Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The left will vehemently oppose this. Know why? Because it doesn’t result in the eradication of the 2nd Amendment and it will end mass school shootings. They still need the latter to achieve the former...
Wrong! - You brainwashed idiots claimed unrestricted access to guns makes us safer & lowers crime, yet the opposite happened. Plus that story you posted is bullshit! The police department here is not overstretched! St. Louis has more police per person than any city in the USA!!!All restrictions on guns in Missouri were removed & it's causing crime, murder & rape to rise to highest in the USA as all other cities fall.
You should understand the issue before you post about it...
The reason Missouri has a gun crime problem is the same as all other states with major cities that are controlled by democrats...
The democrats keep letting violent gun criminals out of jail.....
Rise in Murders Has St. Louis Debating Why
Jennifer M. Joyce, the city’s circuit attorney, or prosecutor, an elected position, complains that in St. Louis, the illegal possession of a gun is too often “a crime without a consequence,” making it difficult to stop confrontation from turning lethal.
At the same time, deeper social roots of violence such as addiction and unemployment continue unchecked. And city officials also cite what they call a “Ferguson effect,” an increase in crime last year as police officers were diverted to control protests after a white officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in the nearby suburb on Aug. 9.
-----------
Now, an overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time to flood with officers. Last month, Chief Dotson even asked the state highway patrol if it could lend a dozen men to help watch downtown streets; the agency declined.
----
When the police discover a gun in a car with several passengers, including some with felony records, but no one admits to owning the gun, criminal charges are often impossible, Mr. Rosenfeld said.
In addition, according to a 2014 study by Mr. Rosenfeld and his colleagues, a majority of those who are convicted of illegally possessing a gun but not caught using it in a crime receive probation rather than jail time. Gun laws and enforcement are stiffer in many other citie
Is it time to register guns?
muster the militia until crime drops.Well the first question is: what is the most constitutional solution?What is the most cost effective solution?
Then the next question becomes: what is the most effective solution?
It’s not until the third question that you ask: what is the most cost effective?
Only one solution properly meets the criteria of all three questions: firearms.
Crime is not the constitutional authority of militias. That would be “vigilantism” and those in the militia would be brought up on serious charges.muster the militia until crime drops.
Is it time to repeal all the plainly unconstitutional federal gun laws?Is it time to register guns?
I fear I might be responsible for this...What asshole bumped this super-faggoty thread by Lakhota?
I fear I might be responsible for this...What asshole bumped this super-faggoty thread by Lakhota?
Trust me...I am feeling the shame right now.I fear I might be responsible for this...What asshole bumped this super-faggoty thread by Lakhota?
Not good.
lol. so what. the right wing is usually only right, twice a day. this is Not one of those moments.Crime is not the constitutional authority of militias. That would be “vigilantism” and those in the militia would be brought up on serious charges.muster the militia until crime drops.
You are a prime example of why nobody takes the left seriously about anything.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
“So what”??? You have no problem with openly advocating for criminal activity?lol. so what.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
lousy reading comprehension, is all the right wing has.It is one sentence and reading the sentence in it’s entirety, it becomes painfully obvious that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.The 2nd Amendment is only one sentence. One sentence. What are the first four words of that one sentence? "A well regulated militia." "Militia" is the subject. The NRA gun nutters are trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment by ignoring those first four words. Try reading it slowly with and without those four words. They have totally different meanings. One that applied at the time it was ratified and one that could apply today. The original version does NOT apply today.
There was never a single moment in U.S. history where that was ever doubted or questioned until the Democrat Party became radicalized by communists, fascists, etc. In the 1700’s, everyone carried a firearm. In the 1800’s, cowboys in the west carried firearms despite never having been a part of a “militia”. Nobody questioned it or demanded that they surrender their firearms. In the 1900’s, everyone from hunters to the mafia carried firearms. Yet again, none were ever a part of a “militia” and it was never questioned. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that you see the communists influence on the Democrat Party start to seep in and gun control start to be demanded by the left.
You can troll all you want Laky...but this issue has been settled. All rights in the U.S. Constitution are individual rights, inalienable rights, and require absolutely no action by the part of the U.S. citizen to enjoy them. It really is that simple.
proof positive.“So what”??? You have no problem with openly advocating for criminal activity?lol. so what.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Snowflake...standard law enforcement is neither “repelling invasions” nor “suppressing insurrections”. None of this is the legal responsibility of the “militia”.
Although I think the high-cap magazine ban is unnecessary, this is exactly how guns should be regulated...at the STATE level. After all, the 2nd Amendment is a reservation of power to the States, prohibiting Congress from acting. All federal gun laws should be repealed.
.Calisphere - JARDA - Relocation and Incarceration of Japanese Americans During World War II
"On December 7, 1941, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The next day, the United States and Britain declared on Japan. Two months later, on February 19, 1942, the lives of thousands of Japanese Americans were dramatically changed when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 (view the Order). This order led to the assembly and evacuation and relocation of nearly 122,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry on the west coast of the United States — but not in Hawaii, despite the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Racism and Prejudice
Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal.
The United States was fighting the war on three fronts — Japan, Germany, and Italy — compared to the number of Japanese Americans, a relatively small number of Germans and Italians were interned in the United States. But although Executive Order 9066 was written in vague terms that did not specify an ethnicity, it was used for the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans. The government claimed that incarceration was for military necessity and, ironically, to "protect" Japanese Americans from racist retribution they might face as a result of Pearl Harbor. (These reasons were later proved false by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians in the 1980s.)
In fact, Japanese Americans and other Asian Americans had long been characterized as a foreign "Yellow Peril" that was a threat to the United States. Prejudice against Japanese Americans, including laws preventing them from owning land, existed long before World War II. Even though Japanese Americans largely considered themselves loyal and even patriotic Americans, suspicions about their loyalties were pervasive. Before Pearl Harbor was bombed, President Roosevelt secretly commissioned Curtis Munson, a businessman, to assess the possibility that Japanese Americans would pose a threat to US security. Munson’s report found (as cited in Ronald Takaki, Strangers from a Distant Shore, page 386) that "There will be no armed uprising of Japanese" in the United States. "For the most part," the report says, "the local Japanese are loyal to the United States or, at worst, hope that by remaining quiet they can avoid concentration camps or irresponsible mobs."
Despite these findings, however, thousands of families in California, Oregon, and Washington were soon incarcerated in government camps. The government — and popular sentiment — understood that German Americans were not necessarily Nazi sympathizers, and could distinguish Italian Americans from Mussolini’s Fascist regime, but they had a more difficult time separating Japanese Americans from Imperial Japan.
The majority of those interned — nearly 70,000, over 60% — were American citizens. Many of the rest were long-time US residents who had lived in this country between 20 and 40 years. By and large, most Japanese Americans, particularly the Nisei (the first generation born in the United States), considered themselves loyal Americans. No Japanese American or Japanese national was ever found guilty of sabotage or espionage."
we have a Second Amendment. we should have No, security problems in our free States.Although I think the high-cap magazine ban is unnecessary, this is exactly how guns should be regulated...at the STATE level. After all, the 2nd Amendment is a reservation of power to the States, prohibiting Congress from acting. All federal gun laws should be repealed.
