Universal background checks... really?

[candycorn]

We have background checks in this nation. They have been proven legal.

When did the USSC uphold background checks?
Cite the case and quote the holding.

They need to be expanded because firearms are a very real threat to public safety.

As always, you cannot demonstrate the need for, or the efficacy of, the restrictions you seek to place on the rights of the law abiding.

Until it’s overturned it’s the law.

And thus, your "they have been proven legal" claim is... another lie.

And it works.
It would work much better when background checks are expanded.

You cannot demonstrate either of these statements to be true.

Well...challenge them in court. Your move dickless

 

[Porter Rockwell]

We have background checks in this nation. They have been proven legal.

When did the USSC uphold background checks?
Cite the case and quote the holding.

They need to be expanded because firearms are a very real threat to public safety.

As always, you cannot demonstrate the need for, or the efficacy of, the restrictions you seek to place on the rights of the law abiding.

Until it’s overturned it’s the law.

And thus, your "they have been proven legal" claim is... another lie.

And it works.
It would work much better when background checks are expanded.

You cannot demonstrate either of these statements to be true.

At some point, we should bring this endless nonsense to an end. Gun banners want to ban weapons. They do not want to save lives; they don't respect our Rights and they live in a fantasy world. Is it not time to meet them on their turf and decimate their arguments?

For example, the U.S Dept. of Justice reports that:

"About 1.3% of prisoners obtained a gun from a retail source and used it during their offense.

Among prisoners who possessed a gun during their offense, 90% did not obtain it from a retail source.

Among prisoners who possessed a firearm during their offense, 0.8% obtained it at a gun show."

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

Even if they had the laws they want, it would not address the problems they complain about. We have over 40,000 federal, state, county and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, Executive Orders, edicts, case law rulings, etc. and if the liberals could not get some kind of "sensible gun control" after that many compromises, then they are never going to get what they CLAIM to want.

They point to Japan and talk about its low crime rate because you cannot have a gun there. But, they don't like it when we point out that Japan is a homogeneous society. Japan claims to be the most racially pure country on the planet. Does THAT contribute to their low rates of firearm crimes? I think it's a fair question since the most dangerous place on the face of the earth is in Syria - and they have strict gun control. So, why do places that have strict gun control laws have high crime rates? Could the culture of the community be a factor? How about the society's attitude toward drugs? America is the drug capital of the world. Does our lack of values, our experimentation with multiculturalism, and the influx of foreigners into our society play a role?

I think it's time we went on the offensive instead of entertaining the dolts and disinformation artists whose shoe size is larger than their IQ. They want a socialist / communist dictatorship. It's time to quit playing their game and feed them the facts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We have background checks in this nation. They have been proven legal.

When did the USSC uphold background checks?
Cite the case and quote the holding.

They need to be expanded because firearms are a very real threat to public safety.

As always, you cannot demonstrate the need for, or the efficacy of, the restrictions you seek to place on the rights of the law abiding.

Until it’s overturned it’s the law.

And thus, your "they have been proven legal" claim is... another lie.

And it works.
It would work much better when background checks are expanded.

You cannot demonstrate either of these statements to be true.

Well...challenge them in court. Your move dickless

Look at you, unashamed about having to lie to make a point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think it's time we went on the offensive instead of entertaining the dolts and disinformation artists whose shoe size is larger than their IQ. They want a socialist / communist dictatorship. It's time to quit playing their game and feed them the facts.

The facts are simple:
They know they cannot impose their agenda on the people without getting shot, so they need to take away the guns.

 

[Rustic]

When did the USSC uphold background checks?
Cite the case and quote the holding.
As always, you cannot demonstrate the need for, or the efficacy of, the restrictions you seek to place on the rights of the law abiding.

Until it’s overturned it’s the law.

And thus, your "they have been proven legal" claim is... another lie.

And it works.
It would work much better when background checks are expanded.

You cannot demonstrate either of these statements to be true.

Well...challenge them in court. Your move dickless

Look at you, unashamed about having to lie to make a point.

Did I hurt ur feelings dickless?

 

[2aguy]

We have background checks in this nation. They have been proven legal.

When did the USSC uphold background checks?
Cite the case and quote the holding.

They need to be expanded because firearms are a very real threat to public safety.

As always, you cannot demonstrate the need for, or the efficacy of, the restrictions you seek to place on the rights of the law abiding.

Until it’s overturned it’s the law.

And thus, your "they have been proven legal" claim is... another lie.

And it works.
It would work much better when background checks are expanded.

You cannot demonstrate either of these statements to be true.

Well...challenge them in court. Your move dickless

Look at you, unashamed about having to lie to make a point.

Oh, you mean she is a left winger/democrat?

 

[2aguy]

I think it's time we went on the offensive instead of entertaining the dolts and disinformation artists whose shoe size is larger than their IQ. They want a socialist / communist dictatorship. It's time to quit playing their game and feed them the facts.

The facts are simple:
They know they cannot impose their agenda on the people without getting shot, so they need to take away the guns.

As I keep pointing out, mass graves are harder to fill when the victims can shoot back....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think it's time we went on the offensive instead of entertaining the dolts and disinformation artists whose shoe size is larger than their IQ. They want a socialist / communist dictatorship. It's time to quit playing their game and feed them the facts.

The facts are simple:
They know they cannot impose their agenda on the people without getting shot, so they need to take away the guns.

As I keep pointing out, mass graves are harder to fill when the victims can shoot back....

It's all about disarming the law abiding so government can rule with an iron fist.

Let them win this issue without a physical fight and mass graves will be exactly what you have.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I think it's time we went on the offensive instead of entertaining the dolts and disinformation artists whose shoe size is larger than their IQ. They want a socialist / communist dictatorship. It's time to quit playing their game and feed them the facts.

The facts are simple:
They know they cannot impose their agenda on the people without getting shot, so they need to take away the guns.

As I keep pointing out, mass graves are harder to fill when the victims can shoot back....

It's all about disarming the law abiding so government can rule with an iron fist.

Let them win this issue without a physical fight and mass graves will be exactly what you have.

.

I agree with you on the issue that the left wants to disarm us so that they can implement a system antithetical to the values that we cherish. AND I agree that, in an abstract way, the left fears an uprising. But, then again, it is not an immediate fear.

Today, 10 percent of the states have outlawed high capacity magazines. What have we done about it? Trump banned bump stocks and that E.O. violated THREE provisions of the Constitution. There are over 40,000 federal, state, county, and city laws, rules, statutes, regulations, ordinances, edicts, case laws, etc. governing firearms. If that isn't enough laws to say all the "sensible" gun laws have already been passed, then there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.

In my time on discussion boards I've heard their arguments. I spent nearly four decades researching ways to reduce gun violence without gun control to no avail. And one of the silliest arguments the NRA makes is that we should enforce the laws on the books. Stay with me for a moment:

Where I live, if you file a Petition for Divorce, the policy is that the petition will not be accepted without an accompanying Mutual Restraining Order. Under federal law (the Lautenberg Amendment), you cannot own a firearm if you are under a restraining order. Now, a Mutual Restraining is not like a Temporary Restraining Order. It is perpetual. So, if you've ever gotten a divorce in this state, you can NEVER own a firearm. The law is ignored because if the people were suddenly made aware of it, they would rebel. In those 40,000 plus laws, how many other laws are equally dangerous as the one I cited?

We need to be doing more than posting on these boards. We need to start meeting with friends and neighbors, face to face, and discuss these issues. We need to answer tough questions. At what point would you come to my property, weapon in hand, and be willing to lay down your life in defense of my Liberties? It is a rhetorical question you don't have to answer publicly. But, if we're going to "fight back," we need to start discussing what it is, exactly we see as threats and then draw well defined lines in the sand so that all of us know when and how far to go in resisting tyranny and saying no to the gun banning socialists and communists.

 

[Rigby5]

I think it's time we went on the offensive instead of entertaining the dolts and disinformation artists whose shoe size is larger than their IQ. They want a socialist / communist dictatorship. It's time to quit playing their game and feed them the facts.

The facts are simple:
They know they cannot impose their agenda on the people without getting shot, so they need to take away the guns.

As I keep pointing out, mass graves are harder to fill when the victims can shoot back....

It's all about disarming the law abiding so government can rule with an iron fist.

Let them win this issue without a physical fight and mass graves will be exactly what you have.

.

I agree with you on the issue that the left wants to disarm us so that they can implement a system antithetical to the values that we cherish. AND I agree that, in an abstract way, the left fears an uprising. But, then again, it is not an immediate fear.

Today, 10 percent of the states have outlawed high capacity magazines. What have we done about it? Trump banned bump stocks and that E.O. violated THREE provisions of the Constitution. There are over 40,000 federal, state, county, and city laws, rules, statutes, regulations, ordinances, edicts, case laws, etc. governing firearms. If that isn't enough laws to say all the "sensible" gun laws have already been passed, then there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.

In my time on discussion boards I've heard their arguments. I spent nearly four decades researching ways to reduce gun violence without gun control to no avail. And one of the silliest arguments the NRA makes is that we should enforce the laws on the books. Stay with me for a moment:

Where I live, if you file a Petition for Divorce, the policy is that the petition will not be accepted without an accompanying Mutual Restraining Order. Under federal law (the Lautenberg Amendment), you cannot own a firearm if you are under a restraining order. Now, a Mutual Restraining is not like a Temporary Restraining Order. It is perpetual. So, if you've ever gotten a divorce in this state, you can NEVER own a firearm. The law is ignored because if the people were suddenly made aware of it, they would rebel. In those 40,000 plus laws, how many other laws are equally dangerous as the one I cited?

We need to be doing more than posting on these boards. We need to start meeting with friends and neighbors, face to face, and discuss these issues. We need to answer tough questions. At what point would you come to my property, weapon in hand, and be willing to lay down your life in defense of my Liberties? It is a rhetorical question you don't have to answer publicly. But, if we're going to "fight back," we need to start discussing what it is, exactly we see as threats and then draw well defined lines in the sand so that all of us know when and how far to go in resisting tyranny and saying no to the gun banning socialists and communists.

Without getting in an off track discussion of socialism, I am an extreme leftist socialist, and would never support any federal gun control at all because I think it is specifically illegal according to the constitution.
But to be practical, a democratic republic can never allow any significant gun control.
It is individuals who are supposed to be the ultimate source of all authority, not the police or military that we hire.

In the 1960s and 70s, it was republicans who were trying to pass gun control, and I was helping union organizers, civil right organizers, etc. to be armed for self defense against frequent attacks from KKK type groups.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I think it's time we went on the offensive instead of entertaining the dolts and disinformation artists whose shoe size is larger than their IQ. They want a socialist / communist dictatorship. It's time to quit playing their game and feed them the facts.

The facts are simple:
They know they cannot impose their agenda on the people without getting shot, so they need to take away the guns.

As I keep pointing out, mass graves are harder to fill when the victims can shoot back....

It's all about disarming the law abiding so government can rule with an iron fist.

Let them win this issue without a physical fight and mass graves will be exactly what you have.

.

I agree with you on the issue that the left wants to disarm us so that they can implement a system antithetical to the values that we cherish. AND I agree that, in an abstract way, the left fears an uprising. But, then again, it is not an immediate fear.

Today, 10 percent of the states have outlawed high capacity magazines. What have we done about it? Trump banned bump stocks and that E.O. violated THREE provisions of the Constitution. There are over 40,000 federal, state, county, and city laws, rules, statutes, regulations, ordinances, edicts, case laws, etc. governing firearms. If that isn't enough laws to say all the "sensible" gun laws have already been passed, then there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.

In my time on discussion boards I've heard their arguments. I spent nearly four decades researching ways to reduce gun violence without gun control to no avail. And one of the silliest arguments the NRA makes is that we should enforce the laws on the books. Stay with me for a moment:

Where I live, if you file a Petition for Divorce, the policy is that the petition will not be accepted without an accompanying Mutual Restraining Order. Under federal law (the Lautenberg Amendment), you cannot own a firearm if you are under a restraining order. Now, a Mutual Restraining is not like a Temporary Restraining Order. It is perpetual. So, if you've ever gotten a divorce in this state, you can NEVER own a firearm. The law is ignored because if the people were suddenly made aware of it, they would rebel. In those 40,000 plus laws, how many other laws are equally dangerous as the one I cited?

We need to be doing more than posting on these boards. We need to start meeting with friends and neighbors, face to face, and discuss these issues. We need to answer tough questions. At what point would you come to my property, weapon in hand, and be willing to lay down your life in defense of my Liberties? It is a rhetorical question you don't have to answer publicly. But, if we're going to "fight back," we need to start discussing what it is, exactly we see as threats and then draw well defined lines in the sand so that all of us know when and how far to go in resisting tyranny and saying no to the gun banning socialists and communists.

Without getting in an off track discussion of socialism, I am an extreme leftist socialist, and would never support any federal gun control at all because I think it is specifically illegal according to the constitution.
But to be practical, a democratic republic can never allow any significant gun control.
It is individuals who are supposed to be the ultimate source of all authority, not the police or military that we hire.

In the 1960s and 70s, it was republicans who were trying to pass gun control, and I was helping union organizers, civil right organizers, etc. to be armed for self defense against frequent attacks from KKK type groups.

I was not old enough to have known what was going on in the 1960s and some of the 1970s; however, I am old enough that the local Republicans had nominated me to be an elector for Ronald Reagan. I declined the opportunity because Reagan was anti-gun.

Back in those days Neal Knox tried to get me to remain loyal to the Republican Party and support the NRA, but by 1984 I knew that the Republicans were just as much anti-gun as the Democrats. The whole democratic republican thing doesn't work for me. A Republic acknowledges unalienable Rights. A democracy only acknowledges majority rule.

The right continues to lose on gun control because they do not from where their Rights emanate. You claim to be socialist and so does Bernie Sanders. When the socialists find a suitable standard bearer, maybe your denial of what a socialist is may have a different ring to it.

Until then, there is no pro-gun side fighting for our Rights. The Republican leadership has stabbed gun owners in the back every administration since I was old enough to understand anything about politics... like early 1970s(?)

Today, with a generation who can't tell you the legal difference between an unalienable Right and an inalienable right; when politicians - especially the RINO Party cannot even say Republican; when every Republican has to have the Hell beat out of them to force them not to support gun control, then those who believe in and understand the Constitution do not have a leader at the federal level.

If the right truly understood the Constitution, their history and the destiny of the posterity of the founders, rope factories would be working over-time to make enough rope to hang all the traitors in this country. But, the right does not understand the issue fully so, they are on the receiving end - and I have to appeal to gun owners the way Benjamin Franklin had to address his countrymen: We can stick together or hang separately. But, now the cards are on the table, the time for talk is over. The government says you have no Rights and each year another class of Americans are denied their Rights, another type of weapon is taken off the market, another state cuts deeper with more restrictions. And so far all I see is talk and keyboard banging.

 

[Rigby5]

The facts are simple:
They know they cannot impose their agenda on the people without getting shot, so they need to take away the guns.

As I keep pointing out, mass graves are harder to fill when the victims can shoot back....

It's all about disarming the law abiding so government can rule with an iron fist.

Let them win this issue without a physical fight and mass graves will be exactly what you have.

.

I agree with you on the issue that the left wants to disarm us so that they can implement a system antithetical to the values that we cherish. AND I agree that, in an abstract way, the left fears an uprising. But, then again, it is not an immediate fear.

Today, 10 percent of the states have outlawed high capacity magazines. What have we done about it? Trump banned bump stocks and that E.O. violated THREE provisions of the Constitution. There are over 40,000 federal, state, county, and city laws, rules, statutes, regulations, ordinances, edicts, case laws, etc. governing firearms. If that isn't enough laws to say all the "sensible" gun laws have already been passed, then there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.

In my time on discussion boards I've heard their arguments. I spent nearly four decades researching ways to reduce gun violence without gun control to no avail. And one of the silliest arguments the NRA makes is that we should enforce the laws on the books. Stay with me for a moment:

Where I live, if you file a Petition for Divorce, the policy is that the petition will not be accepted without an accompanying Mutual Restraining Order. Under federal law (the Lautenberg Amendment), you cannot own a firearm if you are under a restraining order. Now, a Mutual Restraining is not like a Temporary Restraining Order. It is perpetual. So, if you've ever gotten a divorce in this state, you can NEVER own a firearm. The law is ignored because if the people were suddenly made aware of it, they would rebel. In those 40,000 plus laws, how many other laws are equally dangerous as the one I cited?

We need to be doing more than posting on these boards. We need to start meeting with friends and neighbors, face to face, and discuss these issues. We need to answer tough questions. At what point would you come to my property, weapon in hand, and be willing to lay down your life in defense of my Liberties? It is a rhetorical question you don't have to answer publicly. But, if we're going to "fight back," we need to start discussing what it is, exactly we see as threats and then draw well defined lines in the sand so that all of us know when and how far to go in resisting tyranny and saying no to the gun banning socialists and communists.

Without getting in an off track discussion of socialism, I am an extreme leftist socialist, and would never support any federal gun control at all because I think it is specifically illegal according to the constitution.
But to be practical, a democratic republic can never allow any significant gun control.
It is individuals who are supposed to be the ultimate source of all authority, not the police or military that we hire.

In the 1960s and 70s, it was republicans who were trying to pass gun control, and I was helping union organizers, civil right organizers, etc. to be armed for self defense against frequent attacks from KKK type groups.

I was not old enough to have known what was going on in the 1960s and some of the 1970s; however, I am old enough that the local Republicans had nominated me to be an elector for Ronald Reagan. I declined the opportunity because Reagan was anti-gun.

Back in those days Neal Knox tried to get me to remain loyal to the Republican Party and support the NRA, but by 1984 I knew that the Republicans were just as much anti-gun as the Democrats. The whole democratic republican thing doesn't work for me. A Republic acknowledges unalienable Rights. A democracy only acknowledges majority rule.

The right continues to lose on gun control because they do not from where their Rights emanate. You claim to be socialist and so does Bernie Sanders. When the socialists find a suitable standard bearer, maybe your denial of what a socialist is may have a different ring to it.

Until then, there is no pro-gun side fighting for our Rights. The Republican leadership has stabbed gun owners in the back every administration since I was old enough to understand anything about politics... like early 1970s(?)

Today, with a generation who can't tell you the legal difference between an unalienable Right and an inalienable right; when politicians - especially the RINO Party cannot even say Republican; when every Republican has to have the Hell beat out of them to force them not to support gun control, then those who believe in and understand the Constitution do not have a leader at the federal level.

If the right truly understood the Constitution, their history and the destiny of the posterity of the founders, rope factories would be working over-time to make enough rope to hang all the traitors in this country. But, the right does not understand the issue fully so, they are on the receiving end - and I have to appeal to gun owners the way Benjamin Franklin had to address his countrymen: We can stick together or hang separately. But, now the cards are on the table, the time for talk is over. The government says you have no Rights and each year another class of Americans are denied their Rights, another type of weapon is taken off the market, another state cuts deeper with more restrictions. And so far all I see is talk and keyboard banging.

To just touch on socialism, grew up in WI, which has long socialist governor and mayor tradition.
When its local, it is like employees buying out the company they worked for.

With gun control, like assault weapons ban, unless they also confiscate from the police and military, they are violating the 14th amendment on equal treatment under the law.
I have over half a dozen they will want, and they are not getting them.
Anyone who tries to confiscate, is a clear and present danger to the republic, and after the first person is shot, that will be the start of the civil war.

Right or left does not seem to matter any more, Dislike both Bush and Hillary equally,

 

[Rigby5]

We have background checks in this nation. They have been proven legal.

When did the USSC uphold background checks?
Cite the case and quote the holding.

They need to be expanded because firearms are a very real threat to public safety.

As always, you cannot demonstrate the need for, or the efficacy of, the restrictions you seek to place on the rights of the law abiding.

Until it’s overturned it’s the law.

And thus, your "they have been proven legal" claim is... another lie.

And it works.
It would work much better when background checks are expanded.

You cannot demonstrate either of these statements to be true.

At some point, we should bring this endless nonsense to an end. Gun banners want to ban weapons. They do not want to save lives; they don't respect our Rights and they live in a fantasy world. Is it not time to meet them on their turf and decimate their arguments?

For example, the U.S Dept. of Justice reports that:

"About 1.3% of prisoners obtained a gun from a retail source and used it during their offense.

Among prisoners who possessed a gun during their offense, 90% did not obtain it from a retail source.

Among prisoners who possessed a firearm during their offense, 0.8% obtained it at a gun show."

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

Even if they had the laws they want, it would not address the problems they complain about. We have over 40,000 federal, state, county and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, Executive Orders, edicts, case law rulings, etc. and if the liberals could not get some kind of "sensible gun control" after that many compromises, then they are never going to get what they CLAIM to want.

They point to Japan and talk about its low crime rate because you cannot have a gun there. But, they don't like it when we point out that Japan is a homogeneous society. Japan claims to be the most racially pure country on the planet. Does THAT contribute to their low rates of firearm crimes? I think it's a fair question since the most dangerous place on the face of the earth is in Syria - and they have strict gun control. So, why do places that have strict gun control laws have high crime rates? Could the culture of the community be a factor? How about the society's attitude toward drugs? America is the drug capital of the world. Does our lack of values, our experimentation with multiculturalism, and the influx of foreigners into our society play a role?

I think it's time we went on the offensive instead of entertaining the dolts and disinformation artists whose shoe size is larger than their IQ. They want a socialist / communist dictatorship. It's time to quit playing their game and feed them the facts.

Agreed.
If they wanted to eliminate about 90% of the murders, they would end the War on Drugs.
If they wanted to reduce crime, they would target pistols and not assault rifles.

Federal gun control not only is against the Constitution, but contradictory to the whole concept of a democratic republic.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

As I keep pointing out, mass graves are harder to fill when the victims can shoot back....

It's all about disarming the law abiding so government can rule with an iron fist.

Let them win this issue without a physical fight and mass graves will be exactly what you have.

.

I agree with you on the issue that the left wants to disarm us so that they can implement a system antithetical to the values that we cherish. AND I agree that, in an abstract way, the left fears an uprising. But, then again, it is not an immediate fear.

Today, 10 percent of the states have outlawed high capacity magazines. What have we done about it? Trump banned bump stocks and that E.O. violated THREE provisions of the Constitution. There are over 40,000 federal, state, county, and city laws, rules, statutes, regulations, ordinances, edicts, case laws, etc. governing firearms. If that isn't enough laws to say all the "sensible" gun laws have already been passed, then there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.

In my time on discussion boards I've heard their arguments. I spent nearly four decades researching ways to reduce gun violence without gun control to no avail. And one of the silliest arguments the NRA makes is that we should enforce the laws on the books. Stay with me for a moment:

Where I live, if you file a Petition for Divorce, the policy is that the petition will not be accepted without an accompanying Mutual Restraining Order. Under federal law (the Lautenberg Amendment), you cannot own a firearm if you are under a restraining order. Now, a Mutual Restraining is not like a Temporary Restraining Order. It is perpetual. So, if you've ever gotten a divorce in this state, you can NEVER own a firearm. The law is ignored because if the people were suddenly made aware of it, they would rebel. In those 40,000 plus laws, how many other laws are equally dangerous as the one I cited?

We need to be doing more than posting on these boards. We need to start meeting with friends and neighbors, face to face, and discuss these issues. We need to answer tough questions. At what point would you come to my property, weapon in hand, and be willing to lay down your life in defense of my Liberties? It is a rhetorical question you don't have to answer publicly. But, if we're going to "fight back," we need to start discussing what it is, exactly we see as threats and then draw well defined lines in the sand so that all of us know when and how far to go in resisting tyranny and saying no to the gun banning socialists and communists.

Without getting in an off track discussion of socialism, I am an extreme leftist socialist, and would never support any federal gun control at all because I think it is specifically illegal according to the constitution.
But to be practical, a democratic republic can never allow any significant gun control.
It is individuals who are supposed to be the ultimate source of all authority, not the police or military that we hire.

In the 1960s and 70s, it was republicans who were trying to pass gun control, and I was helping union organizers, civil right organizers, etc. to be armed for self defense against frequent attacks from KKK type groups.

I was not old enough to have known what was going on in the 1960s and some of the 1970s; however, I am old enough that the local Republicans had nominated me to be an elector for Ronald Reagan. I declined the opportunity because Reagan was anti-gun.

Back in those days Neal Knox tried to get me to remain loyal to the Republican Party and support the NRA, but by 1984 I knew that the Republicans were just as much anti-gun as the Democrats. The whole democratic republican thing doesn't work for me. A Republic acknowledges unalienable Rights. A democracy only acknowledges majority rule.

The right continues to lose on gun control because they do not from where their Rights emanate. You claim to be socialist and so does Bernie Sanders. When the socialists find a suitable standard bearer, maybe your denial of what a socialist is may have a different ring to it.

Until then, there is no pro-gun side fighting for our Rights. The Republican leadership has stabbed gun owners in the back every administration since I was old enough to understand anything about politics... like early 1970s(?)

Today, with a generation who can't tell you the legal difference between an unalienable Right and an inalienable right; when politicians - especially the RINO Party cannot even say Republican; when every Republican has to have the Hell beat out of them to force them not to support gun control, then those who believe in and understand the Constitution do not have a leader at the federal level.

If the right truly understood the Constitution, their history and the destiny of the posterity of the founders, rope factories would be working over-time to make enough rope to hang all the traitors in this country. But, the right does not understand the issue fully so, they are on the receiving end - and I have to appeal to gun owners the way Benjamin Franklin had to address his countrymen: We can stick together or hang separately. But, now the cards are on the table, the time for talk is over. The government says you have no Rights and each year another class of Americans are denied their Rights, another type of weapon is taken off the market, another state cuts deeper with more restrictions. And so far all I see is talk and keyboard banging.

To just touch on socialism, grew up in WI, which has long socialist governor and mayor tradition.
When its local, it is like employees buying out the company they worked for.

With gun control, like assault weapons ban, unless they also confiscate from the police and military, they are violating the 14th amendment on equal treatment under the law.
I have over half a dozen they will want, and they are not getting them.
Anyone who tries to confiscate, is a clear and present danger to the republic, and after the first person is shot, that will be the start of the civil war.

Right or left does not seem to matter any more, Dislike both Bush and Hillary equally,

Somebody fed you a line of hooey. The 14th Amendment was presented to us as a way to give blacks the "right" to vote. Problem is, no such right exists... it's a privilege and you don't even have to be a citizen in order for state and local governments to extend that privilege to you.

The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights. It would take me about 50 court cases to walk you through it, but you will notice that I ALWAYS try to bold the word unalienable. That made us a Republic, not a democracy. Unalienable Rights could not be taken nor forfeited. Under the 14th Amendment unalienable Rights do not exist.

The illegally ratified 14th Amendment promises unnamed privileges and immunities, but on the issue of rights (sic), the 14th Amendment granted those to everybody - citizen, non-citizen, every color, political persuasion, etc. They're more like government granted privileges that they are free to take at any time.

 

[2aguy]

We have background checks in this nation. They have been proven legal.

When did the USSC uphold background checks?
Cite the case and quote the holding.

They need to be expanded because firearms are a very real threat to public safety.

As always, you cannot demonstrate the need for, or the efficacy of, the restrictions you seek to place on the rights of the law abiding.

Until it’s overturned it’s the law.

And thus, your "they have been proven legal" claim is... another lie.

And it works.
It would work much better when background checks are expanded.

You cannot demonstrate either of these statements to be true.

At some point, we should bring this endless nonsense to an end. Gun banners want to ban weapons. They do not want to save lives; they don't respect our Rights and they live in a fantasy world. Is it not time to meet them on their turf and decimate their arguments?

For example, the U.S Dept. of Justice reports that:

"About 1.3% of prisoners obtained a gun from a retail source and used it during their offense.

Among prisoners who possessed a gun during their offense, 90% did not obtain it from a retail source.

Among prisoners who possessed a firearm during their offense, 0.8% obtained it at a gun show."

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

Even if they had the laws they want, it would not address the problems they complain about. We have over 40,000 federal, state, county and city statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, Executive Orders, edicts, case law rulings, etc. and if the liberals could not get some kind of "sensible gun control" after that many compromises, then they are never going to get what they CLAIM to want.

They point to Japan and talk about its low crime rate because you cannot have a gun there. But, they don't like it when we point out that Japan is a homogeneous society. Japan claims to be the most racially pure country on the planet. Does THAT contribute to their low rates of firearm crimes? I think it's a fair question since the most dangerous place on the face of the earth is in Syria - and they have strict gun control. So, why do places that have strict gun control laws have high crime rates? Could the culture of the community be a factor? How about the society's attitude toward drugs? America is the drug capital of the world. Does our lack of values, our experimentation with multiculturalism, and the influx of foreigners into our society play a role?

I think it's time we went on the offensive instead of entertaining the dolts and disinformation artists whose shoe size is larger than their IQ. They want a socialist / communist dictatorship. It's time to quit playing their game and feed them the facts.

Agreed.
If they wanted to eliminate about 90% of the murders, they would end the War on Drugs.
If they wanted to reduce crime, they would target pistols and not assault rifles.

Federal gun control not only is against the Constitution, but contradictory to the whole concept of a democratic republic.

If they wanted to reduce crime, they would target pistols and not assault rifles.

They are targeting pistols....why do you think they want to ban "high capacity" magazines and they start at "allowing" 10 round magazines? They know that most pistols carry 15-19 rounds....ban those magazines and you get those pistols. Then, you ban the AR-15 rifle.....saying it is too dangerous for civilians....then you come back and say that semi-auto pistols are the same operating system as ARs and you have to give those up too....

So pistols are on their list...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The facts are simple:
They know they cannot impose their agenda on the people without getting shot, so they need to take away the guns.

As I keep pointing out, mass graves are harder to fill when the victims can shoot back....

It's all about disarming the law abiding so government can rule with an iron fist.

Let them win this issue without a physical fight and mass graves will be exactly what you have.

.

I agree with you on the issue that the left wants to disarm us so that they can implement a system antithetical to the values that we cherish. AND I agree that, in an abstract way, the left fears an uprising. But, then again, it is not an immediate fear.

Today, 10 percent of the states have outlawed high capacity magazines. What have we done about it? Trump banned bump stocks and that E.O. violated THREE provisions of the Constitution. There are over 40,000 federal, state, county, and city laws, rules, statutes, regulations, ordinances, edicts, case laws, etc. governing firearms. If that isn't enough laws to say all the "sensible" gun laws have already been passed, then there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.

In my time on discussion boards I've heard their arguments. I spent nearly four decades researching ways to reduce gun violence without gun control to no avail. And one of the silliest arguments the NRA makes is that we should enforce the laws on the books. Stay with me for a moment:

Where I live, if you file a Petition for Divorce, the policy is that the petition will not be accepted without an accompanying Mutual Restraining Order. Under federal law (the Lautenberg Amendment), you cannot own a firearm if you are under a restraining order. Now, a Mutual Restraining is not like a Temporary Restraining Order. It is perpetual. So, if you've ever gotten a divorce in this state, you can NEVER own a firearm. The law is ignored because if the people were suddenly made aware of it, they would rebel. In those 40,000 plus laws, how many other laws are equally dangerous as the one I cited?

We need to be doing more than posting on these boards. We need to start meeting with friends and neighbors, face to face, and discuss these issues. We need to answer tough questions. At what point would you come to my property, weapon in hand, and be willing to lay down your life in defense of my Liberties? It is a rhetorical question you don't have to answer publicly. But, if we're going to "fight back," we need to start discussing what it is, exactly we see as threats and then draw well defined lines in the sand so that all of us know when and how far to go in resisting tyranny and saying no to the gun banning socialists and communists.

Without getting in an off track discussion of socialism, I am an extreme leftist socialist, and would never support any federal gun control at all because I think it is specifically illegal according to the constitution.
But to be practical, a democratic republic can never allow any significant gun control.
It is individuals who are supposed to be the ultimate source of all authority, not the police or military that we hire.

In the 1960s and 70s, it was republicans who were trying to pass gun control, and I was helping union organizers, civil right organizers, etc. to be armed for self defense against frequent attacks from KKK type groups.

I was not old enough to have known what was going on in the 1960s and some of the 1970s; however, I am old enough that the local Republicans had nominated me to be an elector for Ronald Reagan. I declined the opportunity because Reagan was anti-gun.

Back in those days Neal Knox tried to get me to remain loyal to the Republican Party and support the NRA, but by 1984 I knew that the Republicans were just as much anti-gun as the Democrats. The whole democratic republican thing doesn't work for me. A Republic acknowledges unalienable Rights. A democracy only acknowledges majority rule.

The right continues to lose on gun control because they do not from where their Rights emanate. You claim to be socialist and so does Bernie Sanders. When the socialists find a suitable standard bearer, maybe your denial of what a socialist is may have a different ring to it.

Until then, there is no pro-gun side fighting for our Rights. The Republican leadership has stabbed gun owners in the back every administration since I was old enough to understand anything about politics... like early 1970s(?)

Today, with a generation who can't tell you the legal difference between an unalienable Right and an inalienable right; when politicians - especially the RINO Party cannot even say Republican; when every Republican has to have the Hell beat out of them to force them not to support gun control, then those who believe in and understand the Constitution do not have a leader at the federal level.

If the right truly understood the Constitution, their history and the destiny of the posterity of the founders, rope factories would be working over-time to make enough rope to hang all the traitors in this country. But, the right does not understand the issue fully so, they are on the receiving end - and I have to appeal to gun owners the way Benjamin Franklin had to address his countrymen: We can stick together or hang separately. But, now the cards are on the table, the time for talk is over. The government says you have no Rights and each year another class of Americans are denied their Rights, another type of weapon is taken off the market, another state cuts deeper with more restrictions. And so far all I see is talk and keyboard banging.

Ronald Reagan was the worst. That gun control started just so he could disarm the Black Panthers.

Most gun control laws begin with racism.

.

 

[Rigby5]

It's all about disarming the law abiding so government can rule with an iron fist.

Let them win this issue without a physical fight and mass graves will be exactly what you have.

.

I agree with you on the issue that the left wants to disarm us so that they can implement a system antithetical to the values that we cherish. AND I agree that, in an abstract way, the left fears an uprising. But, then again, it is not an immediate fear.

Today, 10 percent of the states have outlawed high capacity magazines. What have we done about it? Trump banned bump stocks and that E.O. violated THREE provisions of the Constitution. There are over 40,000 federal, state, county, and city laws, rules, statutes, regulations, ordinances, edicts, case laws, etc. governing firearms. If that isn't enough laws to say all the "sensible" gun laws have already been passed, then there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.

In my time on discussion boards I've heard their arguments. I spent nearly four decades researching ways to reduce gun violence without gun control to no avail. And one of the silliest arguments the NRA makes is that we should enforce the laws on the books. Stay with me for a moment:

Where I live, if you file a Petition for Divorce, the policy is that the petition will not be accepted without an accompanying Mutual Restraining Order. Under federal law (the Lautenberg Amendment), you cannot own a firearm if you are under a restraining order. Now, a Mutual Restraining is not like a Temporary Restraining Order. It is perpetual. So, if you've ever gotten a divorce in this state, you can NEVER own a firearm. The law is ignored because if the people were suddenly made aware of it, they would rebel. In those 40,000 plus laws, how many other laws are equally dangerous as the one I cited?

We need to be doing more than posting on these boards. We need to start meeting with friends and neighbors, face to face, and discuss these issues. We need to answer tough questions. At what point would you come to my property, weapon in hand, and be willing to lay down your life in defense of my Liberties? It is a rhetorical question you don't have to answer publicly. But, if we're going to "fight back," we need to start discussing what it is, exactly we see as threats and then draw well defined lines in the sand so that all of us know when and how far to go in resisting tyranny and saying no to the gun banning socialists and communists.

Without getting in an off track discussion of socialism, I am an extreme leftist socialist, and would never support any federal gun control at all because I think it is specifically illegal according to the constitution.
But to be practical, a democratic republic can never allow any significant gun control.
It is individuals who are supposed to be the ultimate source of all authority, not the police or military that we hire.

In the 1960s and 70s, it was republicans who were trying to pass gun control, and I was helping union organizers, civil right organizers, etc. to be armed for self defense against frequent attacks from KKK type groups.

I was not old enough to have known what was going on in the 1960s and some of the 1970s; however, I am old enough that the local Republicans had nominated me to be an elector for Ronald Reagan. I declined the opportunity because Reagan was anti-gun.

Back in those days Neal Knox tried to get me to remain loyal to the Republican Party and support the NRA, but by 1984 I knew that the Republicans were just as much anti-gun as the Democrats. The whole democratic republican thing doesn't work for me. A Republic acknowledges unalienable Rights. A democracy only acknowledges majority rule.

The right continues to lose on gun control because they do not from where their Rights emanate. You claim to be socialist and so does Bernie Sanders. When the socialists find a suitable standard bearer, maybe your denial of what a socialist is may have a different ring to it.

Until then, there is no pro-gun side fighting for our Rights. The Republican leadership has stabbed gun owners in the back every administration since I was old enough to understand anything about politics... like early 1970s(?)

Today, with a generation who can't tell you the legal difference between an unalienable Right and an inalienable right; when politicians - especially the RINO Party cannot even say Republican; when every Republican has to have the Hell beat out of them to force them not to support gun control, then those who believe in and understand the Constitution do not have a leader at the federal level.

If the right truly understood the Constitution, their history and the destiny of the posterity of the founders, rope factories would be working over-time to make enough rope to hang all the traitors in this country. But, the right does not understand the issue fully so, they are on the receiving end - and I have to appeal to gun owners the way Benjamin Franklin had to address his countrymen: We can stick together or hang separately. But, now the cards are on the table, the time for talk is over. The government says you have no Rights and each year another class of Americans are denied their Rights, another type of weapon is taken off the market, another state cuts deeper with more restrictions. And so far all I see is talk and keyboard banging.

To just touch on socialism, grew up in WI, which has long socialist governor and mayor tradition.
When its local, it is like employees buying out the company they worked for.

With gun control, like assault weapons ban, unless they also confiscate from the police and military, they are violating the 14th amendment on equal treatment under the law.
I have over half a dozen they will want, and they are not getting them.
Anyone who tries to confiscate, is a clear and present danger to the republic, and after the first person is shot, that will be the start of the civil war.

Right or left does not seem to matter any more, Dislike both Bush and Hillary equally,

Somebody fed you a line of hooey. The 14th Amendment was presented to us as a way to give blacks the "right" to vote. Problem is, no such right exists... it's a privilege and you don't even have to be a citizen in order for state and local governments to extend that privilege to you.

The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights. It would take me about 50 court cases to walk you through it, but you will notice that I ALWAYS try to bold the word unalienable. That made us a Republic, not a democracy. Unalienable Rights could not be taken nor forfeited. Under the 14th Amendment unalienable Rights do not exist.

The illegally ratified 14th Amendment promises unnamed privileges and immunities, but on the issue of rights (sic), the 14th Amendment granted those to everybody - citizen, non-citizen, every color, political persuasion, etc. They're more like government granted privileges that they are free to take at any time.

I believe you are mistaken.
I believe that what the 14th amendment says is not to give Blacks the right to vote, but that that all citizens be treated equally under the law. So that only if white males of age can vote, that then Black males of age must also.
And this applies to all treatment, not just rights of voting.

{...
14th Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more...

Primary tabs
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
...}

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I agree with you on the issue that the left wants to disarm us so that they can implement a system antithetical to the values that we cherish. AND I agree that, in an abstract way, the left fears an uprising. But, then again, it is not an immediate fear.

Today, 10 percent of the states have outlawed high capacity magazines. What have we done about it? Trump banned bump stocks and that E.O. violated THREE provisions of the Constitution. There are over 40,000 federal, state, county, and city laws, rules, statutes, regulations, ordinances, edicts, case laws, etc. governing firearms. If that isn't enough laws to say all the "sensible" gun laws have already been passed, then there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.

In my time on discussion boards I've heard their arguments. I spent nearly four decades researching ways to reduce gun violence without gun control to no avail. And one of the silliest arguments the NRA makes is that we should enforce the laws on the books. Stay with me for a moment:

Where I live, if you file a Petition for Divorce, the policy is that the petition will not be accepted without an accompanying Mutual Restraining Order. Under federal law (the Lautenberg Amendment), you cannot own a firearm if you are under a restraining order. Now, a Mutual Restraining is not like a Temporary Restraining Order. It is perpetual. So, if you've ever gotten a divorce in this state, you can NEVER own a firearm. The law is ignored because if the people were suddenly made aware of it, they would rebel. In those 40,000 plus laws, how many other laws are equally dangerous as the one I cited?

We need to be doing more than posting on these boards. We need to start meeting with friends and neighbors, face to face, and discuss these issues. We need to answer tough questions. At what point would you come to my property, weapon in hand, and be willing to lay down your life in defense of my Liberties? It is a rhetorical question you don't have to answer publicly. But, if we're going to "fight back," we need to start discussing what it is, exactly we see as threats and then draw well defined lines in the sand so that all of us know when and how far to go in resisting tyranny and saying no to the gun banning socialists and communists.

Without getting in an off track discussion of socialism, I am an extreme leftist socialist, and would never support any federal gun control at all because I think it is specifically illegal according to the constitution.
But to be practical, a democratic republic can never allow any significant gun control.
It is individuals who are supposed to be the ultimate source of all authority, not the police or military that we hire.

In the 1960s and 70s, it was republicans who were trying to pass gun control, and I was helping union organizers, civil right organizers, etc. to be armed for self defense against frequent attacks from KKK type groups.

I was not old enough to have known what was going on in the 1960s and some of the 1970s; however, I am old enough that the local Republicans had nominated me to be an elector for Ronald Reagan. I declined the opportunity because Reagan was anti-gun.

Back in those days Neal Knox tried to get me to remain loyal to the Republican Party and support the NRA, but by 1984 I knew that the Republicans were just as much anti-gun as the Democrats. The whole democratic republican thing doesn't work for me. A Republic acknowledges unalienable Rights. A democracy only acknowledges majority rule.

The right continues to lose on gun control because they do not from where their Rights emanate. You claim to be socialist and so does Bernie Sanders. When the socialists find a suitable standard bearer, maybe your denial of what a socialist is may have a different ring to it.

Until then, there is no pro-gun side fighting for our Rights. The Republican leadership has stabbed gun owners in the back every administration since I was old enough to understand anything about politics... like early 1970s(?)

Today, with a generation who can't tell you the legal difference between an unalienable Right and an inalienable right; when politicians - especially the RINO Party cannot even say Republican; when every Republican has to have the Hell beat out of them to force them not to support gun control, then those who believe in and understand the Constitution do not have a leader at the federal level.

If the right truly understood the Constitution, their history and the destiny of the posterity of the founders, rope factories would be working over-time to make enough rope to hang all the traitors in this country. But, the right does not understand the issue fully so, they are on the receiving end - and I have to appeal to gun owners the way Benjamin Franklin had to address his countrymen: We can stick together or hang separately. But, now the cards are on the table, the time for talk is over. The government says you have no Rights and each year another class of Americans are denied their Rights, another type of weapon is taken off the market, another state cuts deeper with more restrictions. And so far all I see is talk and keyboard banging.

To just touch on socialism, grew up in WI, which has long socialist governor and mayor tradition.
When its local, it is like employees buying out the company they worked for.

With gun control, like assault weapons ban, unless they also confiscate from the police and military, they are violating the 14th amendment on equal treatment under the law.
I have over half a dozen they will want, and they are not getting them.
Anyone who tries to confiscate, is a clear and present danger to the republic, and after the first person is shot, that will be the start of the civil war.

Right or left does not seem to matter any more, Dislike both Bush and Hillary equally,

Somebody fed you a line of hooey. The 14th Amendment was presented to us as a way to give blacks the "right" to vote. Problem is, no such right exists... it's a privilege and you don't even have to be a citizen in order for state and local governments to extend that privilege to you.

The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights. It would take me about 50 court cases to walk you through it, but you will notice that I ALWAYS try to bold the word unalienable. That made us a Republic, not a democracy. Unalienable Rights could not be taken nor forfeited. Under the 14th Amendment unalienable Rights do not exist.

The illegally ratified 14th Amendment promises unnamed privileges and immunities, but on the issue of rights (sic), the 14th Amendment granted those to everybody - citizen, non-citizen, every color, political persuasion, etc. They're more like government granted privileges that they are free to take at any time.

I believe you are mistaken.
I believe that what the 14th amendment says is not to give Blacks the right to vote, but that that all citizens be treated equally under the law. So that only if white males of age can vote, that then Black males of age must also.
And this applies to all treatment, not just rights of voting.

{...
14th Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more...

Primary tabs
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
...}

Teachinghistory.org

Think again...

 

[Rigby5]

Without getting in an off track discussion of socialism, I am an extreme leftist socialist, and would never support any federal gun control at all because I think it is specifically illegal according to the constitution.
But to be practical, a democratic republic can never allow any significant gun control.
It is individuals who are supposed to be the ultimate source of all authority, not the police or military that we hire.

In the 1960s and 70s, it was republicans who were trying to pass gun control, and I was helping union organizers, civil right organizers, etc. to be armed for self defense against frequent attacks from KKK type groups.

I was not old enough to have known what was going on in the 1960s and some of the 1970s; however, I am old enough that the local Republicans had nominated me to be an elector for Ronald Reagan. I declined the opportunity because Reagan was anti-gun.

Back in those days Neal Knox tried to get me to remain loyal to the Republican Party and support the NRA, but by 1984 I knew that the Republicans were just as much anti-gun as the Democrats. The whole democratic republican thing doesn't work for me. A Republic acknowledges unalienable Rights. A democracy only acknowledges majority rule.

The right continues to lose on gun control because they do not from where their Rights emanate. You claim to be socialist and so does Bernie Sanders. When the socialists find a suitable standard bearer, maybe your denial of what a socialist is may have a different ring to it.

Until then, there is no pro-gun side fighting for our Rights. The Republican leadership has stabbed gun owners in the back every administration since I was old enough to understand anything about politics... like early 1970s(?)

Today, with a generation who can't tell you the legal difference between an unalienable Right and an inalienable right; when politicians - especially the RINO Party cannot even say Republican; when every Republican has to have the Hell beat out of them to force them not to support gun control, then those who believe in and understand the Constitution do not have a leader at the federal level.

If the right truly understood the Constitution, their history and the destiny of the posterity of the founders, rope factories would be working over-time to make enough rope to hang all the traitors in this country. But, the right does not understand the issue fully so, they are on the receiving end - and I have to appeal to gun owners the way Benjamin Franklin had to address his countrymen: We can stick together or hang separately. But, now the cards are on the table, the time for talk is over. The government says you have no Rights and each year another class of Americans are denied their Rights, another type of weapon is taken off the market, another state cuts deeper with more restrictions. And so far all I see is talk and keyboard banging.

To just touch on socialism, grew up in WI, which has long socialist governor and mayor tradition.
When its local, it is like employees buying out the company they worked for.

With gun control, like assault weapons ban, unless they also confiscate from the police and military, they are violating the 14th amendment on equal treatment under the law.
I have over half a dozen they will want, and they are not getting them.
Anyone who tries to confiscate, is a clear and present danger to the republic, and after the first person is shot, that will be the start of the civil war.

Right or left does not seem to matter any more, Dislike both Bush and Hillary equally,

Somebody fed you a line of hooey. The 14th Amendment was presented to us as a way to give blacks the "right" to vote. Problem is, no such right exists... it's a privilege and you don't even have to be a citizen in order for state and local governments to extend that privilege to you.

The 14th Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights. It would take me about 50 court cases to walk you through it, but you will notice that I ALWAYS try to bold the word unalienable. That made us a Republic, not a democracy. Unalienable Rights could not be taken nor forfeited. Under the 14th Amendment unalienable Rights do not exist.

The illegally ratified 14th Amendment promises unnamed privileges and immunities, but on the issue of rights (sic), the 14th Amendment granted those to everybody - citizen, non-citizen, every color, political persuasion, etc. They're more like government granted privileges that they are free to take at any time.

I believe you are mistaken.
I believe that what the 14th amendment says is not to give Blacks the right to vote, but that that all citizens be treated equally under the law. So that only if white males of age can vote, that then Black males of age must also.
And this applies to all treatment, not just rights of voting.

{...
14th Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more...

Primary tabs
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
...}

Teachinghistory.org

Think again...

Giving Blacks the vote would have taken a half dozen words.
That is not what all those paragraphs say, because the reality is that rights clearly have changed over time, so the point of the 14th amendment is not to statically state some right, but to dynamically say that all people have to always have equal treatment under the law.
And of course the problem is they then should have given women the vote then also.
But they got around to it eventually, only 50 years later.

 

[candycorn]

Dangerous people are not eligible for bail.
.

So the cop who shot the woman in Fort Worth…

He’s been charged with murder.

Did he get bond? Of course he dd…