the Founding Fathers.every attack on the 2nd should be fought tooth and nail, and then re-attacked.I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....
But....
This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......
As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....
Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'
Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”
From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...
Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?
Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.
The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.
The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.
Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.
If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.
There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.
Therefore they were allowing for regulation to be a reflection of the country as the country developed, and a regulation is not an "attack", but simply a reflection of where the country is at a given time.
The Amendment does not provide for absolute freedom on gun ownership for all Americans.
.
And as Scalia defined those limits....it was essentially banning guns from felons and the dangerously mentally ill.....that's it.........
You don't know what you are talking about.....
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
What exactly am I missing here? "Well regulated" seems pretty clear to me.
.
Let's run with that interpretation. Who is going to impose "proper discipline and training"? Who is to decide what is proper? And what prohibits certain types of guns from having different requirements?One Justice?The second and third words of the Amendment are "well regulated". So installing and enforcing full regulations on guns were clearly a high priority of the Founding Fathers.every attack on the 2nd should be fought tooth and nail, and then re-attacked.I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....
But....
This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......
As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....
Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'
Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”
From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...
Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?
Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.
The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.
The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.
Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.
If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.
There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.
Therefore they were allowing for regulation to be a reflection of the country as the country developed, and a regulation is not an "attack", but simply a reflection of where the country is at a given time.
The Amendment does not provide for absolute freedom on gun ownership for all Americans.
.
And as Scalia defined those limits....it was essentially banning guns from felons and the dangerously mentally ill.....that's it.........
You don't know what you are talking about.....
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
What exactly am I missing here? "Well regulated" seems pretty clear to me.
.
He wrote the opinion for the majority in Heller.....5 justices decided, he wrote their opinion......read Heller, it explains why you don't know what you are talking about...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people,trained to arms”).
And people are speaking up against the government in favor of increased gun control, tighter regulations and banning some weapons.One Justice?The second and third words of the Amendment are "well regulated". So installing and enforcing full regulations on guns were clearly a high priority of the Founding Fathers.every attack on the 2nd should be fought tooth and nail, and then re-attacked.I am not interested in bump stocks.....as many say, they are a toy for gun enthusiasts.....
But....
This article explains why we have to fight the ban on bumpstocks...now true, anti gunners will not understand the argument, but we have to make a stand and this is where we must draw the line.......
As the anti gun acivist said at the march last Saturday, they will take the bump stock inch, and take a mile.....
Parkland Survivor: 'When They Give Us That Inch, That Bump Stock Ban, We Will Take a Mile'
Tarr spoke to the crowd and Think Progress quoted her saying, “When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.”
From the points made in this article, this needs to go to the Supreme Court....just on the unlawful taking aspect of the ban...
Should We Surrender on Bump Stocks?
Neither is a bump stock required for rapid firing of a semi-automatic firearm. Any semi-automatic gun can be bump fired. Think about what that means. If the Executive Branch of the federal government can arbitrarily declare that a certain type of stock turns a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because it facilitates bump firing, the Executive can also reclassify all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, because all semi-autos are capable of bump firing. It's the realization of Dianne Feinstein's dream of "turn 'em all in." If this is allowed to stand, the precedent will have been established for confiscating all semi-automatic firearms without a single law being enacted or even deliberated.
The proposed bump stock ban is also an unconstitutional "taking." The Justice Department wants to compel everyone in possession of a bump stock to turn it in or destroy it without compensation. This is an explicit violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.
The last reason to oppose a bump stock ban is the most compelling of all. Please bear with me. There is a lesson to be learned from events that unfolded in seventeenth-century England. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne and decided he was going to restore the British Isles to Catholicism. Among the Protestant institutions that James II intended to subdue was the University of Cambridge. In 1687, Cambridge was ordered by James II to appoint a Catholic monk to the faculty, an illegal act. Under intense pressure, the faculty at Cambridge agreed to a compromise. The Catholic monk would be admitted with the understanding that this was to be a single exception from which no precedent could be drawn. The controversy was apparently settled, when a man stood up and voiced his objection to the arrangement. He said, "This is giving up the question." Singlehandedly, one person convinced the entire body of the faculty to resist on the basis of law and principle. Cambridge fought the king and won.
Who was this moral absolutist who refused to compromise principle? Who was this intransigent iconoclast? You will recognize his name: Isaac Newton, the greatest genius the human race has ever produced.
If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all "private individual ownership of firearms" recently argued that "even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands." He's right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.
There is no compromise involved or proposed here. In return for a ban on bump stocks, we get exactly nothing – the same situation we have been through now for eighty-four years. Despite the fact that the Constitution forbids any "infringement" of our right to keep and bear arms, we have endured repeated trespasses. In less than a hundred years, we have been subjected to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act of 1993, and countless state restrictions on our rights. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would admit that half the Second Amendment is already gone.
Therefore they were allowing for regulation to be a reflection of the country as the country developed, and a regulation is not an "attack", but simply a reflection of where the country is at a given time.
The Amendment does not provide for absolute freedom on gun ownership for all Americans.
.
And as Scalia defined those limits....it was essentially banning guns from felons and the dangerously mentally ill.....that's it.........
You don't know what you are talking about.....
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
What exactly am I missing here? "Well regulated" seems pretty clear to me.
.
If you really want to know what you are missing, then refer to the federalist papers. The founders are quite clear that they felt the government should be "regulated" by the people and not the other way around.
And as Scalia defined those limits....it was essentially banning guns from felons and the dangerously mentally ill.....that's it.........
You don't know what you are talking about.....
America without guns would look like the Mexican side of the border......gangs murdering so many innocent people they have to use bonfires and furnaces to get rid of the bodies....
And the democrats keep letting violent criminals out of jail....arresting violent gun criminals and then letting them back out is the problem.....
China locks up innocent people.....democrats release violent gun killers....
And as Scalia defined those limits....it was essentially banning guns from felons and the dangerously mentally ill.....that's it.........
You don't know what you are talking about.....
Maybe we need more limits. The fact that there ARE limits mean that we can- through legislation- limit them.
Nikolas Cruz was neither a convicted criminal nor ruled as mentally ill... and he was able to get an AR-15 and kill 17 people.
And he wasn't a convicted criminal because of the democrat policy, pushed by obama, the Promise Program, which pushed schools and the police to not arrest violent students....the shooter brought knives and bullets to the school and had attacked other students and staff...and because of obama's Promise Program, he was never arrested, which meant he had a clean record when he went through the background check...
and the police failed to arrest him on the 38 visits to his home and the FBI failed to arrest him when they had 2 direct calls about his threat to shoot up a school and he was recomended for involuntary commitment to a mental facility but they failed to follow through, also giving him a clean record when he went through the background check...
None of that has anything to do with the 600 million guns in private hands, the 8 million AR-15 civilian rifles in private hands or the over 17 million people who can legally carry guns for self defense in this country.
--------------------------------------------- AGREE and as i always say --- my Curse is upon these lefties and their kids as time progresses and they reap the rewards of their works . -------------------- USA was the best country in the world and lefties , dems want to change it for some Pie in the Sky !!quick comment , anti gunners should be fought at every turn !! ------ just a comment !!
Any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.....and the 1st....and well, 3-10 as well....
Any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.....and the 1st....and well, 3-10 as well....
AGREE and as i always say --- my Curse is upon these lefties and their kids as time progresses and they reap the rewards of their works . -------------------- USA was the best country in the world and lefties , dems want to change it for some Pie in the Sky !!
------------------------------------------- I'm 68 and have always had it made , not rich or poor but always i and Family have had at least ENOUGH all our lives . USA made that possible for my 68 years plus my parents lifetime starting in the 20s and for my Grandparents lifetimes starting in the late 1800s and early 1900s JoeB !!AGREE and as i always say --- my Curse is upon these lefties and their kids as time progresses and they reap the rewards of their works . -------------------- USA was the best country in the world and lefties , dems want to change it for some Pie in the Sky !!
we were the best country in the world.
Then you knobs elected Reagan, and big corporations have been running roughshod over us ever since.
I'm 68 and have always had it made , not rich or poor but always i and Family have had at least ENOUGH all our lives . USA made that possible for my 68 years plus my parents lifetime starting in the 20s and for my Grandparents lifetimes starting in the late 1800s and early 1900s JoeB !!
i only know my Family history and it was always pretty good , not the highest not the lowest . And i was 12 years Union and then 28 years 'nonunion' , alway did ok and that doesn't include any money made as a investor or inheritor . GUNS and the Second Amendment is my issue JoeB !!
