# Merging Gun Control in with CCW Reciprocity Bill



## RedLion

A heads up to folks that the swamp creature traitors are trying to screw us over again.....Pass the word.



> Senator Dianne Feintstein and Senator Chuck Schumer and it will send $625 million over 5 years to states to expand the national background check database. The bill will also advance former President Obama's agenda of pressuring every branch of the administration (such as the Veteran's Administration) to submit thousands of more names to the NICS background check database to deny gun purchases. The House bill is identical in every way to the Senate bill except the House bill will also commission a study on bump-stocks.





> What you don't know, and what virtually no one in Washington wants you to know, is that House leadership plans to merge the fix-NICS bill with popular Concealed Carry Reciprocity legislation, HR 38, and pass both of them with a single vote.






__ https://www.facebook.com/RepThomasMassie/posts/1843059172384905


----------



## MountainGirl

Slightly off topic..but part of what you quoted caught my eye and reminded me of something.



> The bill will also advance former President *Obama's agenda of pressuring every branch* of the administration (such as the Veteran's Administration) to submit thousands of more names...


When I brought my elderly mother up here 4yrs ago to take care of her - I found her a good doc and during the intake exam there were also lots of questions to assess her mental health (no problem) but at the end he asked "Are there any guns in the home?" I asked him why he was asking he said he was required to now by the ACA. I told him it was none of his business; he just smiled and said he agreed, that he had to ask but we didn't have to answer, and that he'd just put 'answer refused' into the national medical database he was also now required (by ACA) to use (all patient records now must be digitized & forwarded). FWIW, he didn't like the gov intrusion either.

Seems there will be lots of places that names of gun owners can be found...


----------



## Slippy

MountainGirl said:


> Slightly off topic..but part of what you quoted caught my eye and reminded me of something.
> 
> When I brought my elderly mother up here 4yrs ago to take care of her - I found her a good doc and during the intake exam there were also lots of questions to assess her mental health (no problem) but at the end he asked "Are there any guns in the home?" I asked him why he was asking he said he was required to now by the ACA. I told him it was none of his business; he just smiled and said he agreed, that he had to ask but we didn't have to answer, and that he'd just put 'answer refused' into the national medical database he was also now required (by ACA) to use (all patient records now must be digitized & forwarded). FWIW, he didn't like the gov intrusion either.
> 
> Seems there will be lots of places that names of gun owners can be found...


Free Peoples Need To Resist This Shit.


----------



## Gator Monroe

If you have a CHL / CWP/ CCW then they should know if you are seeing a shrink or on Psycotropic drugs or have a MM card or were ejudicated mentally unstable or knocked 4 of your Wife's or GF's teeth out and have 2 restraining orders on you ...


----------



## Smitty901

We tried to warn you


----------



## Back Pack Hack

So we'll be _allowed_ to carry anywhere, but won't _have_ anything to carry............


----------



## Smitty901

Back Pack Hack said:


> So we'll be _allowed_ to carry anywhere, but won't _have_ anything to carry............


 Back round check every time you cross to another state. 48 hours notice before crossing state line and file your route with State police.


----------



## Camel923

This crap has to be stopped. Data base for the criminal and the insane expanding into other areas. Do not just refuse to answer are there guns at home. Say no. Refuse to answer is a virtual yes.


----------



## MountainGirl

Smitty901 said:


> Back round check every time you cross to another state. 48 hours notice before crossing state line and file your route with State police.


If you asked Siri, or Google Home, or Amazon Echo _or Google Maps_ for "best route, weather next Sat, etc, " - the State police already know when you're coming, from where and to where. See how easy it is to comply? Just gotta give up your privacy to the net...then freedom, then life.


----------



## Smitty901

MountainGirl said:


> If you asked Siri, or Google Home, or Amazon Echo _or Google Maps_ for "best route, weather next Sat, etc, " - the State police already know when you're coming, from where and to where. See how easy it is to comply? Just gotta give up your privacy to the net...then freedom, then life.


 I would never ask siri or google anything. I can read a map and have no need for GPS to get anywhere in the US.


----------



## MountainGirl

Smitty901 said:


> I would never ask siri or google anything. I can read a map and have no need for GPS to get anywhere in the US.


Good plan! Ever book a room online? Or by ammo, gun parts etc online?

My point, that absolutely doesn't need to be made to you or anyone else here - is that anything done online, or with those who will put your information online in _their_ systems as their regular course of business, is what should be personal private information and it no longer is. Of course everyone already knows that. FWIW, Facebook is a no-threat small potatoes poser - compared to the information gathered by your corner drug store pharmacy, your Costco club card, your web browsing history... and, now it seems, your primary care physician.


----------



## Urinal Cake

MountainGirl said:


> If you asked Siri, or Google Home, or Amazon Echo _or Google Maps_ for "best route, weather next Sat, etc, " - the State police already know when you're coming, from where and to where. See how easy it is to comply? Just gotta give up your privacy to the net...then freedom, then life.


Ha! I out smarted them! My Siri speaks another language!
But she is still s shist-koph! Never trust even a foreign Siri.


----------



## MountainGirl

Urinal Cake said:


> Ha! I out smarted them! My Siri speaks another language!
> But she is still s shist-koph! Never trust even a foreign Siri.


Jawol!


----------



## Kauboy

I'd like to know the procedural way in which they expect to "merge" these two bills together.
According to this NRA article, HR 38 is already out of committee, and all anti-gun amendments were denied: https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-next-week

With the bill out of committee, I think the only method left for allowing any amendments will be in an open forum on the floor before the vote itself.
Regardless of what "the leadership" wants, if it takes an open forum to add this, all necessary votes to pass HR 38 should be present to deny this alteration.
Call your reps and make sure they know you want separate votes.\



Smitty901 said:


> We tried to warn you


Technically, no, you never tried to warn about this. Anybody and their dog could have predicted anti-gun people would do what anti-gun people do.
You claimed that the national reciprocity bill would, in itself, be bad for concealed carry.
The merging of a NICS bill is hardly the same claim, and doesn't mention carry at all.

Keep us informed if you actually get it right, but let's not go bragging about something "close enough" when a waterhead could have guessed they would try to ride something in on coat tails.


----------



## Smitty901

Kauboy said:


> I'd like to know the procedural way in which they expect to "merge" these two bills together.
> According to this NRA article, HR 38 is already out of committee, and all anti-gun amendments were denied: https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-next-week
> 
> With the bill out of committee, I think the only method left for allowing any amendments will be in an open forum on the floor before the vote itself.
> Regardless of what "the leadership" wants, if it takes an open forum to add this, all necessary votes to pass HR 38 should be present to deny this alteration.
> Call your reps and make sure they know you want separate votes.\
> 
> Technically, no, you never tried to warn about this. Anybody and their dog could have predicted anti-gun people would do what anti-gun people do.
> You claimed that the national reciprocity bill would, in itself, be bad for concealed carry.
> The merging of a NICS bill is hardly the same claim, and doesn't mention carry at all.
> 
> Keep us informed if you actually get it right, but let's not go bragging about something "close enough" when a waterhead could have guessed they would try to ride something in on coat tails.


 I did warn ya. They would use this for other purposes . It did not take long for it to start


----------



## Gator Monroe

Same way Obama wormed anti-gun undercurrent into ACA ...


----------



## Kauboy

Smitty901 said:


> I did warn ya. They would use this for other purposes . It did not take long for it to start


You just have to press it, don't ya?
No, you very specifically called out the National Reciprocity bill as being potentially detrimental to state concealed carry.
"National CC will be the end of CC rights."

This flight of fancy you're claiming credit for has nothing to do with the National Reciprocity bill, or even concealed carry in general.
If they'd tacked on a bump stock ban bill, you'd still probably think you called something right, even if that had nothing to do with your original premise either.

The facts are, you claimed CC would be hurt, and then claimed credit when a NICS bill was mentioned. The two are not even remotely similar.

You tried to hit the target with a .22, then blasted a shotgun at it afterward to claim you hit it, and hoped nobody would notice.


----------



## Gator Monroe

If Prices go up and requirements for Special Training & Classes are imposed then folks in Texas and other so called "Free States" may be agitated ...


----------



## Smitty901

Kauboy said:


> You just have to press it, don't ya?
> No, you very specifically called out the National Reciprocity bill as being potentially detrimental to state concealed carry.
> "National CC will be the end of CC rights."
> 
> This flight of fancy you're claiming credit for has nothing to do with the National Reciprocity bill, or even concealed carry in general.
> If they'd tacked on a bump stock ban bill, you'd still probably think you called something right, even if that had nothing to do with your original premise either.
> 
> The facts are, you claimed CC would be hurt, and then claimed credit when a NICS bill was mentioned. The two are not even remotely similar.
> 
> You tried to hit the target with a .22, then blasted a shotgun at it afterward to claim you hit it, and hoped nobody would notice.


 This first round is just the start of what they will do with it. A jab here a jab there soon to late.


----------



## Kauboy

Smitty901 said:


> This first round is just the start of what they will do with it. A jab here a jab there soon to late.


Congratulations, you literally just described every single law ever.

As for "first round", I can only assume you mean an alteration to the law after this version passes, since this one is out of committee and no longer open for amendments submitted in that fashion.
It could literally move to a floor vote this week.

So yes, just like any other law in the history of the country, it could change over time. Could be better, could be worse. That's not quite Nostradamus worthy.

The point that the "pro" side has been making is, this is a good first step. Codify our right to carry between states, from a federal standpoint, since the right to keep and bear is irrespective of state. Saying no to this bill is akin to claiming that each state should have its own free speech laws, and a person from Texas can't speak ill about the governor of Wisconsin while visiting. Would you support that kind of logic? Or, would you support a federal bill that stated all states must allow free speech, just as the constitution intended?
Does the thought of a national bill scare you that much that you would assume a federal law demanding free speech be respected immediately be considered a bad thing because of some ominous and unproven potential for that bill to eventually say the exact opposite? As if they couldn't try to pass the equivalent of the exact opposite via any other rider to any other bill ever?
Really?

If anything, making this its own bill brings the idea and debate to the forefront, and gets people to notice it, instead of backhanding it into an amendment to the education bill, or something equally unrelated. Have we grown so accustomed to groveling for our gun rights that we wish things didn't reach the national purview? Are we that afraid to demand our rights be respected?

Not I.


----------



## Stick

I've never had a MD or a PA or RN ask if there were guns in the home. I did have a doctor who told me he had a Colt SAA. He was my primary physician for the next 13 years, and a good doctor.


----------



## MountainGirl

Stick said:


> I've never had a MD or a PA or RN ask if there were guns in the home. I did have a doctor who told me he had a Colt SAA. He was my primary physician for the next 13 years, and a good doctor.


Was it since the ACA was rolled-out IN 2010? It might be some docs are refusing to ask it, or they just ask their new patients. We were asked in 2012 at mom's new patient intake, and told then the asking about guns was now required...along with digitizing all patients personal information, medical issues, treatments, prescriptions, etc, to go onto the national database.

Edit to add:
Well hell. I just googled: _Does the ACA require physicians to inquire about guns in patient's homes? _and the answers are all over the place. Some say yes they can, some say yes they must, some say no they cant and others say it depends. 
It all sucks, imo. Too bad Obamacare didn't get repealed. Maybe the mandate going away will help; if it's removal survives the tax reform bill.


----------



## Medic33

I am a little confused here -A medical doctor has no business asking if you have guns in the home-what part of their line of work requires a question like that?
were does it even suggest that a physician needs to know this? I have never had a doc ask this question - and if they did I would tell them" none of your Fu89'ing business."
now they do have an obligation to report gun shot wounds but not a requirement unless asked by law enforcement specifically.


----------



## Prepared One

MountainGirl said:


> Slightly off topic..but part of what you quoted caught my eye and reminded me of something.
> 
> When I brought my elderly mother up here 4yrs ago to take care of her - I found her a good doc and during the intake exam there were also lots of questions to assess her mental health (no problem) but at the end he asked "Are there any guns in the home?" I asked him why he was asking he said he was required to now by the ACA. I told him it was none of his business; he just smiled and said he agreed, that he had to ask but we didn't have to answer, and that he'd just put 'answer refused' into the national medical database he was also now required (by ACA) to use (all patient records now must be digitized & forwarded). FWIW, he didn't like the gov intrusion either.
> 
> Seems there will be lots of places that names of gun owners can be found...


You can bet when and if the time ever comes they will not differentiate the difference between, Yes, I have enough guns to start WWIII and "answer refused". :tango_face_wink:


----------



## Smitty901

Medic33 said:


> I am a little confused here -A medical doctor has no business asking if you have guns in the home-what part of their line of work requires a question like that?
> were does it even suggest that a physician needs to know this? I have never had a doc ask this question - and if they did I would tell them" none of your Fu89'ing business."
> now they do have an obligation to report gun shot wounds but not a requirement unless asked by law enforcement specifically.


 Obama care requires they ask, also public school inquire about guns in the home of students. Yes I have been ask about guns when checking in at a hospital for test. Also when taken in after a motorcycle crash. I told them that had nothing to do with my medical care.


----------



## Smitty901

Kauboy said:


> Congratulations, you literally just described every single law ever.
> 
> As for "first round", I can only assume you mean an alteration to the law after this version passes, since this one is out of committee and no longer open for amendments submitted in that fashion.
> It could literally move to a floor vote this week.
> 
> So yes, just like any other law in the history of the country, it could change over time. Could be better, could be worse. That's not quite Nostradamus worthy.
> 
> The point that the "pro" side has been making is, this is a good first step. Codify our right to carry between states, from a federal standpoint, since the right to keep and bear is irrespective of state. Saying no to this bill is akin to claiming that each state should have its own free speech laws, and a person from Texas can't speak ill about the governor of Wisconsin while visiting. Would you support that kind of logic? Or, would you support a federal bill that stated all states must allow free speech, just as the constitution intended?
> Does the thought of a national bill scare you that much that you would assume a federal law demanding free speech be respected immediately be considered a bad thing because of some ominous and unproven potential for that bill to eventually say the exact opposite? As if they couldn't try to pass the equivalent of the exact opposite via any other rider to any other bill ever?
> Really?
> 
> If anything, making this its own bill brings the idea and debate to the forefront, and gets people to notice it, instead of backhanding it into an amendment to the education bill, or something equally unrelated. Have we grown so accustomed to groveling for our gun rights that we wish things didn't reach the national purview? Are we that afraid to demand our rights be respected?
> 
> Not I.


 We should not have to give up anything for a right. I am not ok with giving up anything to get a half ass so called national right to CC. It is smoke and mirrors . We carry when we travel, Forced to avoid some states like IL. The law there is to vague, not worth the rest of dealing with an anti-gun DA or LEO.


----------



## Kauboy

Smitty901 said:


> We should not have to give up anything for a right.


Agreed...


Smitty901 said:


> We carry when we travel, Forced to avoid some states like IL. The law there is to vague, not worth the rest of dealing with an anti-gun DA or LEO.


Wait... what?
But.. you just said...

Now I'm terribly confused.
First, you start with the assertion that we should not have to give up ANYTHING for a right.
Then, in the next breath, you speak about avoiding travel through entire states in the union... for a right.
You forgo your right to travel freely across this nation because of some anti-gun authority, yet don't support a law forcing them to respect your carry right because of some unknowable future "fear"?

Seriously man, my head almost came off trying to follow that abrupt reversal.


----------



## MI.oldguy

I have never had ANY doctor or assistant ask me or my wife if we have firearms.my primary Dr. is different though,we have gone shooting together.just lucky about the firearms question I guess or,due to our area they just don't ask it?.I don't know.

About the reciprocity though,I feel that under my presumption that it will be null in the anti gun states like California,Hawaii,Illinois etc.though as they will fight every last tooth and nail and dollar in their (taxpayers coffers) against this bill.its going to be like the sanctuary city crap,it will be in court for years.

As other previous ops have said,the swamp is a tricky place.I think the dems may and will sneak something in to @#$%& us.

Personally we dont travel too much anymore and,when we do going from Mi,towards WA,we can carry legally.and we do.


----------



## Smitty901

Kauboy said:


> Agreed...
> 
> Wait... what?
> But.. you just said...
> 
> Now I'm terribly confused.
> First, you start with the assertion that we should not have to give up ANYTHING for a right.
> Then, in the next breath, you speak about avoiding travel through entire states in the union... for a right.
> You forgo your right to travel freely across this nation because of some anti-gun authority, yet don't support a law forcing them to respect your carry right because of some unknowable future "fear"?
> 
> Seriously man, my head almost came off trying to follow that abrupt reversal.


 Avoid some places is the only option we have right now. The phony bill be debated right now is not a cure but a new door into more control. I understand you support it. Fine it is a scan . Was from day one will always be. You can not enforce CC nation wide without giving up rights. At least in most states right now I can CC without issue. Once the figure how to get 50 states to agree our right will be so watered down it will be worthless. 
I wish I was wrong but history says I am not.


----------



## Kauboy

Smitty901 said:


> Avoid some places is the only option we have right now. The phony bill be debated right now is not a cure but a new door into more control. I understand you support it. Fine it is a scan . Was from day one will always be. You can not enforce CC nation wide without giving up rights. At least in most states right now I can CC without issue. Once the figure how to get 50 states to agree our right will be so watered down it will be worthless.
> I wish I was wrong but history says I am not.


You just keep saying the same thing, which applies to every piece of legislation ever passed.
Let me clear it up for you. Politicians lie, and everything they do is a scam. You and I are suppose to hold their feet to the fire, and ensure they don't get away with it. That doesn't mean we say no to everything just because we know they lie.
I can't understand your point of view where you think we are better off allowing some states to restrict rights. That's nonsensical.
I fully agree that states get leeway when it comes to MANY things. The 9th and 10th Amendments guarantee it. But when it comes to rights? ZERO LEEWAY.

Certain things should be fought for, and I think rights are one of those things, despite the possible risk involved. It's our duty to win, and to mitigate the negative risks by staying involved.


----------



## Smitty901

Kauboy said:


> You just keep saying the same thing, which applies to every piece of legislation ever passed.
> Let me clear it up for you. Politicians lie, and everything they do is a scam. You and I are suppose to hold their feet to the fire, and ensure they don't get away with it. That doesn't mean we say no to everything just because we know they lie.
> I can't understand your point of view where you think we are better off allowing some states to restrict rights. That's nonsensical.
> I fully agree that states get leeway when it comes to MANY things. The 9th and 10th Amendments guarantee it. But when it comes to rights? ZERO LEEWAY.
> 
> Certain things should be fought for, and I think rights are one of those things, despite the possible risk involved. It's our duty to win, and to mitigate the negative risks by staying involved.


 You can not clear anything up for me I get it. I worked 20 years to get CC in Wisconsin we got a good bill in the end. Da's and LEO abused open carry people we needed to do something. 50 states what bill will they pass this way that makes all 50 happy ? Will we all be forced to follow what the strictest state says ? Do you really think we will have 50 different state laws to follow. IF so what other restriction will CA, TX of some other state place on us. Right now most states I am good to go. Sure I would love to have no restriction but that is not going to happen. Not willing to risk losing what rights I have now over a pipe dream.
Willing to bet Wisconsin open carry and CC and weapon purchasing is much better or equal to TX. 20 years of fighting passed it only to have a democrat governor veto it. Fought to get Walker elected so we could get it passed and they did with even a better deal. Stood on stage with him the day he signed it. Not new to this fight for what should not even be a fight for the right to be armed.


----------



## Kauboy

Smitty901 said:


> You can not clear anything up for me I get it. I worked 20 years to get CC in Wisconsin we got a good bill in the end. Da's and LEO abused open carry people we needed to do something. 50 states what bill will they pass this way that makes all 50 happy ? Will we all be forced to follow what the strictest state says ? Do you really think we will have 50 different state laws to follow. IF so what other restriction will CA, TX of some other state place on us. Right now most states I am good to go. Sure I would love to have no restriction but that is not going to happen. Not willing to risk losing what rights I have now over a pipe dream.
> Willing to bet Wisconsin open carry and CC and weapon purchasing is much better or equal to TX. 20 years of fighting passed it only to have a democrat governor veto it. Fought to get Walker elected so we could get it passed and they did with even a better deal. Stood on stage with him the day he signed it. Not new to this fight for what should not even be a fight for the right to be armed.


You're making things up about this NR bill that just aren't there.
Have you bothered to read the thing?
It's about 4 pages, and most of that is administrative. It's not intended to make 50 states happy. It's intended to make citizens happy. It doesn't mean TX laws, or CA laws, are enforced in some other random state. It means that if you have a permit to carry in ANY state, it must be recognized in EVERY state. What issue could you possibly have with that? It doesn't mean that if I have a TX LTC and can open carry here, that I'll get to open carry in NY. It means that if that other state has a carry license, I get to carry concealed in that state, and abide by the laws of the state I'm carrying in.
Honestly, how you can be worried about this is beyond me.
You can keep your own state laws. We can keep our own state laws, but if either of us visit the other, our license to carry is valid and we must follow the other's laws while there, just like a driver license. Get it?

Surely you're not of the impression that, because I can get an LTC in Texas, that New York is going to completely remove their own carry permit system just to screw over visiting Texans, do you?


----------



## Jammer Six

Smitty901 said:


> We tried to warn you


We tried to warn you.


----------



## Smitty901

Kauboy said:


> You're making things up about this NR bill that just aren't there.
> Have you bothered to read the thing?
> It's about 4 pages, and most of that is administrative. It's not intended to make 50 states happy. It's intended to make citizens happy. It doesn't mean TX laws, or CA laws, are enforced in some other random state. It means that if you have a permit to carry in ANY state, it must be recognized in EVERY state. What issue could you possibly have with that? It doesn't mean that if I have a TX LTC and can open carry here, that I'll get to open carry in NY. It means that if that other state has a carry license, I get to carry concealed in that state, and abide by the laws of the state I'm carrying in.
> Honestly, how you can be worried about this is beyond me.
> You can keep your own state laws. We can keep our own state laws, but if either of us visit the other, our license to carry is valid and we must follow the other's laws while there, just like a driver license. Get it?
> 
> Surely you're not of the impression that, because I can get an LTC in Texas, that New York is going to completely remove their own carry permit system just to screw over visiting Texans, do you?


 It does not madder what it says it is how it will be used and put into effect. We have seen it over and over. NYC repealing any gun permits would be a likely out come if forced to allow others to carry in their state. Or TX maybe required to met NYC standards.
I have not ask any person that represents me to vote against the bill. I have very real and serious concerns were it will lead.


----------



## Jammer Six

I have. My Representative and Senators all know I want this bill defeated. They just don't know why.


----------



## Annie

Stick said:


> I've never had a MD or a PA or RN ask if there were guns in the home. I did have a doctor who told me he had a Colt SAA. He was my primary physician for the next 13 years, and a good doctor.


The pediatricians ask.


----------



## MountainGirl

Jammer Six said:


> I have. My Representative and Senators all know I want this bill defeated. They just don't know why.


Why do *you* want it defeated, Jammer?

_Just curious & haven't been here long enough for your reason to be obvious. Thanks!
_


----------



## Jammer Six

MountainGirl said:


> Why do *you* want it defeated, Jammer?
> 
> _Just curious & haven't been here long enough for your reason to be obvious. Thanks!
> _



Because I do not want the federal government involved in any way with writing new gun law. We're talking about people who think that a semi-auto AR is an assault rifle.
Because our system of government is based on compromise-- and I do not want any of the compromises that would need to be made for new, national pro-gun law. There will never be a "pure" pro-gun law passed by the U.S. congress. It can't happen. If it could, that would mean that there would be large swaths of our population that were not being properly represented, and that our system was broken. Therefore, if a pro-gun national law is passed, somewhere else, something I want dealing with guns will be turned out into the street in a short skirt if pro-gun legislation is passed. If it doesn't look like that's so, that's the one that scares me the most.
Because I do not want the federal government telling states how things will be, even if the states are wrong. This principle is called "states rights". If California or New York passes weird gun laws, I want no part of it. If the federal government gets involved, Washington state law (or any other state law) will have no meaning, and at the moment, Washington state law is the only thing standing between me and California's weird take on gun laws. I want to keep it there, not render it impotent.

Do any of you really think that because you have a state carry permit you will suddenly be allowed to carry in Times Square or downtown L.A. if this law passes?

P.S. I'm lucky on this issue. Our two senators, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, are hard-core anti gunners. I am absolutely certain that in this instance, they will do my bidding and vote as I want them too. My representative, Primila Jayapal, is one of the most liberal politicians in Washington when it comes to guns, and that's saying something. Washington went for Bernie Sanders, and Seattle has a member of the Socialist party on our city council. So for once, my congresswomen will be voting exactly as I want them to on a gun issue.


----------



## Kauboy

Smitty901 said:


> It does not madder what it says it is how it will be used and put into effect. We have seen it over and over. NYC repealing any gun permits would be a likely out come if forced to allow others to carry in their state. Or TX maybe required to met NYC standards.
> I have not ask any person that represents me to vote against the bill. I have very real and serious concerns were it will lead.


Really? You honestly think the people of NY will accept their idiots' reasoning that they are having their rights removed because of what Texas does? 
Honestly? Like... really, you think that?
Do you know who gets carry permits in NY? The wealthy and powerful. Stern and Trump, to name just two. People with big voices and deep pockets. They won't be giving up anything, and they control the politicians that could do it.

And you really think that they will demand that Texas change its laws so that people in NYC can have carry permits?
I mean... really
Dude, that's nutty, and wholly unreasonable to even consider.
I can't think of a single issue, ever, where one state wrote its own laws solely because of how another state wrote theirs.

These worries are not rational, and we don't have any historical precedent to think these kinds of things will happen.
Just because we know laws can be abused doesn't mean the absolute worst is what will most likely happen.
If you agree they can't take your rights away, you have nothing at all to fear.
Of course, if you worked on CC for 20 years, perhaps it jaded you to the idea that good things can happen with respect to the law.
A free slave doesn't like thinking about returning to being a slave, so he hides and pretends everything is ok, so as not to get noticed.
Only the brave ones seek to free others.

(yeah, I'm appealing to your primal side with subtle insults to make a point, is it working?)


----------



## Kauboy

Jammer Six said:


> Because I do not want the federal government telling states how things will be, even if the states are wrong. This principle is called "states rights". If California or New York passes weird gun laws, I want no part of it. If the federal government gets involved, Washington state law (or any other state law) will have no meaning, and at the moment, Washington state law is the only thing standing between me and California's weird take on gun laws. I want to keep it there, not render it impotent.
> 
> Do any of you really think that because you have a state carry permit you will suddenly be allowed to carry in Times Square or downtown L.A. if this law passes?


Firstly, the people's rights take precedence over a state's rights. The federal government's power takes precedence over a state government's power, insofar as the constitution allows. The 9th and 10th amendments only yield power to the states and people that are not already delegated to the federal government. Since the constitution clearly dictates that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it is the role of government to ensure that is maintained. When a state violates the rights of the people, it is the role of the federal government to enforce it against the states. When neither will enforce and respect the rights of the people, the people hold the final say, and well... go read the Declaration. Abolish... new guards... so on and so on.
So, the federal government certainly does have the power to enforce the respecting of the people's rights. That's why the final say is handed down from the federal bench when any issue reaches that scale.

Secondly, do I expect to carry in Times Square?
My Texas driver license lets me drive there, and that was a wonderful little agreement between the states... that didn't involve a basic right.
With the force of the federal government behind it, my right to carry a handgun in Times Square will be respected, and the act will be legal.
I'd love to see any mayor/governor/DA think they can stop it.


----------



## MountainGirl

Jammer Six said:


> Because I do not want the federal government involved in any way with writing new gun law. We're talking about people who think that a semi-auto AR is an assault rifle.
> Because our system of government is based on compromise-- and I do not want any of the compromises that would need to be made for new, national pro-gun law. There will never be a "pure" pro-gun law passed by the U.S. congress. It can't happen. If it could, that would mean that there would be large swaths of our population that were not being properly represented, and that our system was broken. Therefore, if a pro-gun national law is passed, somewhere else, something I want dealing with guns will be turned out into the street in a short skirt if pro-gun legislation is passed. If it doesn't look like that's so, that's the one that scares me the most.
> Because I do not want the federal government telling states how things will be, even if the states are wrong. This principle is called "states rights". If California or New York passes weird gun laws, I want no part of it. If the federal government gets involved, Washington state law (or any other state law) will have no meaning, and at the moment, Washington state law is the only thing standing between me and California's weird take on gun laws. I want to keep it there, not render it impotent.
> 
> Do any of you really think that because you have a state carry permit you will suddenly be allowed to carry in Times Square or downtown L.A. if this law passes?


Hi Jammer, I agree with your first and third points, the second point - no, but respect your right to hold the opinion. Thanks for the reply, and fwiw, I haven't seen anyone here say they think what you suggested in your ending question, i.e., that it would _increase_ someone's rights in places other than their home licensing base.


----------



## Jammer Six

If you free a slave, what you have is a free slave. It's when slaves free themselves that you end up with a free man.

It isn't the job of the legislature to enforce the rights laid out in the constitution-- that is the job of the Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court. The legislature can _change_ the constitution, but they don't enforce it.


----------



## Jammer Six

MountainGirl said:


> Thanks for the reply, and fwiw, I haven't seen anyone here say they think what you suggested in your ending question, i.e., that it would _increase_ someone's rights in places other than their home licensing base.


If it doesn't increase rights nationally, what's the point?


----------



## MountainGirl

Kauboy said:


> Firstly, the people's rights take precedence over a state's rights. The federal government's power takes precedence over a state government's power, insofar as the constitution allows. The 9th and 10th amendments only yield power to the states and people that are not already delegated to the federal government. Since the constitution clearly dictates that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it is the role of government to ensure that is maintained. When a state violates the rights of the people, it is the role of the federal government to enforce it against the states. When neither will enforce and respect the rights of the people, the people hold the final say, and well... go read the Declaration. Abolish... new guards... so on and so on.
> So, the federal government certainly does have the power to enforce the respecting of the people's rights. That's why the final say is handed down from the federal bench when any issue reaches that scale.
> 
> Secondly, do I expect to carry in Times Square?
> My Texas driver license lets me drive there, and that was a wonderful little agreement between the states... that didn't involve a basic right.
> *With the force of the federal government behind it, my right to carry a handgun in Times Square will be respected, and the act will be legal.
> I'd love to see any mayor/governor/DA think they can stop it*.


Wow. I need to rethink all this. You make a lot of sense. 
Is that (bolded) really a legal result of this? Don't you think they'd try anyway?


----------



## Jammer Six

Kauboy, I have some steel to sell you. At the moment, it's holding up a bridge.


----------



## MountainGirl

Jammer Six said:


> If it doesn't increase rights nationally, what's the point?


Very good question...and I think I'm going to like the answer. :tango_face_grin:


----------



## MountainGirl

MountainGirl said:


> Wow. I need to rethink all this. You make a lot of sense.
> Is that (bolded) really a legal result of this? Don't you think they'd try anyway?


 @Kauboy You can disregard my question, thanks. I'm reading HR38 now.

Here's a good link to read it, and follow the progress:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th..."search":["concealed+carry+reciprocity+act"]}


----------



## Gator Monroe

So States (States Rights) can outlaw Choice , allow Religious objection for a Bakery to baking Cakes for a Gay wedding or a Photography Studio the right to choose not to photograph a Gay Wedding ???


----------



## Slippy

Jammer Six said:


> If you free a slave, what you have is a free slave. It's when slaves free themselves that you end up with a free man.
> 
> It isn't the job of the legislature to enforce the rights laid out in the constitution-- that is the job of the Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court. The legislature can _change_ the constitution, but they don't enforce it.


Retarded Post of the day^^^^

Advice to the youngsters; DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS DOUCHEBAG. HE KNOWS NOT OF WHAT HE SPEAKS.

THANKS!

SLIPPY!:vs_wave:


----------



## Medic33

Gator Monroe said:


> So States (States Rights) can outlaw Choice , allow Religious objection for a Bakery to baking Cakes for a Gay wedding or a Photography Studio the right to choose not to photograph a Gay Wedding ???


uhm, not to be mean but that is why we had a civil war so that states can have their own say do that without the federal gov sticking their nose in and telling them they can not -ahh right?


----------



## Gator Monroe

Uh , Far left & left like Federal Government putting their boots on the throats of deplorables who resist the progressive sacred cow social agenda ...


----------



## Kauboy

Jammer Six said:


> Kauboy, I have some steel to sell you. At the moment, it's holding up a bridge.


I always love how clever you think you are.


----------



## Jammer Six

I've been looking for something to love about you, too.


----------



## Gator Monroe

Which of you two will give the first reach around ?


----------



## Kauboy

Jammer Six said:


> I've been looking for something to love about you, too.


And I love how you intentionally fail to quote people because you don't want them to actually notice your comment and respond.
It's so cute to see a mental midget playing games to bloat his own bravado.

Truly adorable. :vs_love:



Gator Monroe said:


> Which of you two will give the first reach around ?


Oh, me of course.
He's never had one, and that makes me sad. So I'll help out where I can.


----------



## MountainGirl

Ok you legal beagles, your take on this:

*****
SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS. (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following: ``Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms ``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, *

may possess or carry a concealed handgun *(other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, *in any State that-- ``

(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or ``(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes. `*`*
...
******
My read is that if a State _does not have_ a statute (1); or _does_ prohibit concealed carry (2), then HR38 passing would make no difference in that State. Yes? No?

EDIT: Disregard my questions, asked and answered, and it's Yes. If a State prohibits CC, this insufficient incomplete lame-ass bill wont make any difference in that State.

Thanks, all, for your replies to my earlier questions (in both threads).


----------



## MountainGirl

Happened last night.*Bill is closed to amendments* Does this mean no NICS add-ons? (from the same link as above)

12/05/2017-4:36pm Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 645 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 38 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. 
 Action By: House of Representatives

****


----------



## Gator Monroe

Can California and New York be Sanctuary form other State Carry Permit States ?


----------



## Kauboy

MountainGirl said:


> My read is that if a State _does not have_ a statute (1); or _does_ prohibit concealed carry (2), then HR38 passing would make no difference in that State. Yes? No?


Your interpretation is correct. For any state where concealed carry is not legal, no other state's CC license will be considered valid and legal for concealed carry in that state.


----------



## Kauboy

MountainGirl said:


> Happened last night.*Bill is closed to amendments* Does this mean no NICS add-ons?


Unfortunately, no.
Making it out of committee unaltered is great, but far from the final version of the bill.
The bill must still come to the floor of the full House.
Once there, it can be debated and amended if the majority agrees.
Once a final version is agreed upon, a final vote takes place.
If that vote passes, that version of the bill we be sent to the Senate.
Once there, it can again face potential amendments.
If the bill comes to the Senate, and they choose not to alter it, and it passes, then the bill moves on to the president's desk.
However, if the Senate adds amendments, and passes their version, it will go back to the House for their say on this version.
This can go back and forth, or lead to a committee of the two bodies being formed to come up with a final version both can agree on.
It can be amended in that committee as well.

Finally, once both sides are happy, it gets a final vote in both houses, and heads to the president's desk if passed.


----------



## Gator Monroe

Kauboy said:


> Your interpretation is correct. For any state where concealed carry is not legal, no other state's CC license will be considered valid and legal for concealed carry in that state.


So California and New York & New Jersey ... can suspend renewals and Issuances and end Carry in their States and bypass this law with a Nuclear Option (End Carry )


----------



## Denton

Gator Monroe said:


> So California and New York & New Jersey ... can suspend renewals and Issuances and end Carry in their States and bypass this law with a Nuclear Option (End Carry )


They can also restrict what weapons can be carried, and how many rounds can be carried. Some states already restrict the number of rounds one can have on them.


----------



## Kauboy

Gator Monroe said:


> So California and New York & New Jersey ... can suspend renewals and Issuances and end Carry in their States and bypass this law with a Nuclear Option (End Carry )


They can, but the beauty of it is, they won't.
Think about those states that have drastically restrictive carry laws. Who gets to carry there? Politicians, celebrities, the wealthy. And who controls the strings in those governments? Politicians, celebrities, the wealthy. The wonderful nature of this law is that it will force the states to stop treating "elites" as if they are special citizens with more rights than the rest of us.
They won't risk alienating the wealthy donors that have been given special consideration, so they won't dare go nuclear with it.

If anything, since visitors will be legally allowed to carry there, the people of the state will have an even stronger argument to make for demanding their own carry rights be respected by their state. This could be a huge boom for CC rights.


----------



## MountainGirl

Kauboy said:


> Unfortunately, no.
> Making it out of committee unaltered is great, but far from the final version of the bill.
> The bill must still come to the floor of the full House.
> Once there, it can be debated and amended if the majority agrees.
> Once a final version is agreed upon, a final vote takes place.
> If that vote passes, that version of the bill we be sent to the Senate.
> Once there, it can again face potential amendments.
> If the bill comes to the Senate, and they choose not to alter it, and it passes, then the bill moves on to the president's desk.
> However, if the Senate adds amendments, and passes their version, it will go back to the House for their say on this version.
> This can go back and forth, or lead to a committee of the two bodies being formed to come up with a final version both can agree on.
> It can be amended in that committee as well.
> 
> Finally, once both sides are happy, it gets a final vote in both houses, and heads to the president's desk if passed.


Good. That means there's still time for MY Amendment:

*Clarification of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution*
​ Second Amendment​
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Clarification of the Second Amendment​
All Federal and State laws that have been enacted since this Amendment came into full force on Dec 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, that restrict in any manner the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, are hereby declared Null, Void and Rescinded. No further Code, Law or Amendment,neither Federal nor State, shall come in to being, passed, created, or enforced, legislatively or administratively, that hinders this right. 

Penalties​
All violations, and attempted violations, of this Amendment shall be subject to the whims and appropriate penalties to be determined by the members of PrepperForums.net, or by @Slippy alone - if the majority of members allocate this responsibility to him on a case by case basis.

*********
Ok, enough fun for one day. Time to chop wood.


----------



## Urinal Cake

Does anyone know if the senate bill will tie enhanced NICS with reciprocal carry like the house bill?


----------



## Slippy

View attachment 62513


----------



## entellus

MountainGirl said:


> Slightly off topic..but part of what you quoted caught my eye and reminded me of something.
> 
> When I brought my elderly mother up here 4yrs ago to take care of her - I found her a good doc and during the intake exam there were also lots of questions to assess her mental health (no problem) but at the end he asked "Are there any guns in the home?" I asked him why he was asking he said he was required to now by the ACA. I told him it was none of his business; he just smiled and said he agreed, that he had to ask but we didn't have to answer, and that he'd just put 'answer refused' into the national medical database he was also now required (by ACA) to use (all patient records now must be digitized & forwarded). FWIW, he didn't like the gov intrusion either.
> 
> Seems there will be lots of places that names of gun owners can be found...


I feel like answer refused is the same as yes.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jammer Six

This isn't the end of federal involvement in this issue. This is just the first.


----------



## Denton

Jammer Six said:


> This isn't the end of federal involvement in this issue. This is just the first.


The federal government has involved itself for decades, now. Rather than more, the elected officials should be rolling back its unconstitutional laws and regulations and enforcing the right to keep and bear arms within all of our nation's jurisdiction.

Yeah, I know; that ain't gonna happen. Just wanted to reinforce what you said.


----------



## RedLion

Denton said:


> The federal government has involved itself for decades, now. Rather than more, the elected officials should be rolling back its unconstitutional laws and regulations and enforcing the right to keep and bear arms within all of our nation's jurisdiction.
> 
> Yeah, I know; that ain't gonna happen. Just wanted to reinforce what you said.


Facts would back you up. There is an increased interest in gun ownership and gun rights across the board demographics wise, which is trending in the right direction.


----------



## Prepared One

> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._


No other laws by state or federal authorities are necessary.


----------



## Jammer Six

Prepared One said:


> No other laws by state or federal authorities are necessary.


And yet, the NRA insists that we need another one. Yet another reason to avoid the NRA.


----------



## Gator Monroe

Just as libs want special Federal Laws & Protections for Planned Parenthood facilities, LGBTQ community members & their rights , various & sundry other Minorities (Including Illegals) rights ...


----------



## Smitty901

Prepared One said:


> No other laws by state or federal authorities are necessary.


 While I may agree try to use that when you go in to a state that does not see it your way. You are going to jail. You maybe right but will still lose.


----------



## Denton

Jammer Six said:


> And yet, the NRA insists that we need another one. Yet another reason to avoid the NRA.


That has been my gripe with the NRA for decades.


----------



## RedLion

Jammer Six said:


> And yet, the NRA insists that we need another one. Yet another reason to avoid the NRA.


Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a great organization that always toes the hard line. You may want to check into it?


----------



## Kauboy

From what I can tell, our efforts to avoid the merging of these two bills failed.
The site is not yet updated with the official text of the bill, as voted on (12/06), but it does appear in the pages of the daily activity, as read.
Current latest text of the bill (12/04): https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text
Text of the bill as read before the vote (12/06): https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/12/06/house-section/article/H9685-2? (you can do a Find on the page for "TITLE II--FIX NICS ACT")

There was an amendment rejected prior to the final vote, but it was dealing with the concealed carry portion. That whole section went completely unaltered. We'll see if that holds up in the senate.
The final vote passed with 231 "Ayes" to 198 "Noes", and 4 "No Votes".
If you feel the need to reach out to any of these members based on their voting, the tally with names is here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll663.xml


----------



## Jammer Six

My Rep voted no. Just like I wanted her to. 

I feel so represented.


----------



## RedLion

Yep, gotten get the Fix-Nics gun control crap out of the main bill....



> On December 6, Breitbart News reported:
> The "Fix-NICS" gun control House Leadership plans to piggyback on national reciprocity runs the risk of putting bureaucrats between Americans and their guns once more. Gun Owners of America reports that "Fix-NICS would require that the rolls of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and ObamaCare be trolled for recipients with PTSD, ADHD, or Alzheimer's - that is, people who have had guardians appointed."


Rep. Louie Gohmert: 'Fix-NICS' Is a Gun Control Expansion I Cannot Support


----------



## MountainGirl

Kauboy said:


> From what I can tell, our efforts to avoid the merging of these two bills failed.
> The site is not yet updated with the official text of the bill, as voted on (12/06), but it does appear in the pages of the daily activity, as read.
> Current latest text of the bill (12/04): https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text
> Text of the bill as read before the vote (12/06): https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/12/06/house-section/article/H9685-2? (you can do a Find on the page for "TITLE II--FIX NICS ACT")





RedLion said:


> Yep, gotten get the Fix-Nics gun control crap out of the main bill....
> 
> Rep. Louie Gohmert: 'Fix-NICS' Is a Gun Control Expansion I Cannot Support


So...which is it? In or out?
@Kauboy - I've been trying off and on for 3 hrs to access the (12/06) Text link... Gov server down, it says. LOL


----------



## Kauboy

MountainGirl said:


> So...which is it? In or out?
> @Kauboy - I've been trying off and on for 3 hrs to access the (12/06) Text link... Gov server down, it says. LOL


According to the 2nd link I gave, it was part of the bill as read and voted on.

According to the 3rd link, Gohmert voted "No".


----------



## MountainGirl

Kauboy said:


> According to the 2nd link I gave, it was part of the bill as read and voted on.
> 
> According to the 3rd link, Gohmert voted "No".


In then, tks. I'll keep trying the link.


----------



## Prepared One

Smitty901 said:


> While I may agree try to use that when you go in to a state that does not see it your way. You are going to jail. You maybe right but will still lose.


Your are right as rain there Smitty. But my point being, if 2A was taken as the framers intended, then any ancillary discussions concerning the right to bare arms or gun control would be unessassary. It will never happen of course, the train has left the station on that count and the liberal left will continue to attack the foundations of the constitution and the bill of rights.


----------



## Prepared One

Jammer Six said:


> And yet, the NRA insists that we need another one. Yet another reason to avoid the NRA.


The NRA does more good then harm I believe, but on this point we agree.

I just got a shiver down my back. :vs_shocked:


----------



## Smitty901

Prepared One said:


> Your are right as rain there Smitty. But my point being, if 2A was taken as the framers intended, then any ancillary discussions concerning the right to bare arms or gun control would be unessassary. It will never happen of course, the train has left the station on that count and the liberal left will continue to attack the foundations of the constitution and the bill of rights.


 IF any of the constitution was taken as intended this country would not be in the mess it is in.


----------



## RedLion




----------



## Jammer Six

Smitty901 said:


> IF any of the constitution was taken as intended this country would not be in the mess it is in.


If the constitution were taken as intended, slaves would still be here.

One of the constitution's central, main strengths is that it is possible to change the constitution, both by interpretation and by legislation, and it is thus able to conform to our wishes even as society changes. Both interpretation and legislation are valid, intentional sources of law.

The end result, of course, is that the constitution does not mean the same things in 2017 as it did when it was written. Thank god.


----------



## Slippy

Jammer Six said:


> If the constitution were taken as intended, slaves would still be here.
> 
> One of the constitution's central, main strengths is that it is possible to change the constitution, both by interpretation and by legislation, and it is thus able to conform to our wishes even as society changes. Both interpretation and legislation are valid, intentional sources of law.
> 
> The end result, of course, is that the constitution does not mean the same things in 2017 as it did when it was written. Thank god.


WRONG! (Again)

The Constitution worked as intended and Slavery was abolished using the US Constitution. (See 13th Amendment if memory serves).

And, the writings of the US Constitution mean exactly the same things today and forever as when it was written.

Please, do not be a douchebag!

Your friend,

Slippy! :vs_wave:


----------



## Gator Monroe

Ditto , the douchbagery seems to be from a Cloward & Piven slant ...


----------



## Smitty901

Jammer Six said:


> If the constitution were taken as intended, slaves would still be here.
> 
> One of the constitution's central, main strengths is that it is possible to change the constitution, both by interpretation and by legislation, and it is thus able to conform to our wishes even as society changes. Both interpretation and legislation are valid, intentional sources of law.
> 
> The end result, of course, is that the constitution does not mean the same things in 2017 as it did when it was written. Thank god.


 No slavery would not be All men means all men, women regardless of color.


----------



## Jammer Six

Man, you guys really need some history...


----------



## Kauboy

Jammer Six said:


> Man, you guys really need some history...


Oh please... please do this.
I'm begging you.

Please.
Do it.


----------



## Jammer Six

I do it every day. Doesn't appear to be helping.


----------



## Kauboy

Please... please do it.


----------



## Jammer Six

You're not paying attention, Kauboy. I do it every day. All you have to do is read.


----------



## Denton

Jammer Six said:


> If the constitution were taken as intended, slaves would still be here.
> 
> One of the constitution's central, main strengths is that it is possible to change the constitution, both by interpretation and by legislation, and it is thus able to conform to our wishes even as society changes. Both interpretation and legislation are valid, intentional sources of law.
> 
> The end result, of course, is that the constitution does not mean the same things in 2017 as it did when it was written. Thank god.


As they wrote the constitution, it is clear that the framers knew slavery couldn't continue. That is why they wrote it as they did. Slaves were not going to be counted as full humans if they were going to be kept as slaves, but their existence was going to be acknowledged.

Even without the Civil War, slavery was going to end.


----------



## Inor

Denton said:


> As they wrote the constitution, it is clear that the framers knew slavery couldn't continue. That is why they wrote it as they did. Slaves were not going to be counted as full humans if they were going to be kept as slaves, but their existence was going to be acknowledged.
> 
> Even without the Civil War, slavery was going to end.


How dare you?!?

Of course you are correct. Even without Mr. Lincoln's War of Aggression, slavery could not have gone on much past 1870. That is simple economics. As it was, the last captive slave died in 1872 (in Massachusetts).

But you cannot expect our pal J6 to care about objective things like historical facts and the laws of economics... He is here to give us all the perspective of the softer, more effeminate side of the millennials. - At least the side of the useless millennials that are not out slogging through the sandbox killing muslims to protect the rest of us.


----------



## A Watchman

Jammer Six said:


> If the constitution were taken as intended, slaves would still be here.
> 
> One of the constitution's central, main strengths is that it is possible to change the constitution, both by interpretation and by legislation, and it is thus able to conform to our wishes even as society changes. Both interpretation and legislation are valid, intentional sources of law.
> 
> The end result, of course, is that the constitution does not mean the same things in 2017 as it did when it was written. Thank god.


Fail. Please go back to class and study this time. Geez ......


----------



## entellus

Many people on this forum don't have the ability to have civil discourse. Is everyone here an adult? At least in mind?

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## Slippy

entellus said:


> Many people on this forum don't have the ability to have civil discourse. Is everyone here an adult? At least in mind?
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


Please expound on this.

Please.


----------



## Slippy

Denton said:


> ...slavery was going to end.


Slavery will never end.

Look at many 3rd World Crap-Holes.

Look at the Slavery Welfare State in Wealthy Nations.

Slavery is alive and well on Planet Earth.

This, I shit you not.


----------



## entellus

Slippy said:


> Please expound on this.
> 
> Please.


In society man works with other people of different ideas and ideas to compromise on the future of their productivity together because no man is an island and no man can live fully on their own they need others in order to create strength. In addition we need others to fulfill some of our social and biological needs. In order to achieve this we must be social with others and work with them even if they are different ideas because sometimes believe it or not the individual does not have all the knowledge needed to make a fulfilled decision and by looking at something for the Viewpoint of multiple people you can trade a stronger Moray to deal with an issue

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## entellus

Slippy said:


> Slavery will never end.
> 
> Look at many 3rd World Crap-Holes.
> 
> Look at the Slavery Welfare State in Wealthy Nations.
> 
> Slavery is alive and well on Planet Earth.
> 
> This, I shit you not.


Slavery is one of the oldest human Industries existed before writing ever was thought of and potentially existed before the existence of standardized languages through the subjugation of others. If you look at cuneiform all the original documents are about tallying grains. Everything has to do with economics and it is all about how one person the king basically controls everything and everyone else is his slave and it is codified and documented in these tablets so-and-so harvested this much grain and knows this much grain to the king and keeps this much for themselves. Establishment of Agriculture institutionalized slavery. But really it existed before all it took was someone to see hey it's tiring collecting all this s*** if I grab this guy and subjugate him and force him to collect it for me I don't have to do anything and I can chill and f*** all day long and still get fed

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## entellus

All the m************ who think Anarchy would be a great thing need to wake the f****** and look at areas of the world where there is anarchy and see that the first thing that happens is people get enslaved raped murdered in the absence of society people's basic Tendencies come out

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## A Watchman

entellus said:


> In society man works with other people of different ideas and ideas to compromise on the future of their productivity together because no man is an island and no man can live fully on their own they need others in order to create strength. In addition we need others to fulfill some of our social and biological needs. In order to achieve this we must be social with others and work with them even if they are different ideas because sometimes believe it or not the individual does not have all the knowledge needed to make a fulfilled decision and by looking at something for the Viewpoint of multiple people you can trade a stronger Moray to deal with an issue
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


Exactly our point! Now help us stomp out that fatal disease known as liberalism, so that we can reclaim the principles this Once Great Republic was founded on.


----------



## A Watchman

entellus said:


> Many people on this forum don't have the ability to have civil discourse. Is everyone here an adult? At least in mind?
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


Civil discourse? :vs_lol: Now Son, you didn't do your homework here at PF before you dropped in .... now did ya?


----------



## hawgrider

A Watchman said:


> Civil discourse? :vs_lol: Now Son, you didn't do your homework here at PF before you dropped in .... now did ya?


Where oh where do they come from?


----------



## Gator Monroe

Jammer Six said:


> You're not paying attention, Kauboy. I do it every day. All you have to do is read.


All you do is make us think you are a Open Borders ,Pro Minority seeker of Reparations who pushes the America is bad umkay narrative ...


----------



## Prepared One

I see we have yet another socialist dumbass who has decided to weight in with his backwards, ass hat, liberal, views. So many dumbasses, so little time. :vs_rain:


----------



## Gator Monroe

Prepared One said:


> I see we have yet another socialist dumbass who has decided to weight in with his backwards, ass hat, liberal, views. So many dumbasses, so little time. :vs_rain:


So Many America Haters , so many Forum Board Ratpackings ...


----------



## Prepared One

Gator Monroe said:


> So Many America Haters , so many Forum Board Ratpackings ...


We do seem to have our fair share of liberal dumbasses here. Although, for the life of me, can't figure out what is fair about it. :vs_cool:


----------



## Gator Monroe

Prepared One said:


> We do seem to have our fair share of liberal dumbasses here. Although, I for the life of me can't figure out what is fair about it. :vs_cool:


That Trump event in Florida was grand last night (Mentioned the Wall , Kate's Law , & Keeping our Guns and put MSM in its place !


----------



## hawgrider

Prepared One said:


> I see we have yet another socialist dumbass who has decided to weight in with his backwards, ass hat, liberal, views. So many dumbasses, so little time. :vs_rain:


And thats the truth!


----------



## Inor

entellus said:


> Many people on this forum don't have the ability to have civil discourse. Is everyone here an adult? At least in mind?
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


This IS us being civil. You should see us when we get wound up...


----------



## Denton

Open borders would be a great and wonderful thing, IF....

People from other nations believed the constitutional republic as the founders built was the best form of governance.

People from other nations believed that the ethics, morals and principles upon which our nation was built was the best.

People from other nations had skills that were needed in this nation.

As this is not the case, open borders will only destroy this nation faster than is already happening.


----------



## Prepared One

entellus said:


> Many people on this forum don't have the ability to have civil discourse. Is everyone here an adult? At least in mind?
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


We are being civil. You should be here when @Denton forgets to lock the executive liquor cabinet and @Cricket goes on vacation. :devil:


----------



## Kauboy

Jammer Six said:


> You're not paying attention, Kauboy. I do it every day. All you have to do is read.


Stop backtracking...
Do it...
On this topic specifically, for which we "need some history".

Do it.
Please.


----------



## Kauboy

entellus said:


> All the m************ who think Anarchy would be a great thing need to wake the f****** and look at areas of the world where there is anarchy and see that the first thing that happens is people get enslaved raped murdered in the absence of society people's basic Tendencies come out
> 
> Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


Can you kindly point to the post promoting anarchy?
I've been told I don't pay enough attention, so I might have missed it.


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> Can you kindly point to the post promoting anarchy?
> I've been told I don't pay enough attention, so I might have missed it.


I think he is talking about groups like AntiFa, BLM, and the Democrat party.


----------



## entellus

Denton said:


> I think he is talking about groups like AntiFa, BLM, and the Democrat party.


Yes and other groups, not specific to this forum just a rant

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gator Monroe

Other groups ? ( GLAAD ) (La Raza/mecha) ( BLM ) ( DNC) (ELF) (SAG/aftra) ( DGA) (CPUSA) ...


----------



## Jammer Six

Denton said:


> Open borders would be a great and wonderful thing, IF....
> 
> People from other nations believed that the ethics, morals and principles upon which our nation was built was the best.
> 
> People from other nations had skills that were needed in this nation.


The majority of them do. That's why they come.


----------



## Denton

Jammer Six said:


> The majority of them do. That's why they come.


Really? What are the skills, and why do they require donations and why do you have to work with them?

The majority, huh? I believe you are mistaken. If they were all that and a bag of doctors and engineers, they wouldn't be sneaking over the border.

They come here because of the government programs, and because their governments make it easy for them to come. Do you really think I am so stupid as to think Mexico, for example, wants their best and most educated to sneak across the border?

I understand why they want to escape their nations, but that doesn't mean it is good for our society for other cultures to flood the remnants of this one and further deteriorate it. We've allowed the liberals to do a good enough job of destroying the fabric and foundation of our society.

Oh, and take the entire quote of mine in its entire context.


----------



## Gator Monroe

Anyone who is OK with the brown dwarf masses swarming over our southern border and OK with Amnesty for the ones rat packing us for last 40 years is unAmerican


----------



## RedLion

Denton said:


> Really? What are the skills, and why do they require donations and why do you have to work with them?
> 
> The majority, huh? I believe you are mistaken. If they were all that and a bag of doctors and engineers, they wouldn't be sneaking over the border.
> 
> They come here because of the government programs, and because their governments make it easy for them to come. Do you really think I am so stupid as to think Mexico, for example, wants their best and most educated to sneak across the border?
> 
> I understand why they want to escape their nations, but that doesn't mean it is good for our society for other cultures to flood the remnants of this one and further deteriorate it. We've allowed the liberals to do a good enough job of destroying the fabric and foundation of our society.
> 
> Oh, and take the entire quote of mine in its entire context.


Very true. Mexico also encourages their turds to come north to bilk our welfare system as most, said turds, send millions of dollars in stolen monies back to Mexico per year. Two for one bonus, get rid of welfare sucks while getting free money from the U.S.


----------



## Gator Monroe

It's been an invasion , it's gotta stop pronto


----------



## Jammer Six

Denton said:


> Really? What are the skills, and why do they require donations and why do you have to work with them?
> 
> The majority, huh? I believe you are mistaken.


The skills I've seen are highly skilled craftsmen in every building trade. Here in Seattle, Local 456, the residential local of the Carpenter's Brotherhood, is virtually all Mexican. When I retired, the Master Builder's Association of King County was teaching classes in Spanish for contractors, and Local 456 was putting on classes for immigrants on how to survive in Seattle.

I don't believe you are mistaken. I'm certain you are mistaken. The number of folks who need financial help vs. the number of folks who are willing and able to clean toilets, serve meals, build, plumb, wire and landscape houses is tiny, at least here in Seattle. The folks I've seen work forty hour weeks, and somehow manage to send the majority of their take-home to family in Mexico. The _*overwhelming*_ majority of residential crews here in Seattle are all Mexican. No one even bothers trying to find Americans who can keep up with them. The ladies cleaning our toilets are all enrolled in community college classes, and they won't be cleaning our toilets for long. They never are. A lot of them become nurses.

I've _never_ seen an American from anywhere send money home. Even when they were making big money in combat zones.

Turn it around. Imagine that you're Mexican. (It could have happened. It was a roll of the dice, nothing more, that put your birth in America.) Imagine that you are just as you are, and you live in a place where you can't possibly work at whatever you do. Ever. In addition, it's dangerous. Your family is in physical danger, every day. What do _you_ do?

I'd move.

So I admire the skilled tradesmen who did exactly that: they went where life is safer, better and they have half a chance to provide a good life for their family.

We see different slices of the immigrants because of what we're looking for, not because of what is there. I see an overwhelming force of eager, skilled workmen because that's what I'm looking for. You see an invasion to fear, because that's what you're looking for.

You can see exactly the same slices of the American population in Los Angeles. All you have to do is look for it.


----------



## RedLion

Illegal aliens are illegal and criminals no matter who they are or what they may do. By the way, they cost our country billions per year, something like a 100 billion per year, with most being from welfare that they are not entitled to. Any person that comes to the U.S. legally is welcome, but doing so illegal means that you deserve whatever consequences come your way.


----------



## Coastie dad

Y'all are feeding a stupid ass troll for nothing but the sake of arguing. He wont change, hes just here to stir crap, and that's the only thing he contributes.

Tell him to screw off, and go find something worthwhile to do.


----------



## Denton

Jammer Six said:


> The skills I've seen are highly skilled craftsmen in every building trade. Here in Seattle, Local 456, the residential local of the Carpenter's Brotherhood, is virtually all Mexican. When I retired, the Master Builder's Association of King County was teaching classes in Spanish for contractors, and Local 456 was putting on classes for immigrants on how to survive in Seattle.
> 
> I don't believe you are mistaken. I'm certain you are mistaken. The number of folks who need financial help vs. the number of folks who are willing and able to clean toilets, serve meals, build, plumb, wire and landscape houses is tiny, at least here in Seattle. The folks I've seen work forty hour weeks, and somehow manage to send the majority of their take-home to family in Mexico. The _*overwhelming*_ majority of residential crews here in Seattle are all Mexican. No one even bothers trying to find Americans who can keep up with them. The ladies cleaning our toilets are all enrolled in community college classes, and they won't be cleaning our toilets for long. They never are. A lot of them become nurses.
> 
> I've _never_ seen an American from anywhere send money home. Even when they were making big money in combat zones.
> 
> Turn it around. Imagine that you're Mexican. (It could have happened. It was a roll of the dice, nothing more, that put your birth in America.) Imagine that you are just as you are, and you live in a place where you can't possibly work at whatever you do. Ever. In addition, it's dangerous. Your family is in physical danger, every day. What do _you_ do?
> 
> I'd move.
> 
> So I admire the skilled tradesmen who did exactly that: they went where life is safer, better and they have half a chance to provide a good life for their family.
> 
> We see different slices of the immigrants because of what we're looking for, not because of what is there. I see an overwhelming force of eager, skilled workmen because that's what I'm looking for. You see an invasion to fear, because that's what you're looking for.
> 
> You can see exactly the same slices of the American population in Los Angeles. All you have to do is look for it.


I've also seen the abilities of these "highly skilled craftsmen." They are fast, but sloppy and what the construct is nothing compared to what the American craftsmen could do. The difference? They work for less money. That's the beautiful thing about illegals, isn't it? They work under the table for less money, but they get to keep their anonymity. The American workers? They have to pay taxes, they have to pay into the social systems that others take when they are taught to circumvent the system's rules, and they find themselves unemployed because they cost more to the contractor. 
Yeah, the illegals contribute so much to our country, as the Democrats would have us believe, as they drool over the future Democrat voters who look for more government and know nothing about constitutional freedom.

Now, let's look at you "sending money back home" B.S.

I know how the illegals do it. More of them will live in one "start-up" house, as I call them, than most Americans can imagine. They split the costs and send their earnings back to Mexico. That is another drain on the American economy. Any idiot can see how taking from our economy and injecting it into another one is not good for us.

As far as what we Americans do, who in the...fill in this blank... do you think you are to say what _we_ do with our money? I _have_ known troops who sent money back to their families. Not only their own families but donated to charities, as well. You can take your "Americans aren't as noble as illegals" crap and shove it in your ear. If your ear isn't good enogh for you, I do have a suggestion.

As far as these highly trained, highly skilled illegals cleaning rooms and going to trade schools in Seattle, I didn't know cleaning rooms was a skill. Again, an illegal doing the work that an American can do, and are going to an American trade school even though they shouldn't be here in the first place. Are these schools like the University of Miami, giving grants to illegals over American citizens? Don't bother to answer. Seattle is a sanctuary city, full of illegals and American citizens who do not understand economics.

You claim you are looking for a skilled work force. You are lying. You look for cheap labor. The truly skilled labor has been forced into poverty through the liberal, "open borders, one world" ideology that wants nothing more than an hobbled, crippled America. My friends have payed the price for you shit.

While you lust after the dream of cheap labor, you are correct that I am afraid. I am afraid that my country, the country I served, is doomed to be the next third world shit hole. You are a part of the problem, even though I do believe you have a good heart. Ignorant as the day is long, but with a good heart. 
Not only are you ignorant, you are unAmerican. Rather than working to help impoverished Americans, you work to make sure they have less chances of making it.


----------



## Denton

Coastie dad said:


> Y'all are feeding a stupid ass troll for nothing but the sake of arguing. He wont change, hes just here to stir crap, and that's the only thing he contributes.
> 
> Tell him to screw off, and go find something worthwhile to do.


You see a troll, but I see a means to respond. Read my last post and learn from it. Not what I said, but what I did.
I can't stand simply speaking to the choir and I don't know why anyone else can.


----------



## Jammer Six

I'm a liar?

Okay, you're done. You've broken your own rules that you insist the rest of us live by.

Goodbye.


----------



## Denton

Jammer Six said:


> I'm a liar?
> 
> Okay, you're done. You've broken your own rules that you insist the rest of us live by.
> 
> Goodbye.


Take your, "Illegals are more pious and better than American servicemen" crap and strike a trot. If I were you, I'd ignore the rest of the response, too. 
After all, your loyalties are not with this nation or the constitution. Forget about your fellow citizens, right?


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> Take your, "Illegals are more pious and better than American servicemen" crap and strike a trot. If I were you, I'd ignore the rest of the response, too.
> After all, your loyalties are not with this nation or the constitution. Forget about your fellow citizens, right?


You forget, he's a "fee to be you and me, hug a tree" "imagine there's no countries" kinda liberal. Of course he's not "loyal" to anything that he disagrees with at his core. That's what makes liberalism so easy, and freeing. They don't stand on principles in the same way you and I do. You and I have forged our beliefs over many decades, with the full knowledge of real history bearing down on our shoulders, and a respect for those that came before and what they did for us. We revisit and question them from time to time, and if we realize a flaw, or one is revealed, in the way we've been thinking, we correct it.
A Jammer kind of person changes with the breeze, and gets a real sense of accomplishment when he can justify thumbing his nose at what he feels is the status quo based on his own misunderstandings. He does, truly and fully, think he's right. No amount of presented facts or well structured debate is going to alter this. *That* is why Coastie sees no need to engage him any longer. It is a fruitless and frustrating endeavor. Some people cannot be reasoned with, because they cannot recognize reason. He will have his own anecdote for everything to prolong that sense of accomplishment.
Eventually, I'm probably just gonna hit the Ignore button on him, but for now he's comic relief. That, and a constant reminder of the mentally delinquent individuals out there that have the capacity to cancel out my vote.


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> You forget, he's a "fee to be you and me, hug a tree" "imagine there's no countries" kinda liberal. Of course he's not "loyal" to anything that he disagrees with at his core. That's what makes liberalism so easy, and freeing. They don't stand on principles in the same way you and I do. You and I have forged our beliefs over many decades, with the full knowledge of real history bearing down on our shoulders, and a respect for those that came before and what they did for us. We revisit and question them from time to time, and if we realize a flaw, or one is revealed, in the way we've been thinking, we correct it.
> A Jammer kind of person changes with the breeze, and gets a real sense of accomplishment when he can justify thumbing his nose at what he feels is the status quo based on his own misunderstandings. He does, truly and fully, think he's right. No amount of presented facts or well structured debate is going to alter this. *That* is why Coastie sees no need to engage him any longer. It is a fruitless and frustrating endeavor. Some people cannot be reasoned with, because they cannot recognize reason. He will have his own anecdote for everything to prolong that sense of accomplishment.
> Eventually, I'm probably just gonna hit the Ignore button on him, but for now he's comic relief. That, and a constant reminder of the mentally delinquent individuals out there that have the capacity to cancel out my vote.


You are correct in the way we think, and sort of how his way of thinking is. Thing is, he means well in his way of thinking. He thinks his way of thinking us universally good. He just doesn't have the foresight to see he and is ilk are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

There are two sorts of liberals. The first is the group of the type I just described. The second is made up of those who use the first group as patsies as they fashion the world as they prefer it; a world of peasants and slaves.


----------



## Sasquatch

Jammer Six said:


> The skills I've seen are highly skilled craftsmen in every building trade. Here in Seattle, Local 456, the residential local of the Carpenter's Brotherhood, is virtually all *Mexican*. When I retired, the Master Builder's Association of King County was teaching classes in Spanish for contractors, and Local 456 was putting on classes for immigrants on how to survive in Seattle.
> 
> I don't believe you are mistaken. I'm certain you are mistaken. The number of folks who need financial help vs. the number of folks who are willing and able to clean toilets, serve meals, build, plumb, wire and landscape houses is tiny, at least here in Seattle. The folks I've seen work forty hour weeks, and somehow manage to send the majority of their take-home to family in *Mexico*. The _*overwhelming*_ majority of residential crews here in Seattle are *all Mexican*. No one even bothers trying to find Americans who can keep up with them. The ladies cleaning our toilets are all enrolled in community college classes, and they won't be cleaning our toilets for long. They never are. A lot of them become nurses.
> 
> I've _never_ seen an American from anywhere send money home. Even when they were making big money in combat zones.
> 
> Turn it around. Imagine that you're *Mexican*. (It could have happened. It was a roll of the dice, nothing more, that put your birth in America.) Imagine that you are just as you are, and you live in a place where you can't possibly work at whatever you do. Ever. In addition, it's dangerous. Your family is in physical danger, every day. What do _you_ do?
> 
> I'd move.
> 
> So I admire the skilled tradesmen who did exactly that: they went where life is safer, better and they have half a chance to provide a good life for their family.
> 
> We see different slices of the immigrants because of what we're looking for, not because of what is there. I see an overwhelming force of eager, skilled workmen because that's what I'm looking for. You see an invasion to fear, because that's what you're looking for.
> 
> You can see exactly the same slices of the American population in Los Angeles. All you have to do is look for it.


Why are all the illegal immigrants you speak of "Mexican". I've met plenty of illegals and they are from many South American countries- Guatemalans, Costa Ricans, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, Brazilians. If you believe all brown skinned illegal immigrants are Mexican that tells me two things: You don't ever really talk to them and you are kinda racist.


----------



## Jammer Six

The only three nationalities I've dealt with here, both in business and privately, are Mexican, Peruvian and Columbian. The Mexicans appear to far outweigh the other two put together, but I never bothered to count, that's just my impression. When I was hiring, there seemed to be huge numbers of skilled tradesman from the Yucatan Peninsula, and they had this thing about names that I used to overhear. The name issue marked them as Mexican, in my mind. Could be I was wrong, it was another thing I didn't have time to care about. (It could also create problems with paychecks, which was how I became aware of it.) I never saw that issue from employees I knew were from other countries.

I don't actually know which of them were undocumented, because I didn't (and don't) care.

Only someone ignorant of business would think immigrants make less than American labor. The union sets scale; everyone makes the same. (That was pretty funny.)

Certainly, the more I hear here, the more I am completely in favor of open borders. I was sort of on the fence, but you guys have convinced me.


----------



## Denton

Jammer Six said:


> The only three nationalities I've dealt with here, both in business and privately, are Mexican, Peruvian and Columbian. The Mexicans appear to far outweigh the other two put together, but I never bothered to count, that's just my impression. When I was hiring, there seemed to be huge numbers of skilled tradesman from the Yucatan Peninsula, and they had this thing about names that I used to overhear. The name issue marked them as Mexican, in my mind. Could be I was wrong, it was another thing I didn't have time to care about. (It could also create problems with paychecks, which was how I became aware of it.) I never saw that issue from employees I knew were from other countries.
> 
> I don't actually know which of them were undocumented, because I didn't (and don't) care.
> 
> Only someone ignorant of business would think immigrants make less than American labor. The union sets scale; everyone makes the same. (That was pretty funny.)
> 
> Certainly, the more I hear here, the more I am completely in favor of open borders. I was sort of on the fence, but you guys have convinced me.


Thought you were gone. Figured you headed south of the border. You know, where all the noble, pious people lived.


----------



## Denton

Seriously, @Jammer Six. You should leave. We Gringos are self-centered people who don't deserve your kind. Take your friends and build something in Mexico! That place has nothing but lovely, skilled, perfect people. In no time, I am certain that with your keen abilities and their noble character, Mexico could become a place that shames us. 
That way, we stupid Gringos don't have to pay for your venture. That way, you don't have to worry about my (our) rules.


----------



## Denton

You pathetic being who tells me I live in fear but gets butt-hurt when I call you out for being a liar.


----------



## Sasquatch

Jammer Six said:


> The only three nationalities I've dealt with here, both in business and privately, are Mexican, Peruvian and Columbian.


Really? Because the second biggest demographic of hispanics in the Seattle area is Puerto Ricans. You mean you haven't dealt with that group? Columbian I understand since that is the third biggest group in Seattle but Columbians are only .02 percent following Guatemalans and Salvadorans. Seems by numbers in general you'd have met, at least, a few of these noble souls.



> and they had this thing about names that I used to overhear. The name issue marked them as Mexican


And they had this "thing"? It would seem a chap such as yourself who champions the noble peoples of South America would actually understand what the hispanic nomenclature meant to them and their culture.



> in my mind. Could be I was wrong, it was another thing I didn't have time to care about.


So you are admitting you didn't have time to get to know the people you are championing?



> Only someone ignorant of business would think immigrants make less than American labor. The union sets scale; everyone makes the same. (That was pretty funny.)


By this statement you mean to say that no illegals work "under the table" on non-union jobs? That tells me you are (to use your own words) completely ignorant of business. (*see link)
https://thinkprogress.org/labor-unions-move-to-protect-immigrants-regardless-of-legal-status-11576ac69da2/


> unions are aggressively targeting the 22 million immigrant workers in the country, *regardless of legal status*, to join their ranks. Some immigrants are especially eager to join unions because many who fear deportation believe that it would improve workplace conditions without retribution.


My god, by your own omission you are the epitome of Liberal user. You only care about these people to stuff your own pockets! You know nothing of their culture or them as humans. You only support their plight to enrich yourself. Wow. Just wow!


----------



## Notold63

Perhaps I am being cynical, but this Bill was doomed to failure as soon as it was passed in the House. The Dems have been screaming about the Reps not passing any control laws in lieu of some of the mass shootings. This Bill does have gun control included, but since it also has the mutual carry parts included,there is no way that it will pass the Senate where the Reps majority is much smaller. Can you really see Diane dimwit or Chuckyboy voting in favor of a law where someone from say Texas or Florida wii be able to CC in New York or California? 

Elections are next year and this way those in the House can say that they voted for this Bill only mentioning the part their constituents would like and ignoring the part they wouldn’t like. Those in the House passed the Bill knowing it would die in the Senate. The whole thing is a farce.


----------



## A Watchman

Jammer Six said:


> The skills I've seen are highly skilled craftsmen in every building trade. Here in Seattle, Local 456, the residential local of the Carpenter's Brotherhood, is virtually all Mexican. When I retired, the Master Builder's Association of King County was teaching classes in Spanish for contractors, and Local 456 was putting on classes for immigrants on how to survive in Seattle.


Remember Jammer Six that Texas (my State) is the first stop for illegal immigration from Central America and I can assure you that calling these workers "craftsmen" is largely inaccurate. They are "tradesman" at best. Their work is sub par to any standard of quality workmanship. Quick and without any sense of quality and/or longevity, and of course no warranty untended .... but usually implied. Many do not need legal documentation, since there is always someone looking to make a buck on a low and unqualified bid. Those that land with a company that do abide by hiring laws, simply purchase a fake social security card .... its simply a cost of doing business.

The onslaught of "tradesman" on our economy is equivalent to a silent raid. I know as I have previously worked in the middle of it for 3 decades with first hand knowledge as one of East Texas largest contractors, while employing more than 120 in the construction business.

One more thing ..... I know of no toilet cleaners going to college, but their kids do and on my dime, while my kids pay full price. Your "New America" sucks and is destined to fall to this silent raid, as our culture is continually eroded and eventually replaced.


----------



## Prepared One

Kauboy said:


> You forget, he's a "fee to be you and me, hug a tree" "imagine there's no countries" kinda liberal. Of course he's not "loyal" to anything that he disagrees with at his core. That's what makes liberalism so easy, and freeing. They don't stand on principles in the same way you and I do. You and I have forged our beliefs over many decades, with the full knowledge of real history bearing down on our shoulders, and a respect for those that came before and what they did for us. We revisit and question them from time to time, and if we realize a flaw, or one is revealed, in the way we've been thinking, we correct it.
> A Jammer kind of person changes with the breeze, and gets a real sense of accomplishment when he can justify thumbing his nose at what he feels is the status quo based on his own misunderstandings. He does, truly and fully, think he's right. No amount of presented facts or well structured debate is going to alter this. *That* is why Coastie sees no need to engage him any longer. It is a fruitless and frustrating endeavor. Some people cannot be reasoned with, because they cannot recognize reason. He will have his own anecdote for everything to prolong that sense of accomplishment.
> Eventually, I'm probably just gonna hit the Ignore button on him, but for now he's comic relief. That, and a constant reminder of the mentally delinquent individuals out there that have the capacity to cancel out my vote.


Kauboy, I think you about have the situation pegged. :vs_cool:


----------



## Jammer Six

Sasquatch said:


> And they had this "thing"? It would seem a chap such as yourself who champions the noble peoples of South America would actually understand what the hispanic nomenclature meant to them and their culture.


Sorry to disappoint you. No, I never understood it. They tried a couple times to explain it to me, but we spoke different languages. Literally.



Sasquatch said:


> So you are admitting you didn't have time to get to know the people you are championing?


I never claimed to know them beyond knowing them professionally. Employer and employee are absolutely, positively not equals, and friendship is an exercise in equality. I was a contractor for more than twenty years, and I learned at the first Christmas party that I wasn't good at walking the razor blade carefully enough to be friends with my employees. They don't laugh at your jokes because you're funny. They laugh at your jokes because you can fire them without a reason. As long as that's true, you'll never really know why they're laughing. So I let it go, long ago. I bought them pizza every Friday, but then I left the jobsite and let them eat it while they swore at me if they wanted to. I made sure early on that it was a one-way street, and that I never asked for anything beyond the production they owed me.

Knowing them professionally was sufficient for me to respect them, which couldn't be said for the Americans they replaced. The ones that didn't make the cut joined the Americans in unemployment.



Sasquatch said:


> By this statement you mean to say that no illegals work "under the table" on non-union jobs?


No. I've never said that and I don't know anyone who has ever said that. Are you saying that?

No one ever worked for me under the table. If that's your style, you need to go to those non-union jobs and work there. My people all came straight out of the hall, and there was never a single one of them who worked for me or my subs under the table.

It would be quite difficult to run a union construction company under the table. The construction unions here have massive firepower and ferocious oversight. Treat someone differently, try to pay them under the table, whether you're paying them more or less, and you'd be talking to business agents the next day and your jobsite would shut down and lawyers from every hall on the job would show up the day after that.



Sasquatch said:


> That tells me you are (to use your own words) completely ignorant of business. (*see link)


If you say so. Working under the table is a completely separate issue from immigration. You're aware of that, right?



Sasquatch said:


> My god, by your own omission you are the epitome of Liberal user. You only care about these people to stuff your own pockets! You know nothing of their culture or them as humans. You only support their plight to enrich yourself. Wow. Just wow!


Whoa, just whoa. I've written several posts, right here on this board, pointing out exactly that: that when I was running my company, I cared only about profit and production, not about whether the documents you were forced to show me were legitimate. That has been, in fact, one of my points since my first post about immigration.

It did please me that immigrants got more work done than most Americans, because of the bottom line, but if you recall, I'm retired. I have no financial motive now for my opinions, and in fact, my opinions about immigration cost me substantial amounts of time and effort.

My pockets are stuffed through my own business, the same way your bosses are stuffing theirs. It's one of the reasons I ran a company, and it's one of the main reasons I retired when I did. You can make more money in a capitalist society as an employer rather than an employee. That's why I started the company, that's why I ran the company. I got out when I did because I was there for money, nothing else. I did not enjoy either contracting or construction, so the minute I had enough money to be certain, I dissolved my company. I hope this helps you understand why I was in business.

It's fairly amusing that you think businesses are run by "liberal users". Most of the other contractors I knew were hard core, gun carrying conservatives, with a helping of immigrants on the side.

Just out of curiosity, and not really expecting an answer, do you think the owner(s) of the company where you work set the company up so you could have a good job? If not, then wow, man, just wow.

They must be in it for some other reason.

I bet they're in it for the money.

P.S. I wouldn't do it again. The money was not free, and the prices I paid for my success were quite high.


----------



## RedLion

Need to build the wall, enforce E-Verify and severely punish any business or citizen that knowingly supports and harbors illegals. I do not care if I will pay more for products using the labor of citizens. Most important is protecting the Republic. Cheap labor and adding to the liberal/commie "permanent under-class" voting pool of the DNC inner city Plantations is the other motivator for illegals being here.


----------



## Jammer Six

It's possible that you would pay more for my services if I guaranteed an American crew, but price was one of the things I studied, carefully, every month. Two of us, my accountant and I, had an expensive meeting every quarter to go over the price list. And I admit that guaranteeing a 100% American crew at a higher price never occurred to me. If it had, I certainly would have done it. I did guarantee non-smoking crews for an extra 5%.

My experience led me to conclude that most of the folks that were my potential customers wanted a lower price, and didn't care how I produced it. For the last five or six years of my career, I didn't have to compete on price, and that led to other innovations, and more money. There were four kinds of customers that I strove to identify: one was customers who didn't care what I did or if I broke the law (and risked my license) to produce a lower price. These I wanted to identify so I could avoid them. They were always the ones who would turn around and try to rip me off. The second category was customers with lots of money who would pay far more than a project was worth for things like a guaranteed deadline, or a project that was executed in a way that they could brag about. (Like the 72 hour bathroom.) The third type of customers were fighting some problem (like being a level one fool who was prone to temper tantrums) that kept them from working with the majority of contractors. Here in Seattle, in the late 80s and the 90s, those customers usually worked for Microsoft. They had the money, but they required very special handling, certain foremen and huge amounts of my time. Some of my employees absolutely could not work on their projects. And the last type of customer was the one that was so crazy that I didn't want to work for them at any price.

The 72 hour bathroom, in particular, was responsible for my early retirement. I had initially planned to retire on my fiftieth birthday.


----------



## Slippy

Other than a trusted long-term (30 years in US but still illegal) employee of my superintendent and a crew of ******** (and ME) who installed my 8" Heart Pine Flooring, I made sure every tradesman who worked on my house at Slippy Lodge was a bona-fide US Citizen. Most were over 50 years old. The quality of craftsmanship is excellent because of that.

BUT, the US is losing qualified craftsmen in the trades. 

Sad


----------



## MountainGirl

Jammer Six said:


> ...Here in Seattle, in the late 80s and the 90s, those customers usually worked for Microsoft. They had the money, but they required very special handling, certain foremen and huge amounts of my time. Some of my employees absolutely could not work on their projects. And the last type of customer was the one that was so crazy that I didn't want to work for them at any price.


 Aw...even as you were building them their 'safe space'. :vs_lol:


----------



## Jammer Six

Slippy said:


> Other than a trusted long-term (30 years in US but still illegal) employee of my superintendent and a crew of ******** (and ME) who installed my 8" Heart Pine Flooring, I made sure every tradesman who worked on my house at Slippy Lodge was a bona-fide US Citizen. Most were over 50 years old. The quality of craftsmanship is excellent because of that.
> 
> BUT, the US is losing qualified craftsmen in the trades.
> 
> Sad


I like the part where you used strictly American labor except where you didn't. I did exactly the same thing.


----------



## Gator Monroe

America a country of immigrants (Dog whistle for a country of folks of color (Minorities ) or cover ( Islam) ...


----------



## RedLion

Gator Monroe said:


> America a country of immigrants (Dog whistle for a country of folks of color (Minorities ) or cover ( Islam) ...


A country of legal immigrants, not illegal aliens.


----------



## Jammer Six

Well, as legal as anyone else here, now.


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> Thought you were gone. Figured you headed south of the border. You know, where all the noble, pious people lived.


He said, "You're gone", which I assume was a call out for something you said that offended his sense of reasoning.
He then said "Goodbye", but I think he must have misspelled "goodnight".

I'm not sure we'll ever actually be rid of him. Remember, he still thinks he's right, and feels he must share his opinions for our benefit. He must satiate that feeling of accomplishment.
He can't do that among people he agrees with. He would have no purpose.


----------



## Slippy

Jammer Six said:


> I like the part where you used strictly American labor except where you didn't. I did exactly the same thing.


Real simple. I built a house. 1 man who worked for my building superintendent was an illegal alien who entered the US in the 1980's. This man did various labor related jobs during the build-out of my house. Insignificant jobs like cleaning and errand running.

Secondly, two ******** from some country south of Mexico assisted me in the installation of my wood floor. Fetching wood and cutting wood based on my instruction were the limit of their jobs. Hindsight, I should have booted them from the job.

Illegal alien participation on my job was approximately 1%.

I like the part where you consistently show your dumb-ass! :vs_closedeyes:


----------



## Jammer Six

Yup, that's exactly what I said. We're in perfect agreement!


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> He said, "You're gone", which I assume was a call out for something you said that offended his sense of reasoning.
> He then said "Goodbye", but I think he must have misspelled "goodnight".
> 
> I'm not sure we'll ever actually be rid of him. Remember, he still thinks he's right, and feels he must share his opinions for our benefit. He must satiate that feeling of accomplishment.
> He can't do that among people he agrees with. He would have no purpose.


I became done with him when he decided that those coming here and taking are more righteous and pious than those serving overseas. My lack of respect and sheer disdain for someone who would type or utter something like that is beyond description.


----------



## Gator Monroe

He thinks recently arrived eMe murderers and Sinaloa journeyman Cartel henchman and their Families here are as deserving as 6th Generation Minnesotans and folks who's ancestors fought for both the South and the North in the war of the States ...


----------



## Sasquatch

In one post you tell us you didn't care about your workers as long as they did the job and it made you money. You use the shield of "we speak different languages, literally". But in another post you talk about what good people they are and how your toilet scrubbers are going to college to be nurses. Your points are like watching a racquetball ping all over the court.



Jammer Six said:


> Just out of curiosity, and not really expecting an answer, do you think the owner(s) of the company where you work set the company up so you could have a good job? If not, then wow, man, just wow.
> 
> They must be in it for some other reason.
> 
> I bet they're in it for the money.


You are absolutely right, my bosses are in it for the money and power. Only thing is I don't work for a company I work for the state. Most of the people above me don't give two shits about the people they are working for, the people of the state. The only thing that drives them is money, power and agenda. But working for the state is a whole different monster.


----------

