# Is it still "worth" it?



## The Resister

https://www.gunpowdermagazine.com/r...V5xOsWOa9bHq6g_Qixm6jZFmuy0yCvDsSpzkHFVAM7k-U

https://freebeacon.com/issues/house-democrats-begin-gun-control-push/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...gabby-giffords-introduce-gun-bill/2516994002/

Might I connect the dots for you? Nancy Pelosi wants something and Trump wants his "_win_" so both can crow about their legacies. We were conned and now all it takes to connect the dots is a quote from Trump:

"_I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun_." Donald Trump in his book The America we Deserve

I could name 100 things that are wrong with what the right got conned into by adopting proposed National Socialist Solutions and looking for a problem to apply them to. Now that we are about to forfeit the Second Amendment in the Art of the Deal, do you think it was "_worth_" it? And, if you have ANY doubts, the Bump Stock Ban violated the Constitution at least three different ways. Trump may as well taken the original copy of the Constitution and took a whizz on it. Democrat Donnie - he got ya.


----------



## Back Pack Hack

Just today, Nancy called on Donald to forgo the SOTU address due to 'security concerns'. Seems the Secret Service is a bit 'overstretched' due to the current shutdown.

Here's an idea: Just have the address given at a location where there's a bunch of "Gun-Free Zone' signs. That'll make it perfectly safe! We all know gun-free zones work perfectly.


----------



## jimb1972

Any law Nancy gets signed will eventually have to get past the Supreme Court which has become less likely under Trump, RBG's foot is awfully close to the proverbial bucket as well.


----------



## The Resister

jimb1972 said:


> Any law Nancy gets signed will eventually have to get past the Supreme Court which has become less likely under Trump, RBG's foot is awfully close to the proverbial bucket as well.


I don't drink the Trump Kool Aid. The Heller decision was one of the most anti- gun rulings EVER handed down in American history. And you haven't addressed the bump stock ban. Let's forget guns on that for a moment. According to the Constitution, the government has to give you money for your property AND we are *not* supposed to have ex post facto laws. Is BATFE giving anyone money for their surrendered bump stocks? How about the property they has been ordered destroyed? Trump did that and, with the Heller decision hanging over our head AND Trump's anti- gun AG pick, you're still loyal to the globalist Democrat???


----------



## Sasquatch

I could be wrong but I believe Trump knows if he bans "assault rifles" he will be a one term POTUS.


----------



## stowlin

It is fair to be concerned about Trumps willingness to make a deal, but thus far he has done little to restrict gun rights and his appointment of two judges that Hillary didn’t appoint might be the biggest YES it is worth it ever.


----------



## The Resister

stowlin said:


> It is fair to be concerned about Trumps willingness to make a deal, but thus far he has done little to restrict gun rights and his appointment of two judges that Hillary didn't appoint might be the biggest YES it is worth it ever.


REALLY???????????????????????????????????????????????????? He's already violated the Constitution THREE times on that one issue. And he would sell his wife's honor, not to mention your Rights to get that Democrat backed wall up.


----------



## stowlin

YYYYYEEEEEESSSSSS really you can't seriously be bothered by the knee jerk reactions to minuscule gadgets to TWO Supreme Court appointments. Think Man.



The Resister said:


> REALLY???????????????????????????????????????????????????? He's already violated the Constitution THREE times on that one issue. And he would sell his wife's honor, not to mention your Rights to get that Democrat backed wall up.


----------



## The Resister

stowlin said:


> YYYYYEEEEEESSSSSS really you can't seriously be bothered by the knee jerk reactions to minuscule gadgets to TWO Supreme Court appointments. Think Man.


And you probably see the Heller decision as a net win for constitutionalists.


----------



## stowlin

The Resister said:


> And you probably see the Heller decision as a net win for constitutionalists.


What difference does that make and what does it have to do with the question you asked and was answered? We had two choices Trump and Hillary and any gun rights advocate that thinks a third party or Hillary was better would be, in my book, a fool.


----------



## The Resister

stowlin said:


> What difference does that make and what does it have to do with the question you asked and was answered? We had two choices Trump and Hillary and any gun rights advocate that thinks a third party or Hillary was better would be, in my book, a fool.


1) You had a primary election

2) Your book most has blank pages

3) You're attracting flies, so we need not discuss this any further.


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> 1) You had a primary election
> 
> 2) Your book most has blank pages
> 
> 3) You're attracting flies, so we need not discuss this any further.


Knock off the B.S. or don't get mad when people start going on the offensive.


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> Knock off the B.S. or don't get mad when people start going on the offensive.


Denton, it appears to me that when someone implies I'm a fool they've gone on the offensive. Bet you didn't think about that. So, in all honesty, did you say anything at all about someone that is shopping for an argument and then making implications? I'm a counter puncher. We can leave the shit at the door any time he gets ready to.


----------



## jimb1972

The Resister said:


> I don't drink the Trump Kool Aid. The Heller decision was one of the most anti- gun rulings EVER handed down in American history. And you haven't addressed the bump stock ban. Let's forget guns on that for a moment. According to the Constitution, the government has to give you money for your property AND we are *not* supposed to have ex post facto laws. Is BATFE giving anyone money for their surrendered bump stocks? How about the property they has been ordered destroyed? Trump did that and, with the Heller decision hanging over our head AND Trump's anti- gun AG pick, you're still loyal to the globalist Democrat???


 Never have been loyal to any politician, nor have I hated one so much that I could not give them credit when they do good. Your arrogance does you no good in converting others to your way of thinking.


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> Denton, it appears to me that when someone implies I'm a fool they've gone on the offensive. Bet you didn't think about that. So, in all honesty, did you say anything at all about someone that is shopping for an argument and then making implications? I'm a counter puncher. We can leave the shit at the door any time he gets ready to.


Call it what you want. I read what you responded to and your response. Get back into the "I'm a victim" thing and I'm standing down.
The only one I am watching is the one you know I am watching. Other than that and you are on your own.

Don't distract me while I am finishing the podcast and am wanting to get to the American Taliban thread.


----------



## Denton

jimb1972 said:


> Never have been loyal to any politician, nor have I hated one so much that I could not give them credit when they do good. Your arrogance does you no good in converting others to your way of thinking.


 @The Resister - learn from this comment.


----------



## The Resister

Denton said:


> @The Resister - learn from this comment.


It's good I'm not a politician. So, the right only likes "_arrogance_" when it comes dressed in billion dollar clothes? My opinion is everybody needs to give it a rest now. We are *NOT *going to make this about me.


----------



## The Resister

jimb1972 said:


> Never have been loyal to any politician, nor have I hated one so much that I could not give them credit when they do good. Your arrogance does you no good in converting others to your way of thinking.


My question is not intended to convert anyone. Just wondering if what you now have to give up is worth something you don't really need. I figure it is an anti-politician question, don't you?


----------



## jimb1972

The Resister said:


> My question is not intended to convert anyone. Just wondering if what you now have to give up is worth something you don't really need. I figure it is an anti-politician question, don't you?


What exactly do I now have to give up? What is it that I don't need? You assume a lot without any facts to back up your assumptions other than your opinions. How has the Heller decision encroached on my 2nd amendment rights? Not theory on what could happen, but real world results.


----------



## Inor

The Resister said:


> https://www.gunpowdermagazine.com/r...V5xOsWOa9bHq6g_Qixm6jZFmuy0yCvDsSpzkHFVAM7k-U
> 
> https://freebeacon.com/issues/house-democrats-begin-gun-control-push/
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...gabby-giffords-introduce-gun-bill/2516994002/
> 
> Might I connect the dots for you? Nancy Pelosi wants something and Trump wants his "_win_" so both can crow about their legacies. We were conned and now all it takes to connect the dots is a quote from Trump:
> 
> "_I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun_." Donald Trump in his book The America we Deserve
> 
> I could name 100 things that are wrong with what the right got conned into by adopting proposed National Socialist Solutions and looking for a problem to apply them to. Now that we are about to forfeit the Second Amendment in the Art of the Deal, do you think it was "_worth_" it? And, if you have ANY doubts, the Bump Stock Ban violated the Constitution at least three different ways. Trump may as well taken the original copy of the Constitution and took a whizz on it. Democrat Donnie - he got ya.


I hate to say this because the feuds between Resister and I are legendary, but he is 110% right on this one.

Trump has obviously never read, much less studied constitution. He is NOT a conservative, nor a constitutionalist. I warned all of you of that back during the primary. But the Trump Rockettes and the Pom-Pom Boys chose to believe whatever they believe (if anything as long as there is not a "D" behind the name). So here we are. Enjoy it... Next up, AOC or Beto... (good luck with that)


----------



## Denton

@The Resister, check you PM. I'm tired. You won't like me when I am tired.


----------



## Prepared One

I don't trust trump as far as I could throw him. Never did. If he deals 2A for the wall he is toast, even he should get that. I am watching closely to see what he does here.

Pelosi is grandstanding for her socialist base. While her POS legislation will go nowhere right now, you can bet it will be among the first steamy piles of crap they throw out in 2020, if they should take all three branches. An event I would not discard out of hand. Unlike the Trumpsters, I think Trump is in trouble come 2020. 

2020 is critical, we have either stemmed the tide or, with the likes of Beto, AOC, The muslim bitch Rashida Tlaib, and their ilk, we will see the final death of the republic, and quite possibly, a civil war go hot. We are in deep shit.


----------



## RedLion

Nothing new that the lefty traitors are pushing gun control again. Is that news to anyone? Does anyone really believe that it will go anywhere? Especially given that it is a proven political loser? It is grand-standing for the commie base that will go no where.
I am curious as to why Resister thinks that Heller was a loss though?


----------



## Camel923

Gee shocker! The Demonic Rats won the House and push gun control. Duh! RINOs jump on the band wagon because they are RHINOs. This is politics and money speaks. So does voter pressure. One thing Republicans and Democrats have in common is the number one priority of being re-elected.

Time to do your part citizen. Call, fax, write and email your elected representives. Not once , not twice but constantly. Keep up your pressure and demands for freedom and your natural God given rights like the second amendment. Or shut up and turn them in.

Now as far as money and clout join gun rights organizations. And I mean more than one. If you shot what do you spend on a day at the range? Your not going to spend anything to preserve your rights? Get real. NRA, GOA, NAGR and others are worth while investments. While many have issues with the NRA, the are the biggest fish as far as monetary contributions and political clout. The anti freedom demonic rats that want to take your guns hates and attacks the NRA but never mentions the others. Obviously they are not the threat that the NRA is. And yes I belong to all three of the organizations I listed. And I do occasionally make donations other than dues. Not because I am in lock step but this is the best way I know to civilly keep my firearms and freedoms in addition to constantly reminding politicans what I expect.

I agree with the op that Confiscation of private property without compensation is constitutionally wrong as well as banning bump stocks is unconstitutional. I think they are gimmicks and if people enjoy them so be it. Something I agree that Trump is wrong about. Just like Reagan was wrong banning future production of machine guns. That does not mean he signs off on everything. Write the White House to voice your displeasure. Do it multiple times. Trump was a superior choice to every democrat that ran and most republicans. Watch what you wish for.


----------



## RedLion

Camel923 said:


> Gee shocker! The Demonic Rats won the House and push gun control. Duh! RINOs jump on the band wagon because they are RHINOs. This is politics and money speaks. So does voter pressure. One thing Republicans and Democrats have in common is the number one priority of being re-elected.
> 
> Time to do your part citizen. Call, fax, write and email your elected representives. Not once , not twice but constantly. Keep up your pressure and demands for freedom and your natural God given rights like the second amendment. Or shut up and turn them in.
> 
> Now as far as money and clout join gun rights organizations. And I mean more than one. If you shot what do you spend on a day at the range? Your not going to spend anything to preserve your rights? Get real. NRA, GOA, NAGR and others are worth while investments. While many have issues with the NRA, the are the biggest fish as far as monetary contributions and political clout. The anti freedom demonic rats that want to take your guns hates and attacks the NRA but never mentions the others. Obviously they are not the threat that the NRA is. And yes I belong to all three of the organizations I listed. And I do occasionally make donations other than dues. Not because I am in lock step but this is the best way I know to civilly keep my firearms and freedoms in addition to constantly reminding politicans what I expect.
> 
> I agree with the op that Confiscation of private property without compensation is constitutionally wrong as well as banning bump stocks is unconstitutional. I think they are gimmicks and if people enjoy them so be it. Something I agree that Trump is wrong about. Just like Reagan was wrong banning future production of machine guns. That does not mean he signs off on everything. Write the White House to voice your displeasure. Do it multiple times. Trump was a superior choice to every democrat that ran and most republicans. Watch what you wish for.


I linked in a thread from Polichat about an upcoming SCOTUS case that could and should take away the discretion of Alphabet agencies. This would apply to the ATF.

https://www.prepperforums.net/forum/political-news-topics/113993-scotus-hear-deference-regulatory-agencies-case.html


----------



## The Resister

Inor said:


> I hate to say this because the feuds between Resister and I are legendary, but he is 110% right on this one.
> 
> Trump has obviously never read, much less studied constitution. He is NOT a conservative, nor a constitutionalist. I warned all of you of that back during the primary. But the Trump Rockettes and the Pom-Pom Boys chose to believe whatever they believe (if anything as long as there is not a "D" behind the name). So here we are. Enjoy it... Next up, AOC or Beto... (good luck with that)


We can think the other is - fill in the blank - but, when we have to decide what is best for this country, I'm glad we can put our differences aside and work together. It's sad that for all the talk the right does about background checks and vetting people, Republicans did not weed out those who would work against the Constitution.


----------



## The Resister

jimb1972 said:


> What exactly do I now have to give up? What is it that I don't need? You assume a lot without any facts to back up your assumptions other than your opinions. How has the Heller decision encroached on my 2nd amendment rights? Not theory on what could happen, but real world results.


Actually I had this discussion recently. Let me copy and paste a few paragraphs since* this one involved the Second Amendment and the NRA*:

Let's begin with this ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court regarding the Second Amendment:

..."_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. *Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void*, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right." _(Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) )

Now another:

"_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute*. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "*high powers*" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because* it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*._" Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

There it is. The Second Amendment guarantee is *absolute*. The Citizen did not get the Right from the State. It is a Right, but *it is not granted by the Constitution*. Why? It's not dependent upon that instrument because it predated the Constitution. Let me share this with you before I make my point:

"T_he right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." *This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_." United States v Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Now let me quote one of the holdings in Heller:

"_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_"

That is the second holding in the Heller decision, I kid you not.

"In 2010, the NRA sued the city of Chicago, Illinois (McDonald v. Chicago) and the Supreme Court ruled that like other substantive rights, the right to bear arms is incorporated via the_ Fourteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and therefore applies to the states_."[124][125

The *FIRST* decisions by all the Courts from state to federal ruled that the Second Amendment was *absolute*, *above the law*, and *wasn't even dependent on that instrument (the Constitution) for its existence*. It predated the Constitution; in other words it is an *unalienable *Right. States ruled the Right was above their jurisdiction.

In 2010 the NRA "wins" a suit on 14th Amendment grounds. The 14th Amendment does not guarantee NOR recognize *unalienable* Rights. It talks about privileges and immunities. The 14th Amendment first created two classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens. Then the Court began figuring out how to dispossess the posterity of the founders of their *unalienable* Rights. So, the Court tried to make *ALL* of us 14th Amendment subjects. The 14th Amendment itself was illegally ratified! Then it took away Rights you had that were* absolute and above the lawmaking power*.

In Heller, it said _"like most rights_" (so what "_rights_" ARE unlimited?) Do you see what they did? Heller took an *unalienable* Right and made it appear that the government grants you "rights." The synonyms for above the law and absolute are natural, inherent, unalienable, God given, irrevocable, etc.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your* unalienable* Right to Life.

"_You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." John Adams, second President of the United States"_

"_The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed_."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

Didn't the NRA read up on history and precedents before arguing about our Rights being tied to the 14th Amendment (which grants revocable privileges and immunities?)

Did the NRA read the Federalist Papers?

"&#8230;_the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone_&#8230;"
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

That is the anti-thesis of Heller, wouldn't you say? So, what happened?

The United States Supreme Court is charged with ONE job: interpreting the law. Their job is *NOT* to reinterpret the law. That is called legislating from the bench. So, *IN MY OPINION*, the first interpretations are the only ones that count. After that, what we have is tyranny. And I sit in good company with my opinion for Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"_On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_."

George Washington, the father of our country told us WHY:

"_The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield_." Farewell Address

That, my good man is exactly what happened. An unelected body of tyrants stole your Rights, replaced them with privileges and immunities - and you think the NRA did something good for you. I'm sorry. Civics 101

*** jimb1972 - The Declaration of Independence states:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable* Rights, that among these are *Life, Liberty* and the *pursuit of Happiness*_."

Of this document the United States Supreme Court said this:

"_The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government_." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

Either your *unalienable* Rights were given by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) OR they were given by government. It is not both. Today, the United States Supreme Court has chosen to lay claim to being the grantor of your Rights. What government giveth, government can take away. The NRA and Trump have sold out America and when Trump does his "Art of the Deal" with our Rights, Nancy Pelosi will walk away with National Gun Registration and you will face a United States Supreme Court that is convinced that God died, put them in charge and they can butcher the Constitution to the point the founders will not recognize it.


----------



## RedLion

The Resister said:


> Republicans did not weed out those who would work against the Constitution.


Maybe not all of them, but they did get rid of quite a few, including the head turd Paul Rino Ryan.


----------



## RedLion

The Resister said:


> Actually I had this discussion recently. Let me copy and paste a few paragraphs since* this one involved the Second Amendment and the NRA*:
> 
> Let's begin with this ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court regarding the Second Amendment:
> 
> ..."The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right." (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) )
> 
> Now another:
> 
> "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
> 
> There it is. The Second Amendment guarantee is absolute. The Citizen did not get the Right from the State. It is a Right, but it is not granted by the Constitution. Why? It's not dependent upon that instrument because it predated the Constitution. Let me share this with you before I make my point:
> 
> "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
> 
> Now let me quote one of the holdings in Heller:
> 
> "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"
> 
> That is the second holding in the Heller decision, I kid you not. AND you wrote:
> 
> "In 2010, the NRA sued the city of Chicago, Illinois (McDonald v. Chicago) and the Supreme Court ruled that like other substantive rights, the right to bear arms is incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and therefore applies to the states."[124][125
> 
> The FIRST decisions by all the Courts from state to federal ruled that the Second Amendment was absolute, above the law, and wasn't even dependent on that instrument (the Constitution) for its existence. It predated the Constitution; in other words it is an unalienable Right. States ruled the Right was above their jurisdiction.
> 
> In 2010 the NRA "wins" a suit on 14th Amendment grounds. The 14th Amendment does not guarantee NOR recognize unalienable Rights. It talks about privileges and immunities. The 14th Amendment first created two classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens. Then the Court began figuring out how to dispossess the posterity of the founders of their unalienable Rights. So, the Court tried to make ALL of us 14th Amendment subjects. The 14th Amendment itself was illegally ratified! Then it took away Rights you had that were absolute and above the lawmaking power.
> 
> In Heller, it said "like most rights" (so what "rights" ARE unlimited?) Do you see what they did? Heller took an unalienable Right and made it appear that the government grants you "rights." The synonyms for above the law and absolute are natural, inherent, unalienable, God given, irrevocable, etc.
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your unalienable Right to Life.
> 
> "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." John Adams, second President of the United States
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> Didn't the NRA read up on history and precedents before arguing about our Rights being tied to the 14th Amendment (which grants revocable privileges and immunities?)
> 
> Did the NRA read the Federalist Papers?
> 
> "&#8230;the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone&#8230;"
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> That is the anti-thesis of Heller, wouldn't you say? So, what happened?
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is charged with ONE job: interpreting the law. Their job is NOT to reinterpret the law. That is called legislating from the bench. So, IN MY OPINION, the first interpretations are the only ones that count. After that, what we have is tyranny. And I sit in good company with my opinion for Thomas Jefferson wrote:
> 
> "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
> 
> George Washington, the father of our country told us WHY:
> 
> "The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." Farewell Address
> 
> That, my good man is exactly what happened. An unelected body of tyrants stole your Rights, replaced them with privileges and immunities - and you think the NRA did something good for you. I'm sorry. Civics 101
> 
> *** jimb1972 - The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable* Rights, that among these are *Life, Liberty* and the *pursuit of Happiness*_."
> 
> Of this document the United States Supreme Court said this:
> 
> "_The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government_." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)
> 
> Either your *unalienable* Rights were given by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) OR they were given by government. It is not both. Today, the United States Supreme Court has chosen to lay claim to being the grantor of your Rights. What government giveth, government can take away. The NRA and Trump have sold out America and when Trump does his "Art of the Deal" with our Rights, Nancy Pelosi will walk away with National Gun Registration and you will face a United States Supreme Court that is convinced that God died, put them in charge and they can butcher the Constitution to the point the founders will not recognize it.


We all know that the right to bears arms is a God given right and not from govt. With that said if it were not for Heller, there would be a lot fewer people carrying today. It would also be certain that decreasing crime such as Chicago's reduced property crime rate ultimately thankful to the Heller decision would likely not be occurring. There is the obvious right guaranteed we have and then there is the real world rights that we can actually practice.


----------



## RedLion

The Resister said:


> Actually I had this discussion recently. Let me copy and paste a few paragraphs since* this one involved the Second Amendment and the NRA*:
> 
> Let's begin with this ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court regarding the Second Amendment:
> 
> ..."The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right." (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) )
> 
> Now another:
> 
> "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
> 
> There it is. The Second Amendment guarantee is absolute. The Citizen did not get the Right from the State. It is a Right, but it is not granted by the Constitution. Why? It's not dependent upon that instrument because it predated the Constitution. Let me share this with you before I make my point:
> 
> "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
> 
> Now let me quote one of the holdings in Heller:
> 
> "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"
> 
> That is the second holding in the Heller decision, I kid you not. AND you wrote:
> 
> "In 2010, the NRA sued the city of Chicago, Illinois (McDonald v. Chicago) and the Supreme Court ruled that like other substantive rights, the right to bear arms is incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and therefore applies to the states."[124][125
> 
> The FIRST decisions by all the Courts from state to federal ruled that the Second Amendment was absolute, above the law, and wasn't even dependent on that instrument (the Constitution) for its existence. It predated the Constitution; in other words it is an unalienable Right. States ruled the Right was above their jurisdiction.
> 
> In 2010 the NRA "wins" a suit on 14th Amendment grounds. The 14th Amendment does not guarantee NOR recognize unalienable Rights. It talks about privileges and immunities. The 14th Amendment first created two classes of citizens: Preamble and 14th Amendment citizens. Then the Court began figuring out how to dispossess the posterity of the founders of their unalienable Rights. So, the Court tried to make ALL of us 14th Amendment subjects. The 14th Amendment itself was illegally ratified! Then it took away Rights you had that were absolute and above the lawmaking power.
> 
> In Heller, it said "like most rights" (so what "rights" ARE unlimited?) Do you see what they did? Heller took an unalienable Right and made it appear that the government grants you "rights." The synonyms for above the law and absolute are natural, inherent, unalienable, God given, irrevocable, etc.
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your unalienable Right to Life.
> 
> "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." John Adams, second President of the United States
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
> 
> Didn't the NRA read up on history and precedents before arguing about our Rights being tied to the 14th Amendment (which grants revocable privileges and immunities?)
> 
> Did the NRA read the Federalist Papers?
> 
> "&#8230;the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone&#8230;"
> - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
> 
> That is the anti-thesis of Heller, wouldn't you say? So, what happened?
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is charged with ONE job: interpreting the law. Their job is NOT to reinterpret the law. That is called legislating from the bench. So, IN MY OPINION, the first interpretations are the only ones that count. After that, what we have is tyranny. And I sit in good company with my opinion for Thomas Jefferson wrote:
> 
> "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
> 
> George Washington, the father of our country told us WHY:
> 
> "The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." Farewell Address
> 
> That, my good man is exactly what happened. An unelected body of tyrants stole your Rights, replaced them with privileges and immunities - and you think the NRA did something good for you. I'm sorry. Civics 101
> 
> *** jimb1972 - The Declaration of Independence states:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *unalienable* Rights, that among these are *Life, Liberty* and the *pursuit of Happiness*_."
> 
> Of this document the United States Supreme Court said this:
> 
> "_The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government_." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)
> 
> Either your *unalienable* Rights were given by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) OR they were given by government. It is not both. Today, the United States Supreme Court has chosen to lay claim to being the grantor of your Rights. What government giveth, government can take away. The NRA and Trump have sold out America and when Trump does his "Art of the Deal" with our Rights, Nancy Pelosi will walk away with National Gun Registration and you will face a United States Supreme Court that is convinced that God died, put them in charge and they can butcher the Constitution to the point the founders will not recognize it.


Double post....


----------



## The Resister

RedLion said:


> Nothing new that the lefty traitors are pushing gun control again. Is that news to anyone? Does anyone really believe that it will go anywhere? Especially given that it is a proven political loser? It is grand-standing for the commie base that will go no where.
> I am curious as to why Resister thinks that Heller was a loss though?


See post # 27


----------



## RedLion

The Resister said:


> See post # 27


See post #29


----------



## The Resister

RedLion said:


> See post #29


WE might know what and where our Rights came from; the Courts don't and they think somebody died and left them in charge.

Pelosi REALLY scares me. While everyone else is a naysayer, if Pelosi flips just one more Republican Senator, she has the votes.


----------



## jimb1972

The Resister said:


> WE might know what and where our Rights came from; the Courts don't and they think somebody died and left them in charge.
> 
> Pelosi REALLY scares me. While everyone else is a naysayer, if Pelosi flips just one more Republican Senator, she has the votes.


This thread started off by bashing Trump, now I will be the first to say he is a piss poor excuse for a man personally. I certainly did not support him in the primary, and actually donated money to one of his opponents. Trump has no core values and everything is negotiable, but he is a hell of a lot better than Hillary or Bernie. I support Trump on immigration, and getting the troops out of Syria. Once ISIS was deprived of their territory and scattered it leaves our troops exposed to guerrilla attacks and their ability to make us bleed exceeds our ability to strike them under those circumstances. I am not sure there is anything the US needs to do on the ground in the middle east that can't be accomplished with a B52 or 20. As far as the 2nd amendment, it is hard to see anything but a resurgence in our ability to exercise our rights in the last 20 years. I do not share your ability to see the future or your vision of where it may lead.


----------



## The Resister

jimb1972 said:


> This thread started off by bashing Trump, now I will be the first to say he is a piss poor excuse for a man personally. I certainly did not support him in the primary, and actually donated money to one of his opponents. Trump has no core values and everything is negotiable, but he is a hell of a lot better than Hillary or Bernie. I support Trump on immigration, and getting the troops out of Syria. Once ISIS was deprived of their territory and scattered it leaves our troops exposed to guerrilla attacks and their ability to make us bleed exceeds our ability to strike them under those circumstances. I am not sure there is anything the US needs to do on the ground in the middle east that can't be accomplished with a B52 or 20. As far as the 2nd amendment, it is hard to see anything but a resurgence in our ability to exercise our rights in the last 20 years. I do not share your ability to see the future or your vision of where it may lead.


I don't agree with the immigration stuff; as a constitutionalist I realize that Trump does not have the constitutional authority to do what he's wanting to do.

Insofar as the Second Amendment, Pelosi is not backing down and Trump cannot afford not to get his silly wall. As best as I can tell, that is the only play Trump has. He wants gun control anyway. He can't make a case for a National Emergency as the numbers of foreigners is going down, not up and the caravans are a political stunt - a stunt if done by a Democrat would have most people on this board up in arms (only figuratively of course.)

The bump stock ban wasn't about the bump stocks. Who in the crap has one anyway? The issue is, Trump violated three provisions of the Constitution which shows his utter disdain for it. This is not some kind of Edgar Cayce or Nostradamus stuff. It's just the mere fact that Nancy Pelosi is one Senate vote shy of being able to get gun control. I can't tell you how it plays out so that we know the details, but we WILL have major control AND a wall. It will probably be twenty years down the road (like things usually play out) before the real story comes out and you can see (like a of people do now) that this was all planned in advance.

The bump stock ban was simply a measuring tool to see how many infringements you would accept and still venerate the bloated billionaire.


----------



## Sasquatch

@The Resister I'm sure you know the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

So let me ask you this, when do you, personally, take up arms against oppressors? From reading your posts it seems as though you believe, and possibly rightly so, we and the Constitution are already screwed. So that's why I ask. I'm curious as to what you consider is enough is enough.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Camel923

If we are going to talk about security as a nation and remaining an American nation. BUILD THE DAMNED WALL NOW!!!

Control Drugs, sex trafficking and who and how many come here. We have a right to decide who comes in or not. Stop giving are tax dollars to the world then asking for more to support addicts, illegals and criminal aliens. We have enough criminals, drug and sex addicts to support in Washington DC and all the state capitols.


----------



## jimb1972

We could argue about the fifth amendment and the Kelo decision in regards to eminent domain, but the fact is he can do it based on supreme court rulings. It may take years especially regarding tribal lands, but the wall seems to be fairly popular along the border and a large portion of it could likely be completed without much conflict.
As far as Trump violating the Constitution he is in the company of EVERY president since before the civil war, in his defense I doubt he has ever read or understood it. That places him squarely in the group of every leader we have elected with the exception of maybe Ron Paul.


----------



## The Resister

Sasquatch said:


> @The Resister I'm sure you know the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
> 
> So let me ask you this, when do you, personally, take up arms against oppressors? From reading your posts it seems as though you believe, and possibly rightly so, we and the Constitution are already screwed. So that's why I ask. I'm curious as to what you consider is enough is enough.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


There is a book that you should read. It's called The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall and David Manuel. It answers that in much more detail than I can - and it is an excellent book you can get on Amazon for just a couple of bucks. I have to run out the door in a minute, co I'll say this:

"_But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever_."

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775

*IN MY OPINION*, when the United States Supreme Court began reinterpreting the Constitution and granting powers to other branches of the government that they didn't have, they set the wheels in motion whereby Liberty was lost. How do we return? The next Supreme Court reverses some of what was reinterpreted wrongly and a few Justices later, they reverse it again. Each new round of this kind of legislating from the bench makes the original intent so convoluted that you never return to what we had.

Most of the time I'm lashing out because people refuse to examine how we got played by power brokers and politicians. Having failed to wake up my fellow man, it is a bitter pill because now, no matter what personal feelings one may have, we know, for a fact, that we cannot return to our foundational principles via the legal / political process. At the same time, we have to exhaust all of our nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress (and people really don't like doing it) before we can consider extraordinary actions. This an old post, but I hope it answers what you really want to know:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/usmilitias/how-do-we-effect-change-t25.html

That thread will tell you when you have to act.


----------



## RedLion

The Resister said:


> WE might know what and where our Rights came from; the Courts don't and they think somebody died and left them in charge.
> 
> Pelosi REALLY scares me. While everyone else is a naysayer, if Pelosi flips just one more Republican Senator, she has the votes.


I agree about some courts being blatantly anti-2nd and others being afraid to make appropriate rulings on cases. I see no way that the antis would get enough votes in the Senate to pass any gun control. Even though some folks doubt Trump, no way he would sign any gun control legislation other than maybe onto the Hearing Protection Act.
The SCOTUS does have at least one gun control case on the docket with another one in consideration.


----------



## Traxxas

Having read the OP's links, all this is going on in the House, it may even pass the House, yet it will be DOA once it arrives in the Senate. Highly unlikely that a "gun bill" will be used in the immigration wall funding and getting the govt re-opened bill, since it has nothing to do with the budget, as it can't be placed into a budget bill.


----------



## Maine-Marine

The Resister said:


> And, if you have ANY doubts, the ...tock would have killed 2 - 3 times the number


----------



## Slippy

Maine-Marine said:


> the bump stock is NOT A WEAPON.. it is an accessory - and a stupid one at that.
> 
> it does not aid in self defense or to fight evil forces. As a matter of fact while it may increase rate of fire it decreases accuracy.
> 
> Pretty sure a trained shooter NOT using the bump stock would have killed 2 - 3 times the number


I hear you MM,

But it is an Over-reaching and Oppressive government to ban the stupid thing.


----------



## The Resister

jimb1972 said:


> We could argue about the fifth amendment and the Kelo decision in regards to eminent domain, but the fact is he can do it based on supreme court rulings. It may take years especially regarding tribal lands, but the wall seems to be fairly popular along the border and a large portion of it could likely be completed without much conflict.
> As far as Trump violating the Constitution he is in the company of EVERY president since before the civil war, in his defense I doubt he has ever read or understood it. That places him squarely in the group of every leader we have elected with the exception of maybe Ron Paul.


There are many scenarios by which Trump _"could_" force the Democrats wall on us. The reality is, he has to act fast in relative terms. If he chooses alternatives that drag into his re-election, it jeopardizes his next campaign. So, he has to steer clear of lawsuits. It doesn't matter if the lawsuit wins or loses; if it is being litigated during the election, people have little patience. It would be deemed a loss by many.

You seem to be saying that we need smarter presidents. If Trump is right and we get the government we deserve, then maybe WE need to be more political savvy so that we can guide elected officials and vet them ourselves before the get out of the primary elections.


----------



## The Resister

Maine-Marine said:


> the bump stock is NOT A WEAPON.. it is an accessory - and a stupid one at that.
> 
> it does not aid in self defense or to fight evil forces. As a matter of fact while it may increase rate of fire it decreases accuracy.
> 
> Pretty sure a trained shooter NOT using the bump stock would have killed 2 - 3 times the number


While all that is true, it is irrelevant.

The Constitution has a prohibition on what are called ex post facto laws. An ex post facto law is one where the legislature would make something a crime retroactively. For example, when the Assault Weapons Ban was enacted, if you owned a weapon prior to the AWB, it was grandfathered in because government cannot outlaw something that was legal and legally purchased before the ban. It has nothing to with whether the product is a weapon or a baby's car seat.

Secondly, a 2015 article about a ruling in the United States Supreme Court states:

"_The Fifth Amendment applies to* personal property* as well as real property," wrote Justice Roberts in a Supreme Court *ruling* handed down earlier this week_."

https://blog.acton.org/archives/796...-fifth-amendment-applies-to-all-property.html

Is the government offering any compensation to owners of a bump stock, which yourself admit is not a weapon?

Finally, if a bump stock is not a weapon; if the government has no plans to give people fair market value for their property AND considering that you can become a felon over a piece of plastic, where did the BATFE get the jurisdiction and or authority to criminalize something they previously admitted (by okaying the sales) was not a weapon NOR did it change the mechanical function of the firearm within the meaning of the law?

That is three unconstitutional things they did that can be applied to almost anything. It's bad enough the precedent can be used to outlaw flash suppressors, folding / telescoping stocks, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, and high capacity magazines, but it could also apply to a car part, a tool you bought for the home, or even a kitchen utensil.


----------



## Maine-Marine

Slippy said:


> I hear you MM,
> 
> But it is an Over-reaching and Oppressive government to ban the stupid thing.


I understand where you are coming from but it is not a needed accessory like a magazine.


----------



## Maine-Marine

The Resister said:


> Finally, if a bump stock is not a weapon...


Your spiel was long and boring BUT. I agree with your logic and will say I have changed my mind. while I still do not give one a rat's as that they band it, I will agree they did not have a right to do it and that it is unconstitutional.

see, I can see reason...


----------



## Real Old Man

The Resister said:


> We can think the other is - fill in the blank - but, when we have to decide what is best for this country, I'm glad we can put our differences aside and work together. It's sad that for all the talk the right does about background checks and vetting people, Republicans did not weed out those who would work against the Constitution.


Perhaps i'm a wee bit confused. Where are you coming up with this linking the Wall with gun control? Perhaps I've missed it but these aren't linked in any form of a proposal that I know of.

As for the Heller decision it definitely was a win for the law abiding (read non felons) who live in the District that are now able to own a handgun in the District


----------



## The Resister

RedLion said:


> I agree about some courts being blatantly anti-2nd and others being afraid to make appropriate rulings on cases. I see no way that the antis would get enough votes in the Senate to pass any gun control. Even though some folks doubt Trump, no way he would sign any gun control legislation other than maybe onto the Hearing Protection Act.
> The SCOTUS does have at least one gun control case on the docket with another one in consideration.


We can "see" what we want, but Nancy Pelosi is ONE VOTE short in the Senate of having enough committed Senators. Give me a couple of days and I can tell you their names. The bump stock ban WAS Trump's way of saying he *is* receptive to signing gun control legislation.

At the end of the day it will be Pelosi prevailing on gun control and Trump gets his wall. Unlike what you will read elsewhere, it will not be a straight off, across the board trade. Other events will factor in. Gun control could come as a rider to a spending bill or something not even related to gun control. Bear in mind that the Lautenberg Amendment stood zero chance of passing. It was an Amendment to another bill.

The fix is in. I cannot begin to tell you the ways such legislation will be passed. But, let's face it: when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, most people who think they are right of center are actually more progressive than the Democrats.


----------



## The Resister

Maine-Marine said:


> Your spiel was long and boring BUT. I agree with your logic and will say I have changed my mind. while I still do not give one a rat's as that they band it, I will agree they did not have a right to do it and that it is unconstitutional.
> 
> see, I can see reason...


Maybe you can rewrite my post to get the point across and PM it to me. Show me how to say that in less words.


----------



## Traxxas

If the "bump stock ban" is so unconstituitional, why not take it to court yourself? Surely you, as a citizen, are effected by it, thus you can gain standing and challenge it constitutionally. What are you waiting for?

Seems some one beat you to it, but he's not arguing it the way you are.

https://fox13now.com/2019/01/16/uta...ues-trump-administration-over-bump-stock-ban/

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...ministration-over-federal-bump-stock-ban.html



> But the Trump administration in late December adopted a new federal rule that redefined the devices as "machine guns," therefore banning them under existing law. The rule takes effect March 26.
> 
> ...
> 
> Should a judge not block the law, Aposhian said he intends to comply "in any of the prescribed ways," which includes destroying his bump stock or turning it over to the ATF.
> 
> "I am not going to draw the line in the sand and die standing on top of my bump stock, and nor should we have to," he said.


----------



## RedLion

The Resister said:


> We can "see" what we want, but Nancy Pelosi is ONE VOTE short in the Senate of having enough committed Senators. Give me a couple of days and I can tell you their names. The bump stock ban WAS Trump's way of saying he *is* receptive to signing gun control legislation.
> 
> At the end of the day it will be Pelosi prevailing on gun control and Trump gets his wall. Unlike what you will read elsewhere, it will not be a straight off, across the board trade. Other events will factor in. Gun control could come as a rider to a spending bill or something not even related to gun control. Bear in mind that the Lautenberg Amendment stood zero chance of passing. It was an Amendment to another bill.
> 
> The fix is in. I cannot begin to tell you the ways such legislation will be passed. But, let's face it: when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, most people who think they are right of center are actually more progressive than the Democrats.


Trump would be an idiot to agree to support gun control for wall funding when he is winning the shut down war and will only get stronger as it goes longer. I get that you hate Trump, but you certainly do not understand him.
I would like to see you list of GOP senators that are going to jump in with the commies to pass gun control though, so provide it bitte.


----------



## The Resister

Real Old Man said:


> Perhaps i'm a wee bit confused. Where are you coming up with this linking the Wall with gun control? Perhaps I've missed it but these aren't linked in any form of a proposal that I know of.
> 
> As for the Heller decision it definitely was a win for the law abiding (read non felons) who live in the District that are now able to own a handgun in the District


As I've explained in other posts, it will *not* be officially linked per se. That would be too obvious. The right is really progressive on the Fourth Amendment so my first guess would be that background checks could be hidden in some kind of legislation requiring background checks done on undocumented foreigners that will get amnesty when Trump either increases the numbers of people he will let come here or maybe within legislation to give Dreamers a shot at citizenship. A relatively smart liberal would try that avenue.

Pelosi only has to pressure Republicans when a mass shooting happens in that Republican's state. That's OUR fault for not submitting ideas on reducing gun violence without gun control. The only plan that the gun lobby has to stop Pelosi's gun control is to attach firearm carry reciprocity to her legislation.

The theory is, if Pelosi gets her background check bill passed, it will include a reciprocal clause that you can go to any state and carry your weapon so long as you have a gun license for your home state. Again, in theory, Gun Owners of America thinks Pelosi would kill her own legislation rather than have reciprocity as part of the bill.

Liberals are going to be playing the same game. It's impossible for me to determine how the two sides will slide their agendas past us, but if Pelosi loses on gun control and immigration, the Democrat party implodes.

Now, back to Heller. You missed the whole point. The *EARLIEST* court decisions made it plain that your Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute, above the law, inherent, *unalienable*, natural, irrevocable. The Heller Court says that government gives you your Rights. That flies in the face of what the founders intended. So, now the states have been handed powers that are unimaginable. At least forty state and local bans of one kind or another have been passed since Heller. The government is disarming America on the installment plan with the Heller decision. So, either your Rights are* unalienable* (as per the Declaration of Independence) OR the government gives you your Rights. It can't be both. Heller was the biggest power grab in my life time.


----------



## The Resister

RedLion said:


> Trump would be an idiot to agree to support gun control for wall funding when he is winning the shut down war and will only get stronger as it goes longer. I get that you hate Trump, but you certainly do not understand him.
> I would like to see you list of GOP senators that are going to jump in with the commies to pass gun control though, so provide it bitte.


My feelings for Trump have *no* bearing on political strategies. Trump has already made the deal. You may never read about it and, for the *third *time, it will *not* be an across the board deal. Trump used to be involved in World Wrestling Entertainment. He knows how to work the crowd and make you believe almost anything - then come out of nowhere with yet another surprise.

I totally disagree with your assessment. A GoFundMe account was set up to get the American people to come up with the 5.1 Billion Dollars. They ultimately failed and the promoters had to return the $20 million dollars they raised. It was an epic fail. For years I've argued with people about the alleged costs of undocumented foreigners to the hospitals - not counting the alleged time spent on them, etc. (I knew they were paying all along.) Anyway, I looked it up and found out how much physicians make per year on average and then the total number of physicians in the U.S. They have a net income of *$189 BILLION DOLLARS* per year, and the GoFundMe account only raked in 20 million. I'm not counting the EMTs, nurses, and paraprofessionals in that field.

It's like I keep saying, undocumented foreigners, by and large pay their bills. If not, those affected would have donated something to that build the wall effort. And the cheerleaders??? How much do you think Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Weiner - Savage, Mark Stein, etc. donated? I'm embarrassed for them. Actions speak louder than words. That don't mean Trump won't get his wall - it's just that America doesn't really support the idea. The longer it goes on, the less popular it will be.


----------



## Camel923

We were cooked if any democrat and most of the Republicans got in. If Trump does as you say @The Resister we are no worse off. We will see how it plays out but let's just say your the first I have heard claim Trump will dump on the second amendment so heavily. I am not sold on that at this time.


----------



## stevekozak

I think the best thing we can do to the Democrats and RHINOS is have Resistor go bore them to death. If he talks like he writes, he could be the best filibusterer in the world!


----------



## Kauboy

Maine-Marine said:


> Your spiel was long and boring BUT. I agree with your logic and will say I have changed my mind. while I still do not give one a rat's as that they band it, I will agree they did not have a right to do it and that it is unconstitutional.
> 
> see, I can see reason...


I have the man blocked, but so many of you continue to quote him, and I noticed this blurb. I presume he's still on about the "unconstitutionality" of the bump stock ban with his "ex post facto" nonsense, yeah?
If one were to read the portion of the constitution where this arises, one would find the following:
Article 1 (design of the legislature), Section 9, Clause 3
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
The bump stock ban was not a legislative action. It was fully contained within the executive branch, created as a rule change under an executive branch department, and not passed by any legislature.
Hence, it does not, CANNOT, violate Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

To claim that the bump stock ban is unconstitutional, one should attack it from other vantage points, such as the constitutionality for any body granted authority *by* the legislature to further define or place limits on laws actually passed by congress. Since this has been upheld in court numerous times, that road will be a hard one to walk.
Or, one could attempt to tie the rule change to the overall unconstitutionality of violating the intent of the 2nd Amendment. However we all seem to be in agreement that these devices are not "arms" of any kind, but merely accessories. Though we all conceded the "slippery slope" argument of unknowns on that one.
But to claim a violation of Art 1., Sec. 9, Cla. 3 is so without merit, a court would likely not even hear the case.

My apologies to the rest of you for the wall of text that might be incoming in response to this.
Hopefully he blocked me as well after his curse-laden tirade in PMs to me, and he won't even bother with reading this.
Just felt the rest of you should know.
Build arguments on solid ground based on ACTUAL language in the law, not on twisted interpretations of what we *want* something to say or mean.


----------



## The Resister

Camel923 said:


> We were cooked if any democrat and most of the Republicans got in. If Trump does as you say @The Resister we are no worse off. We will see how it plays out but let's just say your the first I have heard claim Trump will dump on the second amendment so heavily. I am not sold on that at this time.


Let us review:

_"I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun_." Donald Trump in his book The America We Deserve (2000)

"_Since the Parkland shooting, Trump has said he wants to strengthen background checks, at times appearing to support universal checks that would apply to private sales and gun show sales_."

Donald Trump Shifts Stances on Five Gun Control Ideas | Time

I've beaten the issue of the unconstitutional bump stock ban to death. Rest assured that Trump, like all his Republican presidential predecessors in my life time *WILL* sign Pelosi's bill into law.

Now, this one is an easy sell. The right are the real progressives on the Fourth Amendment, so Pelosi is wanting a ban on "_assault weapons_" (sic), large capacity magazines, etc. She wants expanded background checks and laws so extreme that you can't even loan your weapon to a friend or relative. The NRA sell outs and Trump are going to tell you what a Hell of a good deal you're getting:

If you have a weapon, you can keep it and Pelosi's bill will contain a clause prohibiting a national registry. Stupid people will buy into it. Trump CAN sell it. The *FACT* is you cannot enforce expanded background checks without a national registry. That's plain common sense. So, once Pelosi's bill is passed, the LEOs will wail and complain about compliance. How can you keep up with 400 million firearms without a registry?

I look at what Trump has said in the past and then what he says now, BEFORE the NRA reigns him in. Trump is for denying firearms to people with mental problems. WTH? You mean no Due Process??? So, if someone goes to a psychologist for sexual addiction, erectile dysfunction, or marital problems, they automatically lose their Right to keep and bear Arms??? Yep, Trump liked that idea until the NRA talked to him.

THIS is the man you trust?

BTW, there IS a way to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally unbalanced WITHOUT gun control - it's simple, easy, and cheap.


----------



## Traxxas

Kauboy said:


> I have the man blocked, but so many of you continue to quote him, and I noticed this blurb. I presume he's still on about the "unconstitutionality" of the bump stock ban with his "ex post facto" nonsense, yeah?
> If one were to read the portion of the constitution where this arises, one would find the following:
> Article 1 (design of the legislature), Section 9, Clause 3
> "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
> The bump stock ban was not a legislative action. It was fully contained within the executive branch, created as a rule change under an executive branch department, and not passed by any legislature.
> Hence, it does not, CANNOT, violate Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.
> 
> To claim that the bump stock ban is unconstitutional, one should attack it from other vantage points, such as the constitutionality for any body granted authority *by* the legislature to further define or place limits on laws actually passed by congress. Since this has been upheld in court numerous times, that road will be a hard one to walk.
> Or, one could attempt to tie the rule change to the overall unconstitutionality of violating the intent of the 2nd Amendment. However we all seem to be in agreement that these devices are not "arms" of any kind, but merely accessories. Though we all conceded the "slippery slope" argument of unknowns on that one.
> But to claim a violation of Art 1., Sec. 9, Cla. 3 is so without merit, a court would likely not even hear the case.
> 
> My apologies to the rest of you for the wall of text that might be incoming in response to this.
> Hopefully he blocked me as well after his curse-laden tirade in PMs to me, and he won't even bother with reading this.
> Just felt the rest of you should know.
> Build arguments on solid ground based on ACTUAL language in the law, not on twisted interpretations of what we *want* something to say or mean.


Comment of the day! Thank You and well stated.


----------



## The Resister

stevekozak said:


> I think the best thing we can do to the Democrats and RHINOS is have Resistor go bore them to death. If he talks like he writes, he could be the best filibusterer in the world!


I can explain it to you but, I cannot understand it for you. If you don't like what I'm saying on this thread, I've found that the ignore button will save you a lot of time unless you're a glutton for punishment. NOBODY is forcing you to read what I'm writing. Being a smart ass toward me is not productive.

But, you can get on board with those guys who cobble a few words together they don't understand and tell you how stupid I am while attorneys, judges and major lobbying organizations are pontificating about the same points I'm bringing up.


----------



## Denton

RedLion said:


> Trump would be an idiot to agree to support gun control for wall funding when he is winning the shut down war and will only get stronger as it goes longer. I get that you hate Trump, but you certainly do not understand him.
> I would like to see you list of GOP senators that are going to jump in with the commies to pass gun control though, so provide it bitte.


Let me jump in, please.

Trump is really new to the whole Constitution thing. We all know he has some great ideas, but those ideas don't involve protecting our rights or the constitution. Great ideas, nevertheless.
Still, his weak suit is the constitution to include the Bill of Rights.

You want a list of Republicans in Congress who would sell us out? How many times have they already sold us out? For decades, they have been selling us out. They'll sell us out again. They don't serve us. They have another master.


----------



## Denton

Traxxas said:


> Comment of the day! Thank You and well stated.


I'm finding it really interesting that you showed back up just as @The Resister was out of the dog house and started posting, again.

Want another comment of the day? Here's one: "Try Denton; he loves it. You could say it is his hobby. You'd be better off playing the stalker game on another forum." How's that for a quote?


----------



## Camel923

The Resister said:


> Let us review:
> 
> _"I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun_." Donald Trump in his book The America We Deserve (2000)
> 
> "_Since the Parkland shooting, Trump has said he wants to strengthen background checks, at times appearing to support universal checks that would apply to private sales and gun show sales_."
> 
> Donald Trump Shifts Stances on Five Gun Control Ideas | Time
> 
> I've beaten the issue of the unconstitutional bump stock ban to death. Rest assured that Trump, like all his Republican presidential predecessors in my life time *WILL* sign Pelosi's bill into law.
> 
> Now, this one is an easy sell. The right are the real progressives on the Fourth Amendment, so Pelosi is wanting a ban on "_assault weapons_" (sic), large capacity magazines, etc. She wants expanded background checks and laws so extreme that you can't even loan your weapon to a friend or relative. The NRA sell outs and Trump are going to tell you what a Hell of a good deal you're getting:
> 
> If you have a weapon, you can keep it and Pelosi's bill will contain a clause prohibiting a national registry. Stupid people will buy into it. Trump CAN sell it. The *FACT* is you cannot enforce expanded background checks without a national registry. That's plain common sense. So, once Pelosi's bill is passed, the LEOs will wail and complain about compliance. How can you keep up with 400 million firearms without a registry?
> 
> I look at what Trump has said in the past and then what he says now, BEFORE the NRA reigns him in. Trump is for denying firearms to people with mental problems. WTH? You mean no Due Process??? So, if someone goes to a psychologist for sexual addiction, erectile dysfunction, or marital problems, they automatically lose their Right to keep and bear Arms??? Yep, Trump liked that idea until the NRA talked to him.
> 
> THIS is the man you trust?
> 
> BTW, there IS a way to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally unbalanced WITHOUT gun control - it's simple, easy, and cheap.


I trust no politican. Eternal vigilance is always necessary especially when Congress is in session. You are making some assumptions. This guy has said a lot of different things on different subjects in the past. My point is regaurdless of what you think he may or may not do, what was the sure way to avoid what you are stating. Hillary? Kasich? Bush? Rubio? I do not think so. Maybe Cruz or Santorum or a couple of Republicans but none of them got a whiff of the nomination. And would they have beaten hildabeast?

What you laid out is one possibility, not a certainty. The best defense is a good offense. Be proactive on the subject with your Representatives. Notify them daily on your positions. If it's such a done deal, why was it done with Obama? This would have been easy to create a registery 2008-10. I have a hard time seeing the NRA going along with this even with some of the stupid things it has done over the years.

Trump is not the only politician to say one thing years ago and take a different position later. Many Democrats did it with the wall for political expediency. Same with gun control and abortion for others. I never said what your saying iis impossible but I do not see it as a factual, take it to the bank fact. It would be a big shift against his base regaurdless of a campaign promise. Trump is no fool. I just think your wrong.


----------



## Denton

Camel923 said:


> I trust no politican. Eternal vigilance is always necessary especially when Congress is in session. You are making some assumptions. This guy has said a lot of different things on different subjects in the past. My point is regaurdless of what you think he may or may not do, what was the sure way to avoid what you are stating. Hillary? Kasich? Bush? Rubio? I do not think so. Maybe Cruz or Santorum or a couple of Republicans but none of them got a whiff of the nomination. And would they have beaten hildabeast?
> 
> What you laid out is one possibility, not a certainty. The best defense is a good offense. Be proactive on the subject with your Representatives. Notify them daily on your positions. If it's such a done deal, why was it done with Obama? This would have been easy to create a registery 2008-10. I have a hard time seeing the NRA going along with this even with some of the stupid things it has done over the years.
> 
> Trump is not the only politician to say one thing years ago and take a different position later. Many Democrats did it with the wall for political expediency. Same with gun control and abortion for others. I never said what your saying iis impossible but I do not see it as a factual, take it to the bank fact. It would be a big shift against his base regaurdless of a campaign promise. I just think your wrong.


There are times when we can pressure the politicians but you know they will do what they can to further the agenda. They also know that most people don't pay attention to who votes for what, and they know their BS political ads sway people. People always want other people's politicians gone while they will ultimately support their own.

What happens when a true constitutionalist has a chance of winning a seat? All you have to do is remember what they did to Roy Moore.


----------



## A Watchman

The Resister said:


> Let us review:
> 
> [I look at what Trump has said in the past and then what he says now, BEFORE the NRA reigns him in. Trump is for denying firearms to people with mental problems. WTH? You mean no Due Process??? So, if someone goes to a psychologist for sexual addiction, erectile dysfunction, or marital problems, they automatically lose their Right to keep and bear Arms??? Yep, Trump liked that idea until the NRA talked to him.


There goes that pesky NRA and it's loud voice being influential again.


----------



## The Tourist

I'm a radio listener, not a TV watcher. Having said that, I wish the talk shows would find a new dead horse to beat. I'm a Trump supporter, but Rush Limbaugh is getting to be "all Trump, all the time."


----------



## stevekozak

The Tourist said:


> I'm a radio listener, not a TV watcher. Having said that, I wish the talk shows would find a new dead horse to beat. I'm a Trump supporter, but Rush Limbaugh is getting to be "all Trump, all the time."


What is it that you would like him to talk about?


----------



## RedLion

The Resister said:


> My feelings for Trump have *no* bearing on political strategies. Trump has already made the deal. You may never read about it and, for the *third *time, it will *not* be an across the board deal. Trump used to be involved in World Wrestling Entertainment. He knows how to work the crowd and make you believe almost anything - then come out of nowhere with yet another surprise.
> 
> I totally disagree with your assessment. A GoFundMe account was set up to get the American people to come up with the 5.1 Billion Dollars. They ultimately failed and the promoters had to return the $20 million dollars they raised. It was an epic fail. For years I've argued with people about the alleged costs of undocumented foreigners to the hospitals - not counting the alleged time spent on them, etc. (I knew they were paying all along.) Anyway, I looked it up and found out how much physicians make per year on average and then the total number of physicians in the U.S. They have a net income of *$189 BILLION DOLLARS* per year, and the GoFundMe account only raked in 20 million. I'm not counting the EMTs, nurses, and paraprofessionals in that field.
> 
> It's like I keep saying, undocumented foreigners, by and large pay their bills. If not, those affected would have donated something to that build the wall effort. And the cheerleaders??? How much do you think Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Weiner - Savage, Mark Stein, etc. donated? I'm embarrassed for them. Actions speak louder than words. That don't mean Trump won't get his wall - it's just that America doesn't really support the idea. The longer it goes on, the less popular it will be.


Lol you do live in your own world. The longer the shut down goes, the better for Trump.


----------



## RedLion

Denton said:


> Let me jump in, please.
> 
> Trump is really new to the whole Constitution thing. We all know he has some great ideas, but those ideas don't involve protecting our rights or the constitution. Great ideas, nevertheless.
> Still, his weak suit is the constitution to include the Bill of Rights.
> 
> You want a list of Republicans in Congress who would sell us out? How many times have they already sold us out? For decades, they have been selling us out. They'll sell us out again. They don't serve us. They have another master.


I know that there are GOP senators that have and will sell out. I was wanting Resister to supply a list of who he though these folks were.


----------



## RedLion

#2 to Pelosi, Hoyer has already back tracked including saying that wall are not immoral and do work. All of the GOP still staying strong behind Trump including McConnell just denying a 3rd lefty bill to re-open the govt. It is getting to the point that it is only Pelosi, Schumer and the media that are holding things up. Dem freshman Reps in Trump favored areas have been getting a lot of calls from unhappy constituents. Many of these freshman were elected on the promise to work with Trump including security. The tide is in Trumps favor no doubt.


----------



## RedLion

Another snip it of how Trump is winning.



> Liberals in Crisis! President Trump GAINS 19 POINTS with Latino Voters Since Shutdown


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/liberals-in-crisis-president-trump-gains-19-points-with-latino-voters-since-shutdown/


----------



## The Tourist

stevekozak said:


> What is it that you would like him to talk about?


Anything else. Football scores. The price of Swedish call girls. Why the 1965 Panhead was the best bike Harley ever built. Where did the "K" go in spelling 'tarmac'? Can Botox make a good flak vest, Nancy wants to know...


----------



## Real Old Man

The Resister said:


> As I've explained in other posts, it will *not* be officially linked per se. That would be too obvious. The right is really progressive on the Fourth Amendment so my first guess would be that background checks could be hidden in some kind of legislation requiring background checks done on undocumented foreigners that will get amnesty when Trump either increases the numbers of people he will let come here or maybe within legislation to give Dreamers a shot at citizenship. A relatively smart liberal would try that avenue.
> 
> Pelosi only has to pressure Republicans when a mass shooting happens in that Republican's state. That's OUR fault for not submitting ideas on reducing gun violence without gun control. The only plan that the gun lobby has to stop Pelosi's gun control is to attach firearm carry reciprocity to her legislation.
> 
> The theory is, if Pelosi gets her background check bill passed, it will include a reciprocal clause that you can go to any state and carry your weapon so long as you have a gun license for your home state. Again, in theory, Gun Owners of America thinks Pelosi would kill her own legislation rather than have reciprocity as part of the bill.
> 
> Liberals are going to be playing the same game. It's impossible for me to determine how the two sides will slide their agendas past us, but if Pelosi loses on gun control and immigration, the Democrat party implodes.
> 
> Now, back to Heller. You missed the whole point. The *EARLIEST* court decisions made it plain that your Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute, above the law, inherent, *unalienable*, natural, irrevocable. The Heller Court says that government gives you your Rights. That flies in the face of what the founders intended. So, now the states have been handed powers that are unimaginable. At least forty state and local bans of one kind or another have been passed since Heller. The government is disarming America on the installment plan with the Heller decision. So, either your Rights are* unalienable* (as per the Declaration of Independence) OR the government gives you your Rights. It can't be both. Heller was the biggest power grab in my life time.


Reading the synopsis of the case there is no mention of the government giving you any rights question.

Perhaps reading what the justices wrote would be moe appropriate than what you think they wrote
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290


----------



## Real Old Man

Denton said:


> Let me jump in, please.
> 
> Trump is really new to the whole Constitution thing. We all know he has some great ideas, but those ideas don't involve protecting our rights or the constitution. Great ideas, nevertheless.
> Still, his weak suit is the constitution to include the Bill of Rights.
> 
> You want a list of Republicans in Congress who would sell us out? How many times have they already sold us out? For decades, they have been selling us out. They'll sell us out again. They don't serve us. They have another master.


Denton, I really believe you are wrong. Just look at the trouble he had getting his first two appointments to the supreme court thru.

But would you really have wanted hillory or bernie instead?


----------



## Prepared One

Real Old Man said:


> Denton, I really believe you are wrong. Just look at the trouble he had getting his first two appointments to the supreme court thru.
> 
> But would you really have wanted hillory or bernie instead?


Better then Hillary, yes. The bar having been set below slime, is that necessarily a good thing? :vs_smile:


----------



## The Resister

Camel923 said:


> I trust no politican. Eternal vigilance is always necessary especially when Congress is in session. You are making some assumptions. This guy has said a lot of different things on different subjects in the past. My point is regaurdless of what you think he may or may not do, what was the sure way to avoid what you are stating. Hillary? Kasich? Bush? Rubio? I do not think so. Maybe Cruz or Santorum or a couple of Republicans but none of them got a whiff of the nomination. And would they have beaten hildabeast?
> 
> What you laid out is one possibility, not a certainty. The best defense is a good offense. Be proactive on the subject with your Representatives. Notify them daily on your positions. If it's such a done deal, why was it done with Obama? This would have been easy to create a registery 2008-10. I have a hard time seeing the NRA going along with this even with some of the stupid things it has done over the years.
> 
> Trump is not the only politician to say one thing years ago and take a different position later. Many Democrats did it with the wall for political expediency. Same with gun control and abortion for others. I never said what your saying iis impossible but I do not see it as a factual, take it to the bank fact. It would be a big shift against his base regaurdless of a campaign promise. Trump is no fool. I just think your wrong.


I do not present possibilities as fact since they obviously haven't happened yet. The only thing you can do is to look at the options on the table and try to anticipate the other guy's move. It is my opinion that Trump was telegraphing his next move much like a boxer that drops his right shoulder before trying to go for a left jab. Past performance is a good predictor of future behavior.

Despite Trump's supposed turnaround on gun control, there is not only his past, but his recent behavior convinces me more and more of which course he will take. Here is a quote from yesterday's news:

"_The law, which is a recommendation of Trump's post-Parkland school safety commission, would allow police to temporarily confiscate someone's guns if a judge or magistrate rules they present an extreme risk to themselves or others_."

https://www.virginiamercury.com/201...-the-other-gun-control-bills-filed-this-year/

I cannot get any more recent than yesterday. Fortunately the bill failed. What I am *NOT* seeing is anyone adopting the idea that the way to take the "_mentally ill_" off the streets is to quit *manufacturing *drug addicts AND you treat people who become a danger to themselves and / others. You keep them in protective custody; you do not send them into society where they can wreak havoc.

The LAST person who is qualified to know whether or not you pose a threat to society is a judge - especially one deciding the case based off a psychologist or psychiatrist that is anti-gun right off the bat.


----------



## The Resister

Real Old Man said:


> Reading the synopsis of the case there is no mention of the government giving you any rights question.
> 
> Perhaps reading what the justices wrote would be moe appropriate than what you think they wrote
> https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290


The United States Supreme Court decisions can contain a lot of words. A synopsis of the case, even dicta might be interesting, but the bottom line the only important thing is the *RULING*. Let me repeat the official RULING:

"_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

It is number two in the ruling. If you will look at the *EARLIEST RULINGS* in our Courts, they consistently ruled in accordance with our foundational principles found in the Declaration of Independence. Either you believe that you were born with *unalienable* Rights OR you believe that the government grants you "rights" based upon your citizenship and good behavior. It cannot be both.

IF you believe that the government grants "rights" then the phrase "_Right to keep and bear Arms_" is meaningless. In the ten years following the Heller decision there was more gun control legislation introduced and more anti-guns laws passed than in our country's history from 1789 to 2008 combined!


----------



## The Resister

RedLion said:


> I know that there are GOP senators that have and will sell out. I was wanting Resister to supply a list of who he though these folks were.


I'm really trying. There was a list in a story I ran across a couple of days ago. The problem is the sites I visit via Google are not in my history - only that I went to Google. And I never get the same stories twice. Add to that, when I run searches on* news* stories, it is usually ancient history. So, it may take some time. I can tell you one of the Senators is a woman (most likely the one opposing the shutdown.) I will find it again, eventually.

UPDATE: Found five traitors in the House:

"_Five Republican House members have joined the Democrat push to criminalize private gun sales," Breitbart.com reports. "The five are Reps. Peter King (R-NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Chris Smith (R-NJ), and Brian Mast (R-FL)_."

https://gunpowdermagazine.com/republicans-join-forces-with-pelosi-to-promote-national-gun-registry/

Got three of the Senators from another site:

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/11/will-gop-senate-stop-house-democrats-gun-control/#ixzz5cxwLP01i 
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution 
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

"_In the Senate, Republicans such as *Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham*, and* Susan Collins* have introduced or cosponsored red flag legislation_."

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/11/will-gop-senate-stop-house-democrats-gun-control/#axzz5cxw725BR

The "Red Flag" legislation is the same gun control Trump just endorsed.

Also check this out:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-support-gun-control/?utm_term=.40c484ab0128

John Cornyn is also a supporter of gun control.


----------



## Real Old Man

The Resister said:


> I do not present possibilities as fact since they obviously haven't happened yet. The only thing you can do is to look at the options on the table and try to anticipate the other guy's move. It is my opinion that Trump was telegraphing his next move much like a boxer that drops his right shoulder before trying to go for a left jab. Past performance is a good predictor of future behavior.
> 
> Despite Trump's supposed turnaround on gun control, there is not only his past, but his recent behavior convinces me more and more of which course he will take. Here is a quote from yesterday's news:
> 
> "_The law, which is a recommendation of Trump's post-Parkland school safety commission, would allow police to temporarily confiscate someone's guns if a judge or magistrate rules they present an extreme risk to themselves or others_."
> 
> https://www.virginiamercury.com/201...-the-other-gun-control-bills-filed-this-year/
> 
> I cannot get any more recent than yesterday. Fortunately the bill failed. What I am *NOT* seeing is anyone adopting the idea that the way to take the "_mentally ill_" off the streets is to quit *manufacturing *drug addicts AND you treat people who become a danger to themselves and / others. You keep them in protective custody; you do not send them into society where they can wreak havoc.
> 
> The LAST person who is qualified to know whether or not you pose a threat to society is a judge - especially one deciding the case based off a psychologist or psychiatrist that is anti-gun right off the bat.


Perhaps one ryeason the bill failed is that it's already legal to take firearms away from folkes charged with domestic assault. Secondly if you threaten to harm yurself a judge can commit you for a psyche assessment taking you away from your firearms.

So that only left threats to others


----------



## RedLion

The Resister said:


> I'm really trying. There was a list in a story I ran across a couple of days ago. The problem is the sites I visit via Google are not in my history - only that I went to Google. And I never get the same stories twice. Add to that, when I run searches on* news* stories, it is usually ancient history. So, it may take some time. I can tell you one of the Senators is a woman (most likely the one opposing the shutdown.) I will find it again, eventually.


Toomey would be one.


----------



## The Resister

RedLion said:


> Toomey would be one.


Given the right circumstances, Pelosi has the votes. The real problem lies in the fact that if we are not educated as to the meaning of the Second Amendment and we are not influencing our legislators, but more importantly not offering up alternative ideas, we will eventually lose.


----------



## The Resister

Real Old Man said:


> Perhaps one ryeason the bill failed is that it's already legal to take firearms away from folkes charged with domestic assault. Secondly if you threaten to harm yurself a judge can commit you for a psyche assessment taking you away from your firearms.
> 
> So that only left threats to others


Since I have not read the bills, I cannot agree or disagree. It just says the legislation calls for a judge to make a call as to whether a person is an extreme risk to themselves or others. Based upon what? The issue is Due Process.


----------



## The Resister

I've pontificated a lot on this thread in response to other posts, but I had one I wanted to do just to give a couple of opinions.

Have you ever heard of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997? It was an appropriations bill - a bill dealing with budgetary concerns. It was no big deal. So, it got no play time in the media. While that was going on there was a* really* idiotic bill floating around that had the same chance of passage as Pelosi's legislation. So, some dirty dealers attached an amendment to that budget bill. It was a horrific gun control bill called the Lautenberg Amendment.

We all know that our legislators are as about as committed to the Constitution as they are committed to us individually. Their concern is limited to how it translates into votes. If you want to make a change in the status quo, you have to find people with the experience and desire to do something and then inform yourselves and spread your knowledge to those who can make a change.

David Codrea, a field editor of GUNS magazine has been doing some research on this issue and came to the same conclusions I did regarding the ex post facto violations, Fifth Amendment violations, and questioning whether the BATFE can make the determination something meets the standards required in a statute and then summarily reverse themselves when such an action amounts to using a regulator agency to legislate, not enforce the law. Cordea is now going to join forces with Len Savage and Stephen Stamboulieh and will be involved in legal actions regarding the bump stock ban.

I will be offering my experience to the Gun Owners of America and urge all of you to join GOA. If the United States Supreme Court applies the laws correctly based upon the lawsuits I know of (which include one or more of the three things I keep mentioning) we might avert a disastrous precedent that will only lead to total confiscation.


----------



## Camel923

I agree with the op that removal of constitutional freedoms without due process is wrong. It is done all time. A Woman files for a divorce and usually a pfa at the same time. There goes the guy’s guns. Still the best one can do is everything in our collective power to oppose nonsense legislation at the ballot box and grass roots pressure. If you donate or work for a candidate, let your feelings be known and that many of your associates feel and note the same way. Politicans want re-election not short careers.

Some things I am not convinced of. I do belong to GOA, NRA and NAGR. Show me someone who can get elected and can get as much done or more as Trump on issues I care about and I am all ears. I am skeptical that it will be a sell out. If it is Trump will loose enough of his base that he would be a lame duck. Why put up with all the bad press and Russian probes? It would have been easy to give in and go along. I doubt that conclusion that further guns restrictions will be offered by the White House for the wall. POS republicans, yep.


----------



## Denton

Real Old Man said:


> Denton, I really believe you are wrong. Just look at the trouble he had getting his first two appointments to the supreme court thru.
> 
> But would you really have wanted hillory or bernie instead?


Of course, I wouldn't want them instead of Trump. I didn't insinuate I did. I outlined Trump's good points and his weak points.

Yes, he had a lot of trouble getting his nominees through. That speaks poorly of the Congressmen, not of him.

I'm not throwing rocks at President Trump. He gave up a lot when he took the job. It has cost him many millions of dollars and he hasn't complained. He has the country's best interests at heart, I believe. That doesn't mean his every decision will be best for the country, though.


----------



## Sasquatch

The Tourist said:


> I'm a radio listener, not a TV watcher. Having said that, I wish the talk shows would find a new dead horse to beat. I'm a Trump supporter, but Rush Limbaugh is getting to be "all Trump, all the time."


Just like the Liberal stations (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) they've all realized Trump sells. Only difference is depending on which group you want to attract is how you slant your broadcast.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Camel923

There is some truth in this. 3/4 of elected officials and the deep state.


----------



## The Resister

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...owdown-over-border-wall/ar-BBSM6cP?li=BBnbcA1

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...i’m-a-very-stupid-girl”/ar-BBSM2Ab?li=BBnb7Kz

Let me see here - Trump STILL has undocumented workers on the payroll??? Rupert Murdoch (as in Council on Foreign Relations) is for the wall as are other rich people???

Then the middle class of America had rather have a wall than productive citizens, fewer drug addicts, and a chance at lowering gun violence without gun control. I'm still connecting dots while watching that long term prediction come to fruition. Pray for the Republic.


----------



## stowlin

Let me ask, are suggesting, insinuating or claiming that Trump is really not in favor of a wall?



The Resister said:


> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...owdown-over-border-wall/ar-BBSM6cP?li=BBnbcA1
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...i’m-a-very-stupid-girl”/ar-BBSM2Ab?li=BBnb7Kz
> 
> Let me see here - Trump STILL has undocumented workers on the payroll??? Rupert Murdoch (as in Council on Foreign Relations) is for the wall as are other rich people???
> 
> Then the middle class of America had rather have a wall than productive citizens, fewer drug addicts, and a chance at lowering gun violence without gun control. I'm still connecting dots while watching that long term prediction come to fruition. Pray for the Republic.


----------



## Inor

stowlin said:


> Let me ask, are suggesting, insinuating or claiming that Trump is really not in favor of a wall?


He folded like a cheap suit on the wall and got NOTHING in return. Even the NY Post called him "The Cave Man". What makes you think he ever was in favor of it beyond his cheap campaign rhetoric?


----------



## stowlin

Inor said:


> He folded like a cheap suit on the wall and got NOTHING in return. Even the NY Post called him "The Cave Man". What makes you think he ever was in favor of it beyond his cheap campaign rhetoric?


If a Congress put it on his desk he'd have given up DACA for it. I can imagine he'd have signed under most any reasoned terms and to think otherwise is beyond the norm. He said he'd get rid of NAFTA and he did, he told us who'd be his nominees to the court and they have been, and so I have zero reason to imagine he wouldn't have a wall built given the budget to do so.


----------



## Denton

Inor said:


> He folded like a cheap suit on the wall and got NOTHING in return. Even the NY Post called him "The Cave Man". What makes you think he ever was in favor of it beyond his cheap campaign rhetoric?


Not necessarily, as I said a few posts ago.

The government gets opened for three weeks, workers to include the air traffic controllers, get paid, and Congress gets the chance to show the Democrats and the Establishment Republicans aren't interested in border security. At the end of the three weeks, things will be more clear. Then, he can go for the state of emergency option and we can then see how the Establishment will work to stop that, too.

What do you think? Maybe this is stategy?


----------



## Inor

stowlin said:


> If a Congress put it on his desk he'd have given up DACA for it. I can imagine he'd have signed under most any reasoned terms and to think otherwise is beyond the norm. He said he'd get rid of NAFTA and he did, he told us who'd be his nominees to the court and they have been, and so I have zero reason to imagine he wouldn't have a wall built given the budget to do so.


Yeah, because we are all so in favor of DACA... I understand, politics is about compromise. But your Trump got nothing in this deal. ZIP, ZERO NADA. He did absolutely NOTHING except making pelosi and schumer more powerful. And you think that is a win?


----------



## Inor

Denton said:


> Not necessarily, as I said a few posts ago.
> 
> The government gets opened for three weeks, workers to include the air traffic controllers, get paid, and Congress gets the chance to show the Democrats and the Establishment Republicans aren't interested in border security. At the end of the three weeks, things will be more clear. Then, he can go for the state of emergency option and we can then see how the Establishment will work to stop that, too.
> 
> What do you think? Maybe this is stategy?


Strategy?!? Really? You for sure, are smarter than that. This is nothing but another Trump scam, no different than his bankruptcies - within the rules but decidedly wrong.


----------



## stowlin

Inor said:


> Yeah, because we are all so in favor of DACA... I understand, politics is about compromise. But your Trump got nothing in this deal. ZIP, ZERO NADA. He did absolutely NOTHING except making pelosi and schumer more powerful. And you think that is a win?


No I didn't call this a win and of course it's not. I wish and prefer he'd have stood his ground but he folded. I tire of people expecting perfection and their ideology performed flawlessly for Trump has given two supremes that Hillary didn't and for that I'm thankful, for that I'm greatful and for the never trumpets who would have given the country Hillary because of his flawed state I find sad and ignorant.


----------



## Kauboy

12 immigrant workers at Trump golf course fired, lawyer says



> A dozen immigrant workers at one of President Donald Trump's golf clubs in New York who are in the U.S. illegally were fired this month even though managers had known about their legal status for years, a lawyer for the workers said Saturday.
> ...
> The firings come after workers at another Trump club in New Jersey came forward last month to say managers there had hired them knowing they were in the country illegally, and had even helped one obtain phony documents.
> ...
> Eric Trump depicted the firings to the Post as a normal course of business.
> 
> *"We are making a broad effort to identify any employee who has given false and fraudulent documents to unlawfully gain employment," he said. "Where identified, any individual will be terminated immediately."*


:laughhard::laughhard::laughhard:


----------



## Inor

stowlin said:


> No I didn't call this a win and of course it's not. I wish and prefer he'd have stood his ground but he folded. I tire of people expecting perfection and their ideology performed flawlessly for Trump has given two supremes that Hillary didn't and for that I'm thankful, for that I'm greatful and for the never trumpets who would have given the country Hillary because of his flawed state I find sad and ignorant.


I am not a "Never Trumper". I even voted for the bastard in the general (not that I am proud of that now). But ever since, with the exception of the tax cut, he has been a complete loser. Impeach? Knock yourselves out; do the real conservatives a favor.

Hillary is out of the mix now, so your argument: "he's better than hillary" does not hold water now.


----------



## Denton

Inor said:


> Strategy?!? Really? You for sure, are smarter than that. This is nothing but another Trump scam, no different than his bankruptcies - within the rules but decidedly wrong.


You're probably right, but I hope you aren't wishing for failure.


----------



## StratMaster

Bernie is running again in 2020... should make the whole show a hoot.


----------



## Inor

Denton said:


> You're probably right, but I hope you aren't wishing for failure.


Not wishing for failure. I wanted him to right and true, but he is not. I am not also putting my head in the sand. This mutt is a charlitton.


----------



## Chiefster23

Inor said:


> Not wishing for failure. I wanted him to right and true, but he is not. I am not also putting my head in the sand. This mutt is a charlitton.


And can you name me one modern politician that isn't a con-man? Trump has delivered on almost all of his campaign promises. More so than any president in modern history. So just what do you expect? Perfection? Ain't gonna happen!


----------



## Inor

Chiefster23 said:


> And can you name me one modern politician that isn't a con-man? Trump has delivered on almost all of his campaign promises. More so than any president in modern history. So just what do you expect? Perfection? Ain't gonna happen!


Trump told us he wasn't a politician.

I do not expect "perfection". I would be happy with 50%. I voted for Trump for 3 reasons: Repeal obamacare, a tax cut and build the wall. He did get us a tax cut. But he was an epic failure on obamacare and an epic failure on building the wall. So far, his success ratio is 33%. In other words, he is a LOSER! Baseball teams fire the manager for a better win percentage than Trump has.


----------



## Denton

Inor said:


> Trump told us he wasn't a politician.
> 
> I do not expect "perfection". I would be happy with 50%. I voted for Trump for 3 reasons: Repeal obamacare, a tax cut and build the wall. He did get us a tax cut. But he was an epic failure on obamacare and an epic failure on building the wall. So far, his success ratio is 33%. In other words, he is a LOSER! Baseball teams fire the manager for a better win percentage than Trump has.


Judge appointments will have a long term impact on this nation. He's done well. You're giving up too quickly on border security. As far as ObamaCare, that is definitely a wash. A shame.

When he was running for the job, somebody should have told him not to promise things that take Congress to deliver. It would have been much better had he simply stressed his desire to get those things done, providing Congress stands with him and America. As you states, though; he isn't a politician.


----------



## Traxxas

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ob...oodbye-in-2019-as-health-law-faces-new-threat



> The Affordable Care Act will lose its teeth in 2019, as the penalty for not buying insurance disappears - leaving the health care law's future as murky as ever.
> .....
> But ObamaCare now faces a new legal threat, following a federal court ruling this month declaring the health care law unconstitutional - and creating a new element of uncertainty.


Getting rid of the mandate and a federal judge ruling the law unconstitutional looks pretty much like Trump may have also fulfilled this promise.


----------



## Denton

Traxxas said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ob...oodbye-in-2019-as-health-law-faces-new-threat
> 
> Getting rid of the mandate and a federal judge ruling the law unconstitutional looks pretty much like Trump may have also fulfilled this promise.


It'd be good if the rest of the program is swept up and tossed into the trash. Let's keep our fingers crossed.


----------



## Chiefster23

Inor said:


> Trump told us he wasn't a politician.
> 
> I do not expect "perfection". I would be happy with 50%. I voted for Trump for 3 reasons: Repeal obamacare, a tax cut and build the wall. He did get us a tax cut. But he was an epic failure on obamacare and an epic failure on building the wall. So far, his success ratio is 33%. In other words, he is a LOSER! Baseball teams fire the manager for a better win percentage than Trump has.


Whoooa! The Obamacare failure was on congress. Specifically John McCain. So please explain to me just exactly how that fiasco was Trumps fault.


----------



## Chiefster23

And the wall has to be funded by congress. Trump is not ‘king’. He simply cannot fund the wall on his own. Our own voters decide who gets elected to congress and those congressmen (both parties) have consistently blocked immigration reform and border security. Trump has done everything he could to produce results but the drones in congress (the drones you and I elected) have stopped him at every turn. His last card is a declaration of emergency but we all know that will be blocked in the 9th circuit court. So you call Trump a loser. Why don’t you explain to us just exactly how you could have unilaterally repealed Obamacare and built the wall............. I’m waiting............


----------



## Prepared One

As most of you know I voted for Trump for two reasons. Federal judge appointments, especially the supreme court, and he wasn't the beast. I considered him a stop gap measure at best, and at worst? Well, we shall see. Beyond the tax breaks, military spending, and easing of federal regulation ( All positives ) I see mostly chaos with no rhyme or reason and a swamp that is still very much filled with alligators and snails. 

Him caving in to the Wicked Witch of the North and Tumor was a huge mistake. He gave up his leverage and empowered the left. In three weeks he will come away with less then half of what he asked, if anything at all. 

His negotiating with the pork chop in NK only empowered the fat kid and put him as an equal on the world stage. On top of that, nothing has changed on the peninsula. He is still producing fissile materiel and developing his rockets while he got what he wanted. We stopped war games with the south. Pelosi and Kim got the better of the deal it would seem. 



At the end of the day, he is what I thought he would be. A thumb in the ****, nothing better, and hopefully, nothing worse. 

If there is a grand plan to all of this I need to see it, because in two years it will be too late.


----------



## Prepared One

Chiefster23 said:


> And the wall has to be funded by congress. Trump is not 'king'. He simply cannot fund the wall on his own. Our own voters decide who gets elected to congress and those congressmen (both parties) have consistently blocked immigration reform and border security. Trump has done everything he could to produce results but the drones in congress (the drones you and I elected) have stopped him at every turn. His last card is a declaration of emergency but we all know that will be blocked in the 9th circuit court. So you call Trump a loser. Why don't you explain to us just exactly how you could have unilaterally repealed Obamacare and built the wall............. I'm waiting............


I don't disagree that congress, in particular the Republicans, are culpable in this fiasco. They had control of both houses and the presidency for two years and got only a tax bill done. They should be held responsible come 2020 for their failures, of which, there are many.

Trumps campaign rhetoric of building a wall and repealing Oblundercare was a falsehood from the get go. He needed congress and got no help. However, if he was politically savvy, he would have anticipated that fact. He leaned to heavily on his supposed ability to make a deal, there is no deal to be made with the socialists. especially now that he gave up his leverage. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next three weeks.


----------



## Slippy

Congress sucks, every last tyranical sumbitch in congress must go...tell all your friends...lain:


----------



## stowlin

It's fair and reasoned to call out his failures but to say the tax cut is his only success is not fair or reasoned. It's also reasonable to mention Hillary because two Supreme Court seats are not held by her appointments which shoukd probably be considered the greatest measure of success. Yes he failed at getting a wall but guess what he has NO vote in Congress and even his own party wouldn't put it there for him to sign. He failed to repeal Obamacare again he had no vote and his own party let us down. Why blame him for what RINOs won't do? I don't get that.



Inor said:


> I am not a "Never Trumper". I even voted for the bastard in the general (not that I am proud of that now). But ever since, with the exception of the tax cut, he has been a complete loser. Impeach? Knock yourselves out; do the real conservatives a favor.
> 
> Hillary is out of the mix now, so your argument: "he's better than hillary" does not hold water now.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

I voted for Trump for one reason.
I am a one issue voter - 2nd Amendment. To me, every other issue pales in importance.
With the balance of the Supreme Court at stake, I would have voted for a rabid raccoon if it was running against Hillary.

Presidents come, Presidents go, laws are made, laws are changed.
But Federal judgeship's are for life. And who interprets the law is THE most important position in government.


----------



## bigwheel

rice paddy daddy said:


> I voted for Trump for one reason.
> I am a one issue voter - 2nd Amendment. To me, every other issue pales in importance.
> With the balance of the Supreme Court at stake, I would have voted for a rabid raccoon if it was running against Hillary.
> 
> Presidents come, Presidents go, laws are made, laws are changed.
> But Federal judgeship's are for life. And who interprets the law is THE most important position in government.


Yep. Its called a Judicial Dictatorship..and was never envisioned by dear old Uncle Ben or any of the founding fathers. Bet they are spinning in their graves over how the Judiciary has gutted the other branches of guvment. It just aint right.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Trump re-opening the government on a temporary basis was not "caving."
He was showing he is the better man for considering those out of work, including people I personally know.

HOWEVER, if at the end of the three weeks he does not have a border barrier being built, whether by law or executive order, then he will be toast.


----------



## bigwheel

Yes..he best cough up a wall soonish. It needs to be steel and see through. Sorta like this one. Wouldnt hurt to be able to shoot through it either.


----------



## stowlin

For the life of me I don't know why he can't just make it a military action, it's an invasion for crying out loud and there is a military in place that could get it done in short order.



bigwheel said:


> Yes..he best cough up a wall soonish. It needs to be steel and see through. Sorta like this one. Wouldnt hurt to be able to shoot through it either.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

stowlin said:


> For the life of me I don't know why he can't just make it a military action, it's an invasion for crying out loud and there is a military in place that could get it done in short order.


What items in the defense budget would you like to cut to cover the billions of dollars necessary?

From what I have read, the administration has found $7 billion in the over all budget that could be used.
We may see what that is, if he has to declare a national emergency to build the wall.


----------



## bigwheel

stowlin said:


> For the life of me I don't know why he can't just make it a military action, it's an invasion for crying out loud and there is a military in place that could get it done in short order.


Well my liberal big brother expalined this well earlier in the day. He say if Trump declares a Natiional Emergency to build a wall...when Moochelle..Maxine or Pocahontas takes over the presidency..they will see it as a precedent to declare a similar National Emergency to come take our guns..bacon and Bibles. Made sense to me. Lets let Trump rob this train. Thanks.


----------



## stowlin

This I read on another blog and I call silly and foul. There is a great big difference in taking 30,000 soldiers and putting them into a construction project for a few months then asking those same soldiers to go door to door and collect legally owned weapons protected by the constitution such as it is. No one is going to shoot at them building a wall, but they sure will in the later effort.



bigwheel said:


> Well my liberal big brother expalined this well earlier in the day. He say if Trump declares a Natiional Emergency to build a wall...when Moochelle..Maxine or Pocahontas takes over the presidency..they will see it as a precedent to declare a similar National Emergency to come take our guns..bacon and Bibles. Made sense to me. Lets let Trump rob this train. Thanks.


----------



## stowlin

Would it really be that hard to postpone a few jets and maybe a ship? I didn't say cancel but put them off six months or so.



rice paddy daddy said:


> What items in the defense budget would you like to cut to cover the billions of dollars necessary?
> 
> From what I have read, the administration has found $7 billion in the over all budget that could be used.
> We may see what that is, if he has to declare a national emergency to build the wall.


----------



## Denton

bigwheel said:


> Well my liberal big brother expalined this well earlier in the day. He say if Trump declares a Natiional Emergency to build a wall...when Moochelle..Maxine or Pocahontas takes over the presidency..they will see it as a precedent to declare a similar National Emergency to come take our guns..bacon and Bibles. Made sense to me. Lets let Trump rob this train. Thanks.


In doing so, whatever "She" wins (I said "she" because I'm not convinced Mooshelle is a_ she_), it would be violating the constitution.

Tell your big brother that we could then, with the assistance with much of the military and law enforcement, take back the nation and afterward make America Great Again.
Steer him toward the Denton and Sasquatch Show.


----------



## Slippy

Government is not there to employ people. 

This whole thing is so out of whack. 

People, add up all of the Federal Tax Dollars that you have paid in your career and it will make you sick. I am not a wealthy man but I have earned a good living and the amount of dollars that the federal government has extorted from me is astounding. I could easily be retired today if I had 50% of the money that I was forced to give to the feds over the last 42 years. AND could have bought our small lake house that we have been saving for as well.

I am SICK of giving my hard earned money to these fools who are then redistributing it to shit-hole countries or lazy ass pieces of crap.


----------



## StratMaster

stowlin said:


> Would it really be that hard to postpone a few jets and maybe a ship? I didn't say cancel but put them off six months or so.


And $7B would only be 1% of a $700B budget... seems to me stopping an invasion would instantly re-prioritize our plan to spend it.


----------



## Inor

Chiefster23 said:


> Whoooa! The Obamacare failure was on congress. Specifically John McCain. So please explain to me just exactly how that fiasco was Trumps fault.


Hey, Trump wanted to be "The Leader". That means all successes AND all failures are on his shoulders and his shoulders alone. That is the definition of the job.

If Trump did not know that going in, he should have never thrown his hat in the ring. If he was not prepared to push his campaign promises across the line, he should not have made them. I am only holding Trump to the same standard I held b. hussein obama. But you Trump-bots think I should go softer on Trump?


----------



## Inor

stowlin said:


> It's fair and reasoned to call out his failures but to say the tax cut is his only success is not fair or reasoned. It's also reasonable to mention Hillary because two Supreme Court seats are not held by her appointments which shoukd probably be considered the greatest measure of success. Yes he failed at getting a wall but guess what he has NO vote in Congress and even his own party wouldn't put it there for him to sign. He failed to repeal Obamacare again he had no vote and his own party let us down. Why blame him for what RINOs won't do? I don't get that.


I did not say the tax cut was his only success. What I did say was, there were only 3 reasons I voted for him - tax cut, repeal obamacare and build the wall. Only one of those was done.

I keep hearing about the supremes and what an outstanding job Trump did on the justices... How do you know? Have you read any opinions from Gorsuch or Kavanaugh since being promoted to the Supreme Court? Because I have not. I have yet to find anything that either have written, formally or otherwise, since being confirmed. Are they Thomas or are they Roberts? I have no idea.


----------



## bigwheel

Denton said:


> In doing so, whatever "She" wins (I said "she" because I'm not convinced Mooshelle is a_ she_), it would be violating the constitution.
> 
> Tell your big brother that we could then, with the assistance with much of the military and law enforcement, take back the nation and afterward make America Great Again.
> Steer him toward the Denton and Sasquatch Show.


He's hard core from too much time in Sunny CA. Starting back as a Swabby in Navy boot camp and thirty more years at Yosemite Park in the workaday world. Recently came back to Texas. Voted for Obummer twice Hillary and Beto once. I have tried to lure him over here numerous times to no avail. He rarely takes any good advice lol.


----------



## Denton

bigwheel said:


> He's hard core from too much time in Sunny CA. Starting back as a Swabby in Navy boot camp and thirty more years at Yosemite Park in the workaday world. Recently came back to Texas. Voted for Obummer twice Hillary and Beto once. I have tried to lure him over here numerous times to no avail. He rarely takes any good advice lol.


I feel your pain. I have a good friend, a friend from high school. He is the only liberal in his family. While in the Army, he and his wife spent a few years. After retiring, they ex-patted to Germany. Because he is still an American, he still votes, here, via absentee ballot. He votes for crap but doesn't have to sit in it. On the upside, he lives in Germany so is feeling the pain of liberalism at its suicidal worst.


----------



## stowlin

What they are not is hillary active leftists. That's what the two justices are not. What they will be we don't know but we do know they aren't Ginsberg, Kagan or Soto.



Inor said:


> I did not say the tax cut was his only success. What I did say was, there were only 3 reasons I voted for him - tax cut, repeal obamacare and build the wall. Only one of those was done.
> 
> I keep hearing about the supremes and what an outstanding job Trump did on the justices... How do you know? Have you read any opinions from Gorsuch or Kavanaugh since being promoted to the Supreme Court? Because I have not. I have yet to find anything that either have written, formally or otherwise, since being confirmed. Are they Thomas or are they Roberts? I have no idea.


----------



## stowlin

Silliness to blame Trump for what Congress woukd not deliver. Sorry I just find that illogical for the man has campaigned tirelessly for his agenda, taken a beating, lost personal wealth and to blame him for the RINO and Democrats control illustrates a flawed logic.



Inor said:


> Hey, Trump wanted to be "The Leader". That means all successes AND all failures are on his shoulders and his shoulders alone. That is the definition of the job.
> 
> If Trump did not know that going in, he should have never thrown his hat in the ring. If he was not prepared to push his campaign promises across the line, he should not have made them. I am only holding Trump to the same standard I held b. hussein obama. But you Trump-bots think I should go softer on Trump?


----------



## Inor

stowlin said:


> What they are not is hillary active leftists. That's what the two justices are not. What they will be we don't know but we do know they aren't Ginsberg, Kagan or Soto.


Are they Roberts? Are they Souter (one of the most liberal justices ever, nominated by a so-called conservative.)? We don't know. That is the point.


----------



## Inor

stowlin said:


> Silliness to blame Trump for what Congress woukd not deliver. Sorry I just find that illogical for the man has campaigned tirelessly for his agenda, taken a beating, lost personal wealth and to blame him for the RINO and Democrats control illustrates a flawed logic.


No I'm sorry, your Trump is not a leader of men. He is not.

Reagan never had a majority in either house of Congress. But he got much of his agenda passed in spite of the fact that he had few allies in Congress. Trump was not capable of getting even some of his agenda passed even when he held both houses of Congress. I cannot forgive that. He is a poor leader.

I find it illogical that you would continue to worship at the altar of a man that cannot even get his own party behind him.


----------



## Denton

Inor said:


> No I'm sorry, your Trump is not a leader of men. He is not.
> 
> Reagan never had a majority in either house of Congress. But he got much of his agenda passed in spite of the fact that he had few allies in Congress. Trump was not capable of getting even some of his agenda passed even when he held both houses of Congress. I cannot forgive that. He is a poor leader.
> 
> I find it illogical that you would continue to worship at the altar of a man that cannot even get his own party behind him.


Hot-damn; are you this down on all the presidents? Were you this down on Dubbya? Tell the truth. I'll bet not. You are an Establishment, former hippie, aren't you? Was Janice Joplin your favorite singer? You can tell me; you are among friends who do not judge - much. :vs_smirk:


----------



## stowlin

It's quite ironic you tout Reagan when he made a border deal with democrats and how'd that work out?

And I don't worship any man thank you.

Why do hate so much? The man carries your water and since the congress won't you blame him?



Inor said:


> No I'm sorry, your Trump is not a leader of men. He is not.
> 
> Reagan never had a majority in either house of Congress. But he got much of his agenda passed in spite of the fact that he had few allies in Congress. Trump was not capable of getting even some of his agenda passed even when he held both houses of Congress. I cannot forgive that. He is a poor leader.
> 
> I find it illogical that you would continue to worship at the altar of a man that cannot even get his own party behind him.


----------



## Inor

Denton said:


> Hot-damn; are you this down on all the presidents? Were you this down on Dubbya? Tell the truth. I'll bet not. You are an Establishment, former hippie, aren't you? Was Janice Joplin your favorite singer? You can tell me; you are among friends who do not judge - much. :vs_smirk:


Nope. I thought W did a magnificent job in his first term. Not so much in the second. Never was a hippie and Janis Joplin sucks. And yes, I supported the Iraq war when we first entered it. Does that make me the evil "Establishment"? I don't know. I don't care.

Maybe step up and state some facts because I know you are smarter than this bullshit.


----------



## Denton

Inor said:


> Nope. I thought W did a magnificent job in his first term. Not so much in the second. Never was a hippie and Janis Joplin sucks. And yes, I supported the Iraq war when we first entered it. Does that make me the evil "Establishment"? I don't know. I don't care.
> 
> Maybe step up and state some facts because I know you are smarter than this bullshit.


Whew! I thought you either missed this post or decided to ignore me! :vs_laugh: 
Janice Joplin more than sucked. I don't know what the next level is, but that's where I would rank her.


----------



## Inor

Denton said:


> Janice Joplin more than sucked. I don't know what the next level is, but that's where I would rank her.


Although I do find it hilarious that she drown in a pool of her own vomit. Does that make me wrong? :tango_face_grin:


----------

