http://townhall.com/columnists/bobbarr/2...ndment-n1958657

However: IMO; this will be a short victory if H, Clinton is elected.
Jim

Very interesting article Jim. And especially since the implementation of the NICS (National Instant Check System), any Federally licensed firearms dealer has the same ability to verify whether a purchaser may legally buy a firearm, no matter where the transaction takes place.

No surprise that the Government is expected to appeal this decision. I hope everyone took notice of the answers given by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the last debate pertaining to the type of Federal and Supreme Court Judges they would nominate.

Hillary Clinton never even mentioned respect for the U.S. Constitution as a qualification for Judges. And we all know she has no respect for our Constitutional 2nd Amendment Rights.

This election will set the tone in the United States for the next several decades. And if the "democrats" prevail It doesn't bode well for the U S Constitution in general and the 2nd Amendment in particular. Anyone watching the last debate clearly heard Clinton state "I support the 2nd Amendment". This is in stark contrast to her previously recorded statements or statements caught made her aides. Actually she can state that she supports the 2nd Amendment and MEAN just like they do in NYC or Washington DC by making it as difficult and expensive as possible to get approval to purchase and own a firearm. Keep in mind that the $200 transfer stamp to transfer a full automatic was a hefty expense in 1934 when many working Americans didn't make that much in a Month. I would envision substantial transfer or purchase costs tacked on to every firearms transaction as a first step if the "democrats" get control. Of course "Universal Registration" even though it was demonstrated to be unworkable in Canada will become the law of the land.
Jim

Some would argue that threatening to use the executive branch of the government to jail one's political opponent's shows an even higher disregard for the US constitution.

Yes, a complete idiot (Libtard) would make such an argument by refusing to consider that Hillary broke the law by keeping highly classified secrets on an unsecured personal server, and by destroying evidence by using BleachBit to erase e-mails, and smashing Blackberries with a hammer to destroy evidence after a Congressional subpoena had been served on her. Influence peddling by the Clinton Foundation is just more criminal activity that should be investigated by a Special Prosecutor, along with Obstruction of Justice, Tampering with Evidence, and Lying Under Oath.



If Donald Trump really did break the law, I think any sane person would demand that he be punished for his crime, and jailed. It is not a disregard for the Constitution to demand that the law be followed. It is a disregard for the Constitution to ask that anyone, no matter who or what their position, should be above the law.

I think the feingold/WI senate race email leaks demonstrate best what you're having a hard time expressing. Two days ago, it's shown that he's on board with hill to take on more gun control through the exec branch. But hey, he's another true patriot, slashing all barriers to spending other folks' money. So, he's a good 'un, eh?

Yep, one of the better ones he is.

There you go, you done hurt my feelings. I suspected, but are you confirming that he identifies as a male?

Sorry you just can't accept the conclusions of the people and agencies that conducted the investigation in the emails, Benghazi,and what not. Just seems that you prefer vigilantism over the rule of law, which hey, kinda of supports why your blindly support Drumph.

How many investigations has Clinton gone through without nothing to show for in terms of criminal charges being introduced? ZERO! Tens of millions of wasted taxpayers money.

So don't continue to lie and come across as being pro-constitution cause you girls sure as sh!t are not when the rule of law results in an outcome you don't like.

How's your Russian BTW? It seems you boy doesn't even want to believe intelligence briefings now that its clear his Russian masters are working to influence our democratic process to favor Drumph.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio...1014-story.html

Sure hope there is no clear evidence of collusion as that would be treason. There is only one punishment for treason.

No, just educated. A trait that is difficult for you to pick up on.

Looks like I scared princess away. You know for a bully you really are a b!tch. Just like the fat one.

Well if your really being honest with this statement you should contact your representatives to express your displeasure with this. Don't you have them on speed dial?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/30/gop-blocks-probes-into-trump-russia-ties.html

It's quite instructive that you are able to recognize Trump's transgressions, as inconsequential as they are to date. Goodness, he said bad words and behaved like a juvenile teenager showing off to Billy Bush. How evil. What a cad!

Yet you deny what is plain to any and all but the most partisan among us......Hillary's remarkable series of lies and coverups regarding her emails. Never mind the question of WHY she is so desperate to keep those emails from both the public and the authorities.

To suggest there has been an even handed assessment by law enforcement of her actions is really to encourage that what you seem to fear most of a Trump presidency...the debasement of the office by a self serving individual. The use of presidential authority for partisan and personal gain. Obama and Clinton make Richard Nixon look small time.

I won't argue that Trump is the perfect candidate, or even a good one. But Clinton is undoubtedly a liar of staggering proportions, given to secrecy when secrecy isn't required and on record as being dismissive of the very people who support her.

I really wonder about what goes on inside the heads of her supporters.....what new horrific behavior from her would allow you to take the blinders off. Quite remarkable.

I'll try to get this back on track. If anyone thinks CA and NJ gun laws are extremely restrictive just have a look at Puerto Rico's:

Puerto Rico had a very stringent and restrictive licensing process necessary in order to purchase a firearm in Puerto Rico, but portions of this scheme were ruled unconstitutional in a class action lawsuit in June 2015.[7] Judge Aníbal Lugo Irizarry ruled that some of the provisions in Puerto Rico's 404 Statute are unconstitutional and violate the individual and fundamental right conferred in the U.S.Constitution's 2nd amendment which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Judge Irizarry based his decision on the U.S. Supreme Court Heller decision. The case was brought by William Bermúdez and others in a class action suit. Judge Irizarry ruled that anyone wishing to acquire a firearm will only need to complete the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) form 4473, as currently required by U.S. Federal Law. The government of the Commonwealth appealed and the case is still under revision in Puerto Rican courts. If the decision stands, the ruling immediately would allow Puerto Rico's residents to purchase and carry a concealed firearm without requiring a permit. Up to this point, permits to purchase a firearm have required proof of "need" and a lengthy process, and permits to carry concealed firearms have been extremely difficult to obtain.

The current legal system has it that in order to get a weapons licence, a person needs to be 21, along with several other requirements. A person is required to present a sworn statement attesting to compliance with fiscal laws, purchase a $100 internal revenue stamp, submit 3 statements from community members who aren't related to them attesting to their good reputation, submit a signed application that is notarized, be fingerprinted and photographed, and submit a negative certificate of debt to the child support administration.[10] That process is just to be able to purchase firearms to store in a residence or business and not for a concealed carry permit. In order to acquire a concealed carry permit a person has to first have a Target shooting license and then appear before a Judge and present proof of a strong reason for a permit. Due to this process, in many cases concealed carry permit applications have been denied. As such Puerto Rico is considered to be an effective "No Issue" territory for concealed carry permits except for in exceptional cases despite the official "may issue" policy. In recent years there has been an uptick in weapons license applications with a 56% increase from 2013. The Puerto Rican Police attribute the increase to the fear of being targeted by criminals in Puerto Rico.


And please note that the Judge that overturned some of the worse of the Puerto Rican laws based it upon the US Supreme Court Heller decision. Clinton has publicly stated that she believes this Supreme Court decision was in error so what do you think she'll do about it if elected and she names a far left wing replacement Judge for Alito?

Oh and BTW: There is now evidence in Wikileaks that Alito was in fact assassinated.

Another conclusion you hold to that is based off of a demonstrably false premise.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...mp-truth-o-met/

And as for what goes on in our heads? The sky is the limit when you don't form conclusions from demonstrable false premises!

Alito is alive and well Herr Oberst.

Sorry cback, I trimmed out the part that doesn't agree with pca's 'education'. Careful, don't tickle her, then she roars and the claws come out.

Jim, we can poke fun at wiki leaks, but maybe we shouldn't forget that the hill campaign hasn't denied any of it, just blamed the russians. When hill goes low, she's willing to go lower, but she has a fan club that is educated not to care one bit about the facts.

Quote:
"Jim, we can poke fun at wiki leaks, but maybe we shouldn't forget that the hill campaign hasn't denied any of it, just blamed the russians. When hill goes low, she's willing to go lower, but she has a fan club that is educated not to care one bit about the facts.

Craig:
I understand that. However their goal is to corrupt every informational thread on here in the hopes others won't bother reading them. The only time I see the garbage they post is when one of you quotes them. it's the same technique used by the far left in denigrating facts that are quoted by responsible Americans.
I sincerely wish Dave would toss these worthless liberal idiots off here and be done with it.
Jim
And BTW: Clinton is counting on the fact that the MSM will ignore Wikileaks and therefore her typical uninformed voters won't even know about the "democratic abuse."

And furthermore: Here's Scopes Cop Out on Clintons' use of the term "Sand n*gger".

"So while it's true that the term "sand [censored]" appeared in e-mail sent by Hillary Clinton, this term was not used by the former secretary of state to describe Muslims. Rather, it appeared in an opinion piece by an Israeli author about the death of a young man, which Clinton shared with others via e-mail."

I guess it's quite ok according to Snopes since she just FORWARDED it rather then uttering it herself?
I wonder what most Blacks and Arabs would think about this if the MSM didn't bury it?

A truth-o-meter???? You got to be kidding me? A truth-o-meter comparison between someone who has lied and destroyed evidence to cover up that lie is a felon and for anyone who doesn't see that is operating out of the realm of reality.

So how can a felon run for political office? Has corruption infiltrated every one of our government institutions? They are bound and determined to change the direction of this country even to the point of collusion with a felon, which, in itself, is a felony. Sad state of affairs.

What you continually miss and what to me is the most important aspect of both their lies is this: What is the lie about?

Trump boasts excessively, minimizes embarrassing and stupid behavior and campaigns like a normal politician, lying and exaggerating about what he can actually accomplish if elected.

Hillary Clinton lies about felonious activities while Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton lies about influence for sale while Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton lies about the circumstances when as Secretary of State her choices cost four brave and loyal Americans their lives.

But for you, Trump's the bad guy. Like I said before, remarkable.

In classic fashion, reason bounces off the left. I have yet to read one single defense of Hillary Clinton's lying as Secretary of State regarding her emails. This stuff is on the record, unassailable fact. Yet her supporters here and elsewhere just ignore it, as though it never happened.

But eight women claim Trump groped them and now Trump's a rapist.

Chris and King. I'm asking this question directly to each of you.

How do you reconcile Clinton's on the record lies regarding her emails as Secretary of State as someone worthy of your support? And don't go off on a tangent about Trump because we all know you were supporting Clinton from long before Trump became the nominee.

James, my opinion of Clinton has been declared here many times. I believe she's untrustworthy, as I do all politicians unless they have demonstrated otherwise, but Clinton particularly for the millions she makes for being Clinton, part of a corrupted, dysfunctional US political system that's can't provide better choices for the most influential office in the world.

All the goings-on now about the election is a phenomenon in itself. Members have indicated clearly in posts it's been over for months, from the response to my posts last spring that the Republican choice would produce the biggest rout in American history---and reasons why. Americans will choose the only adult in a disgraceful performance visited upon the world.

Now that's amusing. Considering the corruption is due to indoctrination into America of your sociopathic, Marxist, statist religion. Comrade Sralin, your ideology is the problem, not the solution.

I'll take your word for it, Ken: It is corrupted, dysfunctional. Worse, you could have added Trump and Putin are scratching each other's backs.

Good answer King.

So...with lies told to date, who do you feel tells the most egregious and damaging lies....Trump as the campaigner or Clinton as Sec of State?

This election has followed the pattern set in1992. The Democrats are following Psychopolitical doctrine developed by the Soviets. It's all about typical statist,religious demonization of Republicans, all without running on their own beliefs which would be rejected by a majority of Americans. You can always count on dupes, minions, and useful idiots like Comrade Sralin to spout the sociopathic mythology of the Democrat party line.

this makes just as much sense

This election has followed the pattern set in1992. The republicans are following Psychopolitical doctrine developed by the Soviets. It's all about typical statist,religious demonization of democrats, all without running on their own beliefs which would be rejected by a majority of Americans. You can always count on dupes, minions, and useful idiots like Comrade Sralin to spout the sociopathic mythology of the republicans party line.

the political methods described have only been in practice for a few centuries. Early 20th Century media puts today's to shame for pure lurid and slander

have another day
Dr.WtS

Meh,

I'd say that there are clear philosophical differences between the parties. But, that line has been considerably blurred over the last couple of decades. Hence Trump.

James,

I justify my support for Clinton as the better to two choices. One has her flaws. The other is just dangerous to stability. I explained this in the Day starter thread.

For the record, I do not agree with any of your above premises about her lying as SoS w/ respect to Benghazi, emails and so forth to be taken as fact. To much gets distorted by partisan inquiries and that goes both ways.

I think this John Oliver segment is instructive on my take on it. Pretty much agree with his assessment 100%

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd1aB9YI

My support for Clinton is also justified in that I agree with the platform of the party that nominated her. I would of rather it been Bernie, but that is not the case and I am not sore about all the shenanigans because politics is a contact sport. I do not agree in any sense with the GOP's platform and I not fooled by Trumps's empty promises.

I do not care who implements sound democratic policy, so long as it gets implemented. I am certain of who would not implement it.

Lastly, you should note that I do take the time to answer your inquiries. A courtesy that is not being returned from the last several inquires I made of you with respect to Trump's policies and concern for Russian interference with our democratic process to undermine our election.

Chris, while I have a relatively busy life, like most of us, I do try to respond to direct questions. Comments, on the other hand, sometimes elicit a response and sometimes don't. It depends on how I feel, again, I think like most of us. That said, I often miss stuff. I'm a bit frothy this weekend because I'm getting ready to go to Nebraska for the better part of a week AND I'm trying to buy a Lindner. Having difficulty staying focused on anything other than the Lindner.

If I have missed responding directly to a direct question, I apologize.