Comments
1 - 16 of 16 Comments Last updated Mar 18, 2013
Dr X

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

I knew there were more commies in Washington than previously thought.
http://gunowners.org/alert03042013.htm
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Just what is the right trying to do? Resurrect McCarthy? Only this time trow guns into the mix?

Here's the dichotomy. Leahy is being called a "communist", for the reason of the article:
"But, at its core, S. 54 would make it a federal crime to violate virtually any state gun law.

Section 5 creates a new "prohibited person" classification which makes it a federal crime to transfer a gun if “prohibited by State or local law ... from possessing [or] selling ... THE firearm or ammunition.”
A big clamber over it being a federal crime if someone violates any state's gun law(s).
Yet, what is everyone claiming as their right to keep and bear arms under? The Constitution. Arguing it's a Right to keep and bear arms in ANY state by Constitutionality.
But we don't want a federal law in the mix with state(s) gun laws?

So explain it to me how we all have the right in all states under the Constitution to keep and bear arms but not have any federal 'intervention' when state(s) gun laws are violated.

As it is there is no law that allows guns to be transported over any and all state(s) borders without special permits.

I'm not saying I agree with S. 54. I'm saying it's very unbalanced to believe we have the right to keep and bear arms under the United States Constitution but the Federal Government has no right to interfere, or whatever other terminology one wants to use, when state(e) gun laws are violated. All state(s) gun laws have to not be in violation with federal gun laws.

Typical though.
Dr X

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Another communist on the list.

http://jpfo.org/alerts2013/alert20130305.htm
Dr X

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

SeenItBefore wrote:
Just what is the right trying to do? Resurrect McCarthy? Only this time trow guns into the mix?
Here's the dichotomy. Leahy is being called a "communist", for the reason of the article:
"But, at its core, S. 54 would make it a federal crime to violate virtually any state gun law.
Section 5 creates a new "prohibited person" classification which makes it a federal crime to transfer a gun if “prohibited by State or local law ... from possessing [or] selling ... THE firearm or ammunition.”
A big clamber over it being a federal crime if someone violates any state's gun law(s).
Yet, what is everyone claiming as their right to keep and bear arms under? The Constitution. Arguing it's a Right to keep and bear arms in ANY state by Constitutionality.
But we don't want a federal law in the mix with state(s) gun laws?
So explain it to me how we all have the right in all states under the Constitution to keep and bear arms but not have any federal 'intervention' when state(s) gun laws are violated.
As it is there is no law that allows guns to be transported over any and all state(s) borders without special permits.
I'm not saying I agree with S. 54. I'm saying it's very unbalanced to believe we have the right to keep and bear arms under the United States Constitution but the Federal Government has no right to interfere, or whatever other terminology one wants to use, when state(e) gun laws are violated. All state(s) gun laws have to not be in violation with federal gun laws.
Typical though.
It's all or nothing at this point SIB. The libertarian path is the only path to take. Commies on the left and Warmongers on the right. Separate the wheat from the chaff.
Depends

Hudsonville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Is this the dude known as "leaky Leahy"?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Plainwell, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Depends wrote:
Is this the dude known as "leaky Leahy"?
yep, and he is a commie and you can see the results in Vermont everyday. Nice state but broke....... People are nice if they were born and raised there..... New York city people and Boston folk moved there and screwed up the natives lives.....
Depends

Hudsonville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The old LEAKMEISTER.

Since: Sep 08

Neon City Oh.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Everybody in America, who is not completely insane, is on the NRA's enemies list.
zzz

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 12, 2013
 
WDRussell wrote:
Everybody in America, who is not completely insane, is on the NRA's enemies list.
Just like you.

“Where I came from”

Since: Jan 09

the universe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hey SIB cant you see that the infamous "they" meaning the democrats want to turn every gun owner into a criminal.

Still wondering why is it that when some person gets elected to some position like senator or congressman or president or whatever they think they know better than the rest of us what is good for us. So sick and tired of these political zealots trying to run our lives.

I have been listening to old leaky preach his garbage for to long..
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Mar 13, 2013
 
Shoeless Eluder wrote:
Hey SIB cant you see that the infamous "they" meaning the democrats want to turn every gun owner into a criminal.
Still wondering why is it that when some person gets elected to some position like senator or congressman or president or whatever they think they know better than the rest of us what is good for us. So sick and tired of these political zealots trying to run our lives.
I have been listening to old leaky preach his garbage for to long..
It was a long time ago but I remember a Representative, I think he was in MI, that said 'I have been elected by the people to make the decisions I believe are best for them, not what they believe is best'.
Not to represent what the people wanted.

But then again looking around at some of the whacked out ideas some people have I'm not so sure the people even know what is best for themselves.

So a balance has to be struck. The representatives have to pay close attention to what the people want and the people have to be more open to understanding what they want may not be the best for even themselves.

Actually no I don't see the democrats wanting to turn every gun owner into a criminal. Maybe that's because I'm a gun owner and I don't feel threatened by reasonable and rational restrictions. Not just on guns. Though I don't not pay attention to what could be a threat.

Hitler convinced the people of Germany they didn't need arms so they voluntarily disarmed themselves and look what happened. Yet England did basically the same thing and they haven't become what Hitler did to Germany...and the rest of the world. Even though England had a history of being the most powerful country on the planet.

It's been proven over and over throughout history that human nature requires boundaries.

“Where I came from”

Since: Jan 09

the universe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Mar 13, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a long time ago but I remember a Representative, I think he was in MI, that said 'I have been elected by the people to make the decisions I believe are best for them, not what they believe is best'.
Not to represent what the people wanted.
But then again looking around at some of the whacked out ideas some people have I'm not so sure the people even know what is best for themselves.
So a balance has to be struck. The representatives have to pay close attention to what the people want and the people have to be more open to understanding what they want may not be the best for even themselves.
Actually no I don't see the democrats wanting to turn every gun owner into a criminal. Maybe that's because I'm a gun owner and I don't feel threatened by reasonable and rational restrictions. Not just on guns. Though I don't not pay attention to what could be a threat.
Hitler convinced the people of Germany they didn't need arms so they voluntarily disarmed themselves and look what happened. Yet England did basically the same thing and they haven't become what Hitler did to Germany...and the rest of the world. Even though England had a history of being the most powerful country on the planet.
It's been proven over and over throughout history that human nature requires boundaries.
Sorry SIB on this one I totally disagree. I am a gun owner also have been my whole life and when I hear some of the insane talk come from politicians I shake my head. To me there is no such thing as a reasonable restriction. Of course I look at the world with different eyes than most, and know my nature requires no boundaries no limitations on my freedom and this dude does not and will not abide.

I am sure I will be put in jail because I refuse to buy healthcare insurance right up there with the murderers and molesters..oops I forgot I don't have a choice instead of getting a tax return I will get a fine isn't law wonderful it turns innocent decent people into criminals come on pass some more laws and ordinances and regulation and restriction.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Plainwell, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Mar 13, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a long time ago but I remember a Representative, I think he was in MI, that said 'I have been elected by the people to make the decisions I believe are best for them, not what they believe is best'.
Not to represent what the people wanted.
But then again looking around at some of the whacked out ideas some people have I'm not so sure the people even know what is best for themselves.
So a balance has to be struck. The representatives have to pay close attention to what the people want and the people have to be more open to understanding what they want may not be the best for even themselves.
Actually no I don't see the democrats wanting to turn every gun owner into a criminal. Maybe that's because I'm a gun owner and I don't feel threatened by reasonable and rational restrictions. Not just on guns. Though I don't not pay attention to what could be a threat.
Hitler convinced the people of Germany they didn't need arms so they voluntarily disarmed themselves and look what happened. Yet England did basically the same thing and they haven't become what Hitler did to Germany...and the rest of the world. Even though England had a history of being the most powerful country on the planet.
It's been proven over and over throughout history that human nature requires boundaries.
England still has shootings.... It not that then beatings to death, stabbings, and cricket bat poundings for a meat tenderizer....... Of the face.....
Depends

Hudsonville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Mar 15, 2013
 
The old Leakerama.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Mar 15, 2013
 
Shoeless Eluder wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry SIB on this one I totally disagree. I am a gun owner also have been my whole life and when I hear some of the insane talk come from politicians I shake my head. To me there is no such thing as a reasonable restriction. Of course I look at the world with different eyes than most, and know my nature requires no boundaries no limitations on my freedom and this dude does not and will not abide.
I am sure I will be put in jail because I refuse to buy healthcare insurance right up there with the murderers and molesters..oops I forgot I don't have a choice instead of getting a tax return I will get a fine isn't law wonderful it turns innocent decent people into criminals come on pass some more laws and ordinances and regulation and restriction.
I know you won't agree with this; if you don't have health insurance and [you] get into an accident, that wasn't even your fault, end up in the hospital to save your life who will be paying those bills? How about it with a family member. I don't know if you are married and/or have children and/or if your children are grown and on their own...if you have any.

I'm not using that as a justification for you should just go along with what you don't believe. But I will repeat that that individual mandate is there because the insurance lobby used their weight. Think about it. It's the perfect set up for the private sector to get forced income and profits. Whereas as Obama wanted a single payer plan.

And I am positive you have to use constraints on your human nature. If not I've never spoken with a saint before.
Depends

Hudsonville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Mar 18, 2013
 
He's a diaper dandy baby - Leaky Layhee!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

25 Users are viewing the Grand Rapids Forum right now

Search the Grand Rapids Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Local News Women (Apr '09) 13 min Wood 4 Emily 2,292
More Lois Lerner Email Shenanigans 17 min Gville Jim 2
Juneteenth - " celebrating the end of slavery 37 min pipedream 693
Is Terri Lynn Land a slumlord? (Jan '12) 38 min Outrageous 76
Review: A-1 Appliance Repair (Jan '10) 8 hr Cooking Herb 20
The Russian need a bullet in his head 10 hr Oneal 4
MI 2010 Michigan Primary Election: Did you vote? (Aug '10) 11 hr gottondas 5,482
•••
•••
•••
Grand Rapids Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••