Divisions Didn't Begin With Trump

[eddiew37]

Here PC for your reading pleasure
Republicans were wildly successful at suppressing voters in 2016 ...
Republicans were wildly successful at suppressing voters in 2016
Nov 15, 2016 - Voters wait in line outside a polling place at the Nativity School on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016, in Cincinnati. CREDIT: AP Photo/John Minchillo. Last week, the first election in 50 years without the full protection of the federal Voting Rights Act propelled Donald Trump to the White House. Trump will ...
Rigged: How Voter Suppression Threw Wisconsin to Trump – Mother ...
www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/
You can't say Andrea Anthony didn't try. A 37-year-old African American woman with an infectious smile, Anthony had voted in every major election since she was 18. On November 8, 2016, she went to the Clinton Rose Senior Center, her polling site on the predominantly black north side of Milwaukee, to cast a ballot for ...
The GOP's Attack on Voting Rights Was the Most Under-Covered Story ...
The GOP’s Attack on Voting Rights Was the Most Under-Covered Story of 2016...
Nov 9, 2016 - This was the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the VotingRights Act.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here PC for your reading pleasure
Republicans were wildly successful at suppressing voters in 2016 ...
Republicans were wildly successful at suppressing voters in 2016
Nov 15, 2016 - Voters wait in line outside a polling place at the Nativity School on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016, in Cincinnati. CREDIT: AP Photo/John Minchillo. Last week, the first election in 50 years without the full protection of the federal Voting Rights Act propelled Donald Trump to the White House. Trump will ...
Rigged: How Voter Suppression Threw Wisconsin to Trump – Mother ...
www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/
You can't say Andrea Anthony didn't try. A 37-year-old African American woman with an infectious smile, Anthony had voted in every major election since she was 18. On November 8, 2016, she went to the Clinton Rose Senior Center, her polling site on the predominantly black north side of Milwaukee, to cast a ballot for ...
The GOP's Attack on Voting Rights Was the Most Under-Covered Story ...
The GOP’s Attack on Voting Rights Was the Most Under-Covered Story of 2016...
Nov 9, 2016 - This was the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the VotingRights Act.

Remember this?

1. Obama clearly instructed illegal aliens to go out an vote.
They did.
By the millions.

"Did Votes By Noncitizens Cost Trump The 2016 Popular Vote? Sure Looks That Way
...a new study by Just Facts, a libertarian/conservative think tank, that used data from a large Harvard/You.Gov study that every two years samples tens of thousands of voters, including some who admit they are noncitizens and thus can't vote legally.

The findings are eye-opening. In 2008, as many as 5.7 million noncitizens voted in the election. In 2012, as many as 3.6 million voted, the study said."
Did Votes By Noncitizens Cost Trump The 2016 Popular Vote? Sure Looks That Way


2. She says 'I' after making clear that she is speaking for illegal aliens.













Transcript:



RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting.

[And that is who she is speaking for!]

So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?
[Who would come for legal citizens voting?????????]
OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself.

[...a bald-faced liar!]

And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera.

[Meaning: 'Go ahead and vote....no one will be the wiser!']


The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

[Meaning, I guess....if you are living with lots of other illegals...well, heck, at least some of you should go vote! After all....Trump is trying to get rid of you illegals!]

 

[rightwinger]

Trump has divisions with:

Democrats
His own party
Mexicans
Blacks
Muslims
The Press
Hollywood
NFL
Gold Star families
Gays

Did I forget anyone?

veterans..

POWs

 

[radical right]

Republicans have been doing that for eyars.

Like when they put out flyers in black neighborhoods telling them to vote on THURSDAY.

There is no voter suppression.
.

I just gave you an example of republican voter suppression, and you continue to lie that it wasn't voter suppression.

 

[rightwinger]

Soooo.....are you upset with Michelle Obama's statement that Hussein was born in Kenya?

Just wondering.

There is no voter suppression.

NO?? you're jeopardizing your status here You can't continue to lie and support an evil pos like trump

1. I never lie

2. I never use language like that

3. I support what Trump stands for....the antithesis of the poster boy for failure, Hussein Obama

You may have to sulk for a number of years.

Your party will FOREVER be known as the party supporting perverts like trump and child abusers like Moore the pedophile

And let's not forget supporting Putin's Russia!

The ONLY ones with any collusion with Russia are Democrats.
The Democrats colluded, collaborated, conspired with Moscow, the Kremlin, Putin.....to sink the Trump candidacy.
And the Kremlin was happy to do so: they wanted the candidate that they had a history of bribing, to be President.


The only group that we know has colluded with, conspired with, contracted with, been bribed by, paid the Russians, the Kremlin, Moscow....

...are Democrats.

Let's check:

1. There is zero evidence that of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.


There are scads of evidence of collusion between the media and the DNC, and there is this:

The only folks with a close relationship with the Russians are Democrats.

The names Clinton and Podesta come to mind.


2. "52% Say Clintons Should Be Part of Russia Probe"

52% Say Clintons Should Be Part of Russia Probe - Rasmussen Reports™



Here's why:

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

The first Republican President



And this:

3. "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal


...the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.


....major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.


Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons,...."

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html



And


4. "Both Hillary Clinton And John Podesta Made Millions From Russia & Putin"

Both Hillary Clinton And John Podesta Made Millions From Russia & Putin » Liberty Alliance


And


5. "EXCLUSIVE: Dem Super-Lobbyist Podesta Got $170K to End US Sanctions On Russian Bank"

EXCLUSIVE: Dem Super-Lobbyist Podesta Got $170K to End US Sanctions On Russian Bank



6. News anchor highlights all of the known links to Russia





-------------------------------------------------------------


Democrat collusion???



7. "Claire McCaskill Used Undisclosed Foundation to Pay for Dinner at Russian Ambassador’s House


Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) used a personal foundation to pay for a dinner she attended at Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak's Washington, D.C., residence. The senator had failed to disclose her role in the foundation until earlier this month.



McCaskill came under fire this March after she told the Washington Post she never had a "call or meeting" with Kislyak even though she had publicly announced both a call and meeting with him. This week, CNN reportedthat McCaskill also attended a black-tie reception at Kislyak's D.C. residence in November 2015.



McCaskill's attendance at the dinner was accompanied by an $873 payment to the American-Russian Cultural Cooperation Foundation, where Kislyak serves on its board of directors as honorary chairman."


Claire McCaskill Used Undisclosed Foundation to Pay for Dinner at Russian Ambassador's House




8. Podesta Group retroactively files more DOJ disclosures for pro-Putin work


...the powerful Washington lobbying firm run by Clinton ally Tony Podesta filed a document admitting its work for the pro-Russia European Centre for a Modern Ukraine may have principally benefited a foreign government. New disclosures revealed dozens of previously unreported interactions the firm made with influential government offices, including Hillary Clinton's State Department and the office of former Vice President Joe Biden, while lobbying on behalf of the center. Embattled ex-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort failed to disclose his extensive lobbying efforts on behalf of the center at the time as well.


How do you say 'whoops' in Russian? Podesta Group retroactively files more DOJ disclosures for pro-Putin work




9. And we now know.....

..

a. The Russians paid $145 million to the Clinton Crime Family, and in return appropriated a large portion of our uranium.
They have energy....so it in to be used for weapons......
Against whom?
Us.


b. Bill was slipped $500,000 to give a fake speech.
See a. above.

c. " Former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta exits after ... a company that received $35 million from the Russian government..."
http://nypost.com/2017/07/05/uncovering-the-russia-ties-of-hillarys-campaign-chief/

d. "WASHINGTON — Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller,...violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA."
Mueller now investigating Democratic lobbyist Tony Podesta
Russian spies influencing the Obama/Clinton administration via bribes.

e. In 11 months of thorough investigations, there has not been a smidgen of evidence of any connections of Trump to the Russians.




10. The ONLY ones with any collusion with Russia are Democrats.

The Democrats colluded, collaborated, conspired with Moscow, the Kremlin, Putin.....to sink the Trump candidacy.

And the Kremlin was happy to do so: they wanted the candidate that they had a history of bribing, to be President.


The only group that we know has colluded with, conspired with, contracted with, been bribed by, paid the Russians, the Kremlin, Moscow....


...are Democrats.




I fervently await a similarly well documented exposition from you, for your position.

tl;dr

 

[radical right]

So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?]

You do know that Rodreiguez is a US citizen from Puerto Rico. The same place hit by the hurricane that Trump virtually ignored the plight of.

 

[eddiew37]

Here PC for your reading pleasure
Republicans were wildly successful at suppressing voters in 2016 ...
Republicans were wildly successful at suppressing voters in 2016
Nov 15, 2016 - Voters wait in line outside a polling place at the Nativity School on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016, in Cincinnati. CREDIT: AP Photo/John Minchillo. Last week, the first election in 50 years without the full protection of the federal Voting Rights Act propelled Donald Trump to the White House. Trump will ...
Rigged: How Voter Suppression Threw Wisconsin to Trump – Mother ...
www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/
You can't say Andrea Anthony didn't try. A 37-year-old African American woman with an infectious smile, Anthony had voted in every major election since she was 18. On November 8, 2016, she went to the Clinton Rose Senior Center, her polling site on the predominantly black north side of Milwaukee, to cast a ballot for ...
The GOP's Attack on Voting Rights Was the Most Under-Covered Story ...
The GOP’s Attack on Voting Rights Was the Most Under-Covered Story of 2016...
Nov 9, 2016 - This was the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the VotingRights Act.

Remember this?

1. Obama clearly instructed illegal aliens to go out an vote.
They did.
By the millions.

"Did Votes By Noncitizens Cost Trump The 2016 Popular Vote? Sure Looks That Way
...a new study by Just Facts, a libertarian/conservative think tank, that used data from a large Harvard/You.Gov study that every two years samples tens of thousands of voters, including some who admit they are noncitizens and thus can't vote legally.

The findings are eye-opening. In 2008, as many as 5.7 million noncitizens voted in the election. In 2012, as many as 3.6 million voted, the study said."
Did Votes By Noncitizens Cost Trump The 2016 Popular Vote? Sure Looks That Way


2. She says 'I' after making clear that she is speaking for illegal aliens.













Transcript:



RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting.

[And that is who she is speaking for!]

So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?
[Who would come for legal citizens voting?????????]
OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself.

[...a bald-faced liar!]

And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera.

[Meaning: 'Go ahead and vote....no one will be the wiser!']


The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

[Meaning, I guess....if you are living with lots of other illegals...well, heck, at least some of you should go vote! After all....Trump is trying to get rid of you illegals!]

You played at the Trump racist table and got wiped out Now you move over to the voter suppression table and go bankrupt there too? Today is not your day PC Tomorrow doesn't look good either,,,lol

 

[BluesLegend]

1. No, the vast gulf between what are the two sides of America's political divide are due to the very strategies that the Left/Democrats/Liberals have used to gain power: the grievance industry.

Every day, in every way possible,it's divide, cause enmity, and what is known as Identity Politics.


And, to show that it didn't begin with Trump, note that today is the sad anniversary of the death of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.


2. "On This Day: PPD Officer Daniel Faulkner Killed in Line of Duty [1981]

....Faulkner was gunned down during a traffic stop in Center City Philadelphia.

Officer Faulkner, 25, was on patrol early that morning, and had stopped a vehicle driving the wrong way down a one way street at 13th and Locust Streets around 4:00 a.m.

During the stop, Officer Faulkner called for back-up and a police wagon to transport the driver.


While Faulkner's back was turned, the driver's brother, Mumia Abu-Jamal, ran toward the confrontation from a nearby parking lot.
Abu-Jamal, then opened fire on Officer Faulkner, who was able to return fire.

Officer Faulkner was struck several times, and was killed. Abu-Jamal was wounded by Faulkner's gun fire.

Trial testimony later revealed that a .38-caliber revolver registered to Abu-Jamal was found at the scene with five spent shell casings.

Abu-Jamal, a member of the Black Panther Party, was sentenced to life in prison following the high profile case, but later his sentence was later reduced to life in prison without parole." On This Day: PPD Officer Daniel Faulkner Killed in Line of Duty

View image on Twitter


3. "The California Federation of Teachers (CFT) passed a resolution at its most recent convention claiming that “the continued unjust incarceration of Mumia Abu-Jamal represents a threat to the civil rights of all people.” Thirty years ago, Abu-Jamal took away Philadelphia policeman Daniel Faulkner’s foremost civil right: his life. How obtuse of the CFT to disregard “the threat to the civil rights of all people” represented by someone capable of gunning down a man tasked with protecting the public.

The pantheon of leftist saints includes the Haymarket Square bombers, responsible for the deaths of eight Chicago cops, Joe Hill, murderer of former police officer John Morrison in Salt Lake City, Huey Newton, murderer of Oakland policeman John Frey, and Leonard Peltier, murderer of FBI agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams. Notice a pattern?"
Teachers' Mumia Abu-Jamal Resolution Out of Sync Morally and Historically | Human Events



4.

5. What of the civil rights of those killed and wounded in Las Vegas, a much more recent iteration of a heinous crime? That a rich old white man was the perp, and able to buy an armory of guns and ammunition not meet the standard PC sets for herself?

1 mentally ill madman is no excuse for stripping constitutional 2nd amendment rights from 300 million people.

Correct. Nothing in my post suggests such an extreme form of gun control. I understand that is what you fear.

The fact is the confiscation of all guns in civilian hands is nearly impossible, and no rational person advocates such an exteme measure, especially based on one data point.

To paraphrase a cliche, doing nothing is insane. On the issue of gun control there can be no open discussion, because those who bring up the issue of gun control are always met with one of two arguments:

• 'shall not be infringed
• make a criminal out of a law abiding citizen

For the record, my Law Dictionary* defines the word shall in this manner:

"Providing generally, but not always, a mandate, when appearing in Constitutional provisions." 16 Am J2d Const L s/s 92

*Ballentines's Law Dictionary

​

The SCOTUS can rule on what 'shall not be infringed' means if gun control advocates wish to argue this. My money is on the obvious common sense interpretation.

Lets get down to brass tacks on this issue.

1. Murderous killers and rapists exist, fact.
2. Law enforcement officers will not magical appear and save you from them, fact.
3. Citizens are left to defend themselves, fact.

That should be the basis of how to manage this issue. Arm citizens and train them to defend themselves. When enough murderous raping scum have been shot dead change will be achieved.

1a Agreed
2a Agreed
3a Agreed, but with these caveats:

• not every citizen is a responsible gun owner
• gun owners do not have a use of force policy
• not all gun owners are sober nor are all gun owners sane
• not all gun owners are capable of making good judgments
• some gun owners seek an opportunity to be a vigilante
• with a gun in their possession pesons feel enabled to do things they might not otherwise do
• all of these apply to LE Officers, which is why range and classroom are both part of continuous training.

Common sense leaves the room when gun control is debated for the reasons in my initial post. We can argue all day on the meaning of "shall", but common sense suggests some form of gun control makes sense. I posted a direct quote on the word from a legal dictionary.

First convince us murderers and rapists will obey gun control laws, otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrats revealed themselves as Party >Country when Gore tired to hold up the peaceful transfer of presidential power. That was the starting point to the recent divide

 

[rightwinger]

5. What of the civil rights of those killed and wounded in Las Vegas, a much more recent iteration of a heinous crime? That a rich old white man was the perp, and able to buy an armory of guns and ammunition not meet the standard PC sets for herself?

1 mentally ill madman is no excuse for stripping constitutional 2nd amendment rights from 300 million people.

Correct. Nothing in my post suggests such an extreme form of gun control. I understand that is what you fear.

The fact is the confiscation of all guns in civilian hands is nearly impossible, and no rational person advocates such an exteme measure, especially based on one data point.

To paraphrase a cliche, doing nothing is insane. On the issue of gun control there can be no open discussion, because those who bring up the issue of gun control are always met with one of two arguments:

• 'shall not be infringed
• make a criminal out of a law abiding citizen

For the record, my Law Dictionary* defines the word shall in this manner:

"Providing generally, but not always, a mandate, when appearing in Constitutional provisions." 16 Am J2d Const L s/s 92

*Ballentines's Law Dictionary

​

The SCOTUS can rule on what 'shall not be infringed' means if gun control advocates wish to argue this. My money is on the obvious common sense interpretation.

Lets get down to brass tacks on this issue.

1. Murderous killers and rapists exist, fact.
2. Law enforcement officers will not magical appear and save you from them, fact.
3. Citizens are left to defend themselves, fact.

That should be the basis of how to manage this issue. Arm citizens and train them to defend themselves. When enough murderous raping scum have been shot dead change will be achieved.

1a Agreed
2a Agreed
3a Agreed, but with these caveats:

• not every citizen is a responsible gun owner
• gun owners do not have a use of force policy
• not all gun owners are sober nor are all gun owners sane
• not all gun owners are capable of making good judgments
• some gun owners seek an opportunity to be a vigilante
• with a gun in their possession pesons feel enabled to do things they might not otherwise do
• all of these apply to LE Officers, which is why range and classroom are both part of continuous training.

Common sense leaves the room when gun control is debated for the reasons in my initial post. We can argue all day on the meaning of "shall", but common sense suggests some form of gun control makes sense. I posted a direct quote on the word from a legal dictionary.

First convince us murderers and rapists will obey gun control laws, otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

Why do we have laws against murder and rape then?

 

[BluesLegend]

1 mentally ill madman is no excuse for stripping constitutional 2nd amendment rights from 300 million people.

Correct. Nothing in my post suggests such an extreme form of gun control. I understand that is what you fear.

The fact is the confiscation of all guns in civilian hands is nearly impossible, and no rational person advocates such an exteme measure, especially based on one data point.

To paraphrase a cliche, doing nothing is insane. On the issue of gun control there can be no open discussion, because those who bring up the issue of gun control are always met with one of two arguments:

• 'shall not be infringed
• make a criminal out of a law abiding citizen

For the record, my Law Dictionary* defines the word shall in this manner:

"Providing generally, but not always, a mandate, when appearing in Constitutional provisions." 16 Am J2d Const L s/s 92

*Ballentines's Law Dictionary

​

The SCOTUS can rule on what 'shall not be infringed' means if gun control advocates wish to argue this. My money is on the obvious common sense interpretation.

Lets get down to brass tacks on this issue.

1. Murderous killers and rapists exist, fact.
2. Law enforcement officers will not magical appear and save you from them, fact.
3. Citizens are left to defend themselves, fact.

That should be the basis of how to manage this issue. Arm citizens and train them to defend themselves. When enough murderous raping scum have been shot dead change will be achieved.

1a Agreed
2a Agreed
3a Agreed, but with these caveats:

• not every citizen is a responsible gun owner
• gun owners do not have a use of force policy
• not all gun owners are sober nor are all gun owners sane
• not all gun owners are capable of making good judgments
• some gun owners seek an opportunity to be a vigilante
• with a gun in their possession pesons feel enabled to do things they might not otherwise do
• all of these apply to LE Officers, which is why range and classroom are both part of continuous training.

Common sense leaves the room when gun control is debated for the reasons in my initial post. We can argue all day on the meaning of "shall", but common sense suggests some form of gun control makes sense. I posted a direct quote on the word from a legal dictionary.

First convince us murderers and rapists will obey gun control laws, otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

Why do we have laws against murder and rape then?

Adults are discussing gun control, go outside and play rightwinger

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. What of the civil rights of those killed and wounded in Las Vegas, a much more recent iteration of a heinous crime? That a rich old white man was the perp, and able to buy an armory of guns and ammunition not meet the standard PC sets for herself?

1 mentally ill madman is no excuse for stripping constitutional 2nd amendment rights from 300 million people.

Correct. Nothing in my post suggests such an extreme form of gun control. I understand that is what you fear.

The fact is the confiscation of all guns in civilian hands is nearly impossible, and no rational person advocates such an exteme measure, especially based on one data point.

To paraphrase a cliche, doing nothing is insane. On the issue of gun control there can be no open discussion, because those who bring up the issue of gun control are always met with one of two arguments:

• 'shall not be infringed
• make a criminal out of a law abiding citizen

For the record, my Law Dictionary* defines the word shall in this manner:

"Providing generally, but not always, a mandate, when appearing in Constitutional provisions." 16 Am J2d Const L s/s 92

*Ballentines's Law Dictionary

​

The SCOTUS can rule on what 'shall not be infringed' means if gun control advocates wish to argue this. My money is on the obvious common sense interpretation.

Lets get down to brass tacks on this issue.

1. Murderous killers and rapists exist, fact.
2. Law enforcement officers will not magical appear and save you from them, fact.
3. Citizens are left to defend themselves, fact.

That should be the basis of how to manage this issue. Arm citizens and train them to defend themselves. When enough murderous raping scum have been shot dead change will be achieved.

1a Agreed
2a Agreed
3a Agreed, but with these caveats:

• not every citizen is a responsible gun owner
• gun owners do not have a use of force policy
• not all gun owners are sober nor are all gun owners sane
• not all gun owners are capable of making good judgments
• some gun owners seek an opportunity to be a vigilante
• with a gun in their possession pesons feel enabled to do things they might not otherwise do
• all of these apply to LE Officers, which is why range and classroom are both part of continuous training.

Common sense leaves the room when gun control is debated for the reasons in my initial post. We can argue all day on the meaning of "shall", but common sense suggests some form of gun control makes sense. I posted a direct quote on the word from a legal dictionary.

First convince us murderers and rapists will obey gun control laws, otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

Just astounding how stupid these Liberals are....

...hard to imagine the amount of ignorance necessary behind putting up "Gun Free Zone" signs.

 

[rightwinger]

Correct. Nothing in my post suggests such an extreme form of gun control. I understand that is what you fear.

The fact is the confiscation of all guns in civilian hands is nearly impossible, and no rational person advocates such an exteme measure, especially based on one data point.

To paraphrase a cliche, doing nothing is insane. On the issue of gun control there can be no open discussion, because those who bring up the issue of gun control are always met with one of two arguments:

• 'shall not be infringed
• make a criminal out of a law abiding citizen

For the record, my Law Dictionary* defines the word shall in this manner:

"Providing generally, but not always, a mandate, when appearing in Constitutional provisions." 16 Am J2d Const L s/s 92

*Ballentines's Law Dictionary

​

The SCOTUS can rule on what 'shall not be infringed' means if gun control advocates wish to argue this. My money is on the obvious common sense interpretation.

Lets get down to brass tacks on this issue.

1. Murderous killers and rapists exist, fact.
2. Law enforcement officers will not magical appear and save you from them, fact.
3. Citizens are left to defend themselves, fact.

That should be the basis of how to manage this issue. Arm citizens and train them to defend themselves. When enough murderous raping scum have been shot dead change will be achieved.

1a Agreed
2a Agreed
3a Agreed, but with these caveats:

• not every citizen is a responsible gun owner
• gun owners do not have a use of force policy
• not all gun owners are sober nor are all gun owners sane
• not all gun owners are capable of making good judgments
• some gun owners seek an opportunity to be a vigilante
• with a gun in their possession pesons feel enabled to do things they might not otherwise do
• all of these apply to LE Officers, which is why range and classroom are both part of continuous training.

Common sense leaves the room when gun control is debated for the reasons in my initial post. We can argue all day on the meaning of "shall", but common sense suggests some form of gun control makes sense. I posted a direct quote on the word from a legal dictionary.

First convince us murderers and rapists will obey gun control laws, otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

Why do we have laws against murder and rape then?

Adults are discussing gun control, go outside and play rightwinger

Your inability to respond is noted

 

[eddiew37]

1 mentally ill madman is no excuse for stripping constitutional 2nd amendment rights from 300 million people.

Correct. Nothing in my post suggests such an extreme form of gun control. I understand that is what you fear.

The fact is the confiscation of all guns in civilian hands is nearly impossible, and no rational person advocates such an exteme measure, especially based on one data point.

To paraphrase a cliche, doing nothing is insane. On the issue of gun control there can be no open discussion, because those who bring up the issue of gun control are always met with one of two arguments:

• 'shall not be infringed
• make a criminal out of a law abiding citizen

For the record, my Law Dictionary* defines the word shall in this manner:

"Providing generally, but not always, a mandate, when appearing in Constitutional provisions." 16 Am J2d Const L s/s 92

*Ballentines's Law Dictionary

​

The SCOTUS can rule on what 'shall not be infringed' means if gun control advocates wish to argue this. My money is on the obvious common sense interpretation.

Lets get down to brass tacks on this issue.

1. Murderous killers and rapists exist, fact.
2. Law enforcement officers will not magical appear and save you from them, fact.
3. Citizens are left to defend themselves, fact.

That should be the basis of how to manage this issue. Arm citizens and train them to defend themselves. When enough murderous raping scum have been shot dead change will be achieved.

1a Agreed
2a Agreed
3a Agreed, but with these caveats:

• not every citizen is a responsible gun owner
• gun owners do not have a use of force policy
• not all gun owners are sober nor are all gun owners sane
• not all gun owners are capable of making good judgments
• some gun owners seek an opportunity to be a vigilante
• with a gun in their possession pesons feel enabled to do things they might not otherwise do
• all of these apply to LE Officers, which is why range and classroom are both part of continuous training.

Common sense leaves the room when gun control is debated for the reasons in my initial post. We can argue all day on the meaning of "shall", but common sense suggests some form of gun control makes sense. I posted a direct quote on the word from a legal dictionary.

First convince us murderers and rapists will obey gun control laws, otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

Just astounding how stupid these Liberals are....

...hard to imagine the amount of ignorance necessary behind putting up "Gun Free Zone" signs.

You already lost 2 in a row Going for 3 ? Gotta admit you have endurance

 

[BluesLegend]

1 mentally ill madman is no excuse for stripping constitutional 2nd amendment rights from 300 million people.

Correct. Nothing in my post suggests such an extreme form of gun control. I understand that is what you fear.

The fact is the confiscation of all guns in civilian hands is nearly impossible, and no rational person advocates such an exteme measure, especially based on one data point.

To paraphrase a cliche, doing nothing is insane. On the issue of gun control there can be no open discussion, because those who bring up the issue of gun control are always met with one of two arguments:

• 'shall not be infringed
• make a criminal out of a law abiding citizen

For the record, my Law Dictionary* defines the word shall in this manner:

"Providing generally, but not always, a mandate, when appearing in Constitutional provisions." 16 Am J2d Const L s/s 92

*Ballentines's Law Dictionary

​

The SCOTUS can rule on what 'shall not be infringed' means if gun control advocates wish to argue this. My money is on the obvious common sense interpretation.

Lets get down to brass tacks on this issue.

1. Murderous killers and rapists exist, fact.
2. Law enforcement officers will not magical appear and save you from them, fact.
3. Citizens are left to defend themselves, fact.

That should be the basis of how to manage this issue. Arm citizens and train them to defend themselves. When enough murderous raping scum have been shot dead change will be achieved.

1a Agreed
2a Agreed
3a Agreed, but with these caveats:

• not every citizen is a responsible gun owner
• gun owners do not have a use of force policy
• not all gun owners are sober nor are all gun owners sane
• not all gun owners are capable of making good judgments
• some gun owners seek an opportunity to be a vigilante
• with a gun in their possession pesons feel enabled to do things they might not otherwise do
• all of these apply to LE Officers, which is why range and classroom are both part of continuous training.

Common sense leaves the room when gun control is debated for the reasons in my initial post. We can argue all day on the meaning of "shall", but common sense suggests some form of gun control makes sense. I posted a direct quote on the word from a legal dictionary.

First convince us murderers and rapists will obey gun control laws, otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

Just astounding how stupid these Liberals are....

...hard to imagine the amount of ignorance necessary behind putting up "Gun Free Zone" signs.

Don't fall for their lies PC, they know gun control laws don't work on criminals they are not 'that' stupid. But they will pretend they do to attack the rights of law abiding gun owners.

 

[rightwinger]

Correct. Nothing in my post suggests such an extreme form of gun control. I understand that is what you fear.

The fact is the confiscation of all guns in civilian hands is nearly impossible, and no rational person advocates such an exteme measure, especially based on one data point.

To paraphrase a cliche, doing nothing is insane. On the issue of gun control there can be no open discussion, because those who bring up the issue of gun control are always met with one of two arguments:

• 'shall not be infringed
• make a criminal out of a law abiding citizen

For the record, my Law Dictionary* defines the word shall in this manner:

"Providing generally, but not always, a mandate, when appearing in Constitutional provisions." 16 Am J2d Const L s/s 92

*Ballentines's Law Dictionary

​

The SCOTUS can rule on what 'shall not be infringed' means if gun control advocates wish to argue this. My money is on the obvious common sense interpretation.

Lets get down to brass tacks on this issue.

1. Murderous killers and rapists exist, fact.
2. Law enforcement officers will not magical appear and save you from them, fact.
3. Citizens are left to defend themselves, fact.

That should be the basis of how to manage this issue. Arm citizens and train them to defend themselves. When enough murderous raping scum have been shot dead change will be achieved.

1a Agreed
2a Agreed
3a Agreed, but with these caveats:

• not every citizen is a responsible gun owner
• gun owners do not have a use of force policy
• not all gun owners are sober nor are all gun owners sane
• not all gun owners are capable of making good judgments
• some gun owners seek an opportunity to be a vigilante
• with a gun in their possession pesons feel enabled to do things they might not otherwise do
• all of these apply to LE Officers, which is why range and classroom are both part of continuous training.

Common sense leaves the room when gun control is debated for the reasons in my initial post. We can argue all day on the meaning of "shall", but common sense suggests some form of gun control makes sense. I posted a direct quote on the word from a legal dictionary.

First convince us murderers and rapists will obey gun control laws, otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

Just astounding how stupid these Liberals are....

...hard to imagine the amount of ignorance necessary behind putting up "Gun Free Zone" signs.

Don't fall for their lies PC, they know gun control laws don't work on criminals they are not 'that' stupid. But they will pretend they do to attack the rights of law abiding gun owners.

Many criminals go back to prison for firearm violations

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats revealed themselves as Party >Country when Gore tired to hold up the peaceful transfer of presidential power. That was the starting point to the recent divide

I'm gonna have to mark the end about a decade earlier.....when the gutter snipes stabbed, first, the brilliant Robert Bork in the back...

...then, three years later, slandered Clarence Thomas.

The snakes revealed who they really were.

 

[BluesLegend]

The SCOTUS can rule on what 'shall not be infringed' means if gun control advocates wish to argue this. My money is on the obvious common sense interpretation.

Lets get down to brass tacks on this issue.

1. Murderous killers and rapists exist, fact.
2. Law enforcement officers will not magical appear and save you from them, fact.
3. Citizens are left to defend themselves, fact.

That should be the basis of how to manage this issue. Arm citizens and train them to defend themselves. When enough murderous raping scum have been shot dead change will be achieved.

1a Agreed
2a Agreed
3a Agreed, but with these caveats:

• not every citizen is a responsible gun owner
• gun owners do not have a use of force policy
• not all gun owners are sober nor are all gun owners sane
• not all gun owners are capable of making good judgments
• some gun owners seek an opportunity to be a vigilante
• with a gun in their possession pesons feel enabled to do things they might not otherwise do
• all of these apply to LE Officers, which is why range and classroom are both part of continuous training.

Common sense leaves the room when gun control is debated for the reasons in my initial post. We can argue all day on the meaning of "shall", but common sense suggests some form of gun control makes sense. I posted a direct quote on the word from a legal dictionary.

First convince us murderers and rapists will obey gun control laws, otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

Just astounding how stupid these Liberals are....

...hard to imagine the amount of ignorance necessary behind putting up "Gun Free Zone" signs.

Don't fall for their lies PC, they know gun control laws don't work on criminals they are not 'that' stupid. But they will pretend they do to attack the rights of law abiding gun owners.

Many criminals go back to prison for firearm violations

Sure after they rape and murder unarmed citizens OH SNAP!

 

[eddiew37]

Correct. Nothing in my post suggests such an extreme form of gun control. I understand that is what you fear.

The fact is the confiscation of all guns in civilian hands is nearly impossible, and no rational person advocates such an exteme measure, especially based on one data point.

To paraphrase a cliche, doing nothing is insane. On the issue of gun control there can be no open discussion, because those who bring up the issue of gun control are always met with one of two arguments:

• 'shall not be infringed
• make a criminal out of a law abiding citizen

For the record, my Law Dictionary* defines the word shall in this manner:

"Providing generally, but not always, a mandate, when appearing in Constitutional provisions." 16 Am J2d Const L s/s 92

*Ballentines's Law Dictionary

​

The SCOTUS can rule on what 'shall not be infringed' means if gun control advocates wish to argue this. My money is on the obvious common sense interpretation.

Lets get down to brass tacks on this issue.

1. Murderous killers and rapists exist, fact.
2. Law enforcement officers will not magical appear and save you from them, fact.
3. Citizens are left to defend themselves, fact.

That should be the basis of how to manage this issue. Arm citizens and train them to defend themselves. When enough murderous raping scum have been shot dead change will be achieved.

1a Agreed
2a Agreed
3a Agreed, but with these caveats:

• not every citizen is a responsible gun owner
• gun owners do not have a use of force policy
• not all gun owners are sober nor are all gun owners sane
• not all gun owners are capable of making good judgments
• some gun owners seek an opportunity to be a vigilante
• with a gun in their possession pesons feel enabled to do things they might not otherwise do
• all of these apply to LE Officers, which is why range and classroom are both part of continuous training.

Common sense leaves the room when gun control is debated for the reasons in my initial post. We can argue all day on the meaning of "shall", but common sense suggests some form of gun control makes sense. I posted a direct quote on the word from a legal dictionary.

First convince us murderers and rapists will obey gun control laws, otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

Just astounding how stupid these Liberals are....

...hard to imagine the amount of ignorance necessary behind putting up "Gun Free Zone" signs.

Don't fall for their lies PC, they know gun control laws don't work on criminals they are not 'that' stupid. But they will pretend they do to attack the rights of law abiding gun owners.

Doesn't that depend on just who you say are law biding? People with mental issues allowed ??? Really?

 

[BluesLegend]

The SCOTUS can rule on what 'shall not be infringed' means if gun control advocates wish to argue this. My money is on the obvious common sense interpretation.

Lets get down to brass tacks on this issue.

1. Murderous killers and rapists exist, fact.
2. Law enforcement officers will not magical appear and save you from them, fact.
3. Citizens are left to defend themselves, fact.

That should be the basis of how to manage this issue. Arm citizens and train them to defend themselves. When enough murderous raping scum have been shot dead change will be achieved.

1a Agreed
2a Agreed
3a Agreed, but with these caveats:

• not every citizen is a responsible gun owner
• gun owners do not have a use of force policy
• not all gun owners are sober nor are all gun owners sane
• not all gun owners are capable of making good judgments
• some gun owners seek an opportunity to be a vigilante
• with a gun in their possession pesons feel enabled to do things they might not otherwise do
• all of these apply to LE Officers, which is why range and classroom are both part of continuous training.

Common sense leaves the room when gun control is debated for the reasons in my initial post. We can argue all day on the meaning of "shall", but common sense suggests some form of gun control makes sense. I posted a direct quote on the word from a legal dictionary.

First convince us murderers and rapists will obey gun control laws, otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

Just astounding how stupid these Liberals are....

...hard to imagine the amount of ignorance necessary behind putting up "Gun Free Zone" signs.

Don't fall for their lies PC, they know gun control laws don't work on criminals they are not 'that' stupid. But they will pretend they do to attack the rights of law abiding gun owners.

Doesn't that depend on just who you say are law biding? People with mental issues allowed ??? Really?

Mentally ill people will obey your gun control laws? Okay, give us an example of a gun control law that will work on mentally ill people.