The Right To Bear Arms

[P@triot]

Thank God the U.S. Constitution affords this man the right to keep and bear arms...

“It’s OK to have a weapon in your home and protect yourself and your family,” he told the station.

The students in Parkland, FL were are unarmed and are now dead. The man was armed, and both he and his family are perfectly safe today.

Armed father sees intruder crouching outside his children’s bedroom window. Dad doesn’t hesitate.

 

[Issa]

Open your mind, get rid of your paranoia and go enjoy life.

Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...

One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .

Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?

I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.

Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?

Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.

 

[Papageorgio]

Open your mind, get rid of your paranoia and go enjoy life.

Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...

One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .

Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?

I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.

Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?

Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.

I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.

People that believe others are dishonest, might be because they are dishonest themselves and believe everyone is just like them, dishonest.

 

[Issa]

Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...

One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .

Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?

I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.

Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?

Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.

I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.

Than don't judge based on something your are not sure of please.

 

[Rigby5]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

Don't think so.
It is clearly the founders were right to include it, as the federal government has become as power crazy as their feared.
There really should be no standing army or police even.

 

[Rigby5]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are ‘obsolete.’

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the ‘easy route’ often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.

Yes, and it seems to me the solution to protecting kids from violence at schools is more armed security at schools, just as we do at airports and as Israel does at their schools. It has not harmed airports or Israel.

 

[Lakhota]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

Don't think so.
It is clearly the founders were right to include it, as the federal government has become as power crazy as their feared.
There really should be no standing army or police even.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't really need changed to render it legally obsolete. After all, the 2nd Amendment means whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says it means. A liberal SCOTUS could totally reinterpret it.

 

[Lakhota]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are ‘obsolete.’

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the ‘easy route’ often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.

Yes, and it seems to me the solution to protecting kids from violence at schools is more armed security at schools, just as we do at airports and as Israel does at their schools. It has not harmed airports or Israel.

Israel does not have armed teachers, right?

Why school shootings are so rare in Israel, where guns are such a common sight

 

[Issa]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are ‘obsolete.’

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the ‘easy route’ often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.

Yes, and it seems to me the solution to protecting kids from violence at schools is more armed security at schools, just as we do at airports and as Israel does at their schools. It has not harmed airports or Israel.

When a country starts to compare itself to Israel that's fucked up.
The internet will fix this issue...more and more Americans especially the young ones, will realize that other countries don't go through this madness because they don't have a stupid amendment that's causing chaos.

 

[Papageorgio]

One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .

Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?

I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.

Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?

Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.

I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.

Than don't judge based on something your are not sure of please.

I didn’t judge you, I criticized what you said and I stand by that, I think it was demeaning her.

I am sure if she thinks it was demeaning to her, she will let you know. She speaks her mind.

 

[Issa]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are ‘obsolete.’

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the ‘easy route’ often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.

Yes, and it seems to me the solution to protecting kids from violence at schools is more armed security at schools, just as we do at airports and as Israel does at their schools. It has not harmed airports or Israel.

And btw at LAX a guy went through security shot few people and walked all the way to the gate while shooting.

 

[Issa]

I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.

Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?

Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.

I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.

Than don't judge based on something your are not sure of please.

I didn’t judge you, I criticized what you said and I stand by that, I think it was demeaning her.

I am sure if she thinks it was demeaning to her, she will let you know. She speaks her mind.

I stand by my opinion...just mind your business. She is a big girl armed and can stand for herself.

 

[Papageorgio]

Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?

Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.

I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.

Than don't judge based on something your are not sure of please.

I didn’t judge you, I criticized what you said and I stand by that, I think it was demeaning her.

I am sure if she thinks it was demeaning to her, she will let you know. She speaks her mind.

I stand by my opinion...just mind your business. She is a big girl armed and can stand for herself.

Why? What are you going to do? You spewed an opinion on a message board and then tell others to mind their business? Seriously? You are funny as hell!

 

[Issa]

Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.

I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.

Than don't judge based on something your are not sure of please.

I didn’t judge you, I criticized what you said and I stand by that, I think it was demeaning her.

I am sure if she thinks it was demeaning to her, she will let you know. She speaks her mind.

I stand by my opinion...just mind your business. She is a big girl armed and can stand for herself.

Why? What are you going to do? You spewed an opinion on a message board and then tell others to mind their business? Seriously? You are funny as hell!

I can say whatever I want like you said, so I did .

 

[LuckyDuck]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

The 2nd Amendment was not created for hunting or sport shooting but it was created as a deterrent, should a tyrannical government invade the U.S., or our own government become tyrannical. As the far-left is clearly showing itself to be neo-Marxist and against private home ownership, free speech and the 2nd Amendment, they, to me, represent a tyrannical element of our government and we need to keep our weapons, as we will most likely be needing them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

The 2nd Amendment was not created for hunting or sport shooting but it was created as a deterrent, should a tyrannical government invade the U.S., or our own government become tyrannical. As the far-left is clearly showing itself to be neo-Marxist and against private home ownership, free speech and the 2nd Amendment, they, to me, represent a tyrannical element of our government and we need to keep our weapons, as we will most likely be needing them.

There is already tyranny in government. The govt doesn't do what's best for the people. Are you going to stand up or just talk about standing up?

 

[PoliticalChic]

GOPer flips on gun control — and then scorches Trump for banning Muslim travel but wimping out on AR-15s

In other words....yet another progressive is pissed off that President Trump is obeying the U.S. Constitution. Oh well!

There is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right for foreigners to enter our country.

Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking.

"Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking."

And those first two words in your post summarize the totalitarian instincts of all of the 'shameful six'...
Progressives, Nazis, Liberals, Communists, Fascists and Socialists.

Raise your paw.

Preach!

"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."
St Francis of Assisi.

 

[PoliticalChic]

GOPer flips on gun control — and then scorches Trump for banning Muslim travel but wimping out on AR-15s

In other words....yet another progressive is pissed off that President Trump is obeying the U.S. Constitution. Oh well!

There is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right for foreigners to enter our country.

Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking.

"Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking."

And those first two words in your post summarize the totalitarian instincts of all of the 'shameful six'...
Progressives, Nazis, Liberals, Communists, Fascists and Socialists.

Raise your paw.

I’m curious. If progressives are such vicious authoritarians, why don’t we have political opinions that reflect that?

"If progressives are such vicious authoritarians, why don’t we have political opinions that reflect that?"


"Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians"
Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians




First, find the meaning of the word 'oblivious,'....


...and then have it monogrammed on all of your hospital gowns.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are correct there and that is why we as a nation will not ban guns.

You may want to stop being so paranoid. I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you. And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed. You see, I have hunting guns. Not human killing guns.
In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.

How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.

Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.

Never say Never....not long ago blacks were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.

I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.

GOP is part of the racists and the blood thirsty that I know.

Let's check....

While talking a great game, it is well known by all except liberals in general, and the Black community specifically, that the Democrat Party claims to be concerned with support of blacks, their record with respect to black politicians tells a different story…



1. In 2005, the Democrats did not name Donna Brazile to head the Democratic National Committee. They chose Howard Dean.


2. “Gov. David A. Paterson defiantly vowed to run for election next year despite the White House‘s urging that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race.” Obama Asks Paterson to Quit New York Governor’s Race

3. President Barack Obama has kept mum on the fate of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) for days -- but he tells CBS News that it's time for the embattled 80-year-old former Ways and Means Chairman to end his career "with dignity."

"I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served-- his constituents very well. But these-- allegations are very troubling," Obama told Harry Smith in an interview to be aired on the "Early Show." and first broadcast on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. Obama: Time for Rangel to end career "with dignity"


4 Harold Ford told not to run for Senator from New York:

“From the start, Mr. Ford’s potential candidacy angered national Democratic Party leaders by disrupting plans for what was planned as a seamless Gillibrand nomination. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, called Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to discourage him from supporting Mr. Ford, and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York met personally with Mr. Ford to argue against his candidacy.” Harold Ford Jr. Says He Won’t Challenge Senator Gillibrand - NYTimes.com


5. “As state comptroller, [Carl] McCall earned the distinction of being the first African American ever elected to a statewide office in New York. Four years later voters overwhelmingly supported McCall over Republican Bruce Blakeman 64.75 to 32.1%. McCall's reelection in 1998 may have given him the confidence he needed in order to pursue the governor's mansion….The McCall campaign had the support of the Democratic Party; whether or not McCall had the party's full support has been the subject of much debate….Still one wonders just how committed the party was to McCall's campaign….shunned by some of the state's most respected Democrats…McCall blamed his money woes on the national Democratic Party, claiming that the party had abandoned his campaign….” H. Carl McCall for Governor: a lesson to all black high-profile statewide office seekers. - Free Online Library


6. And, most telling, Bill Clinton’s remarks about the black candidate for the presidency:

“[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

Teddy's anger


7. Three staffers working for embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) were asked by security officers to leave an event in downtown Washington on Thursday after they tried to display large campaign signs just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was about to speak. .. Waters told The Hill afterward that the staffers had been displaying the signs at the annual legislative conference for the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which was held at the Washington convention center a few blocks away. “It ain’t about Nancy. It’s about black people,” Waters said. Waters aides expelled from Pelosi event


8. And what Governor of Arkansas made the Saturday before Easter "Confederate Flag Day"?
The Arkansas Code, Section 1-5-107. Confederate Flag Day.
(a) The Saturday immediately preceding Easter Sunday of each year is designated as "Confederate Flag Day" in this state.
No person, firm, or corporation shall display any Confederate flag or replica thereof in connection with any advertisement of any commercial enterprise, or in any manner for any purpose except to honor the Confederate States of America.
Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

"In April 1985, Governor Bill Clinton signed Act 985 into law...'
Mark R. Levin on Trent Lott & Moral Outrage on National Review Online


9. Do Democrats in Congress support blacks by practicing affirmative action in their hiring…and of course this would be our of moral convictions, as they are legally exempt from affirmative action requirements. More than passing interesting, the ‘National Journal,’ a survey of congressional staffers revealed that Democrats hired black employees at the same rate as Republicans: 2 percent. “The Racial Breakdown of Congressional Staffs,” National Journal, June 21, 2005

a. Schweitzer, “Do As I Say,” p. 9


10. Clinton pushed black candidate to drop out of Florida race:

“Bill Clinton sought to persuade Rep. Kendrick Meek to drop out of the race for Senate during a trip to Florida last week — and nearly succeeded…Clinton did not dangle a job in front of Meek, who gave up a safe House seat to run for the Senate, but instead made the case that the move would advance the congressman’s future prospects, said a third Democrat familiar with the conversations. Clinton campaigned with Meek in Florida on Oct. 19 and 20, and thought he had won Meek over. But as the week wore on, Meek lost his enthusiasm for the arrangement, spurred in part, a third Democratic source said, by his wife’s belief that he could still win the race. Clinton spoke with Meek again at week’s end, three Democrats said, and again Meek said he would drop out.”

Read more: Clinton pushed Meek to quit Fla. race


By some strange coincidence, the Democrats, again, force a black to the back:

11. “Under an arrangement reached two days ago, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the current majority leader, would get the No. 2 job of minority whip come January. Clyburn, now majority whip, would hold the post of assistant leader, newly created for the purpose of heading off a contest for the whip position.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...dership-as-clyburn-settles-for-no-3-post.html


12. For a peek into the unspoken view that Democrats have of blacks, look at how Biden finds Obama as different from all the rest of blacks:

Feb 9, 2007 - Biden called Obama first "clean" African-American candidate • Biden ... "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean ... He's smart.



And, in light of the action of Democrats/Liberals, as shown above....this is beyond ironic:



Remember Mark Lloyd, who was chosen by President Obama as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s Chief Diversity Officer, a.k.a. the Diversity Czar?

"This... there's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem.

We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power." Read more: Audio: FCC's Diversity Czar: 'White People' Need to be Forced to 'Step Down' 'So Someone Else Can Have Power'



There has never been a GOPer more racist than Hussein Obama


If any proof of what a low individual Hussein Obama was, one can see a pictorial representation of his racial animus by the 'artist' he chose for his official portrait.

"Obama's portrait artist painted black women with severed heads of white women

Hussein Obama:
Low-life, double-dealing, back-stabbing crypto-Islamist, drug-dealing anti-American racist.

 

[Contumacious]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

2A obsolete?

Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.

A Quiz

Warsaw Ghetto

1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?


2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?


.