Patrick Leahy Added To the Communist List

Posted in the Grand Rapids Forum

Dr X

Byron Center, MI

#1 Mar 6, 2013
I knew there were more commies in Washington than previously thought.
http://gunowners.org/alert03042013.htm
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#2 Mar 6, 2013
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

Byron Center, MI

#3 Mar 6, 2013
Another communist on the list.

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

Byron Center, MI

#4 Mar 6, 2013
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

#5 Mar 7, 2013
Is this the dude known as "leaky Leahy"?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Portage, MI

#6 Mar 7, 2013
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

#7 Mar 12, 2013
The old LEAKMEISTER.

Since: Sep 08

Neon City Oh.

#8 Mar 12, 2013
Everybody in America, who is not completely insane, is on the NRA's enemies list.
zzz

Riverview, FL

#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

#10 Mar 13, 2013
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

#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

#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

Portage, MI

#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

#14 Mar 15, 2013
The old Leakerama.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#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

#16 Mar 18, 2013
He's a diaper dandy baby - Leaky Layhee!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 2 hr Buffalo Bull 1,697
How Liberal Pantywads React To Brain William's ... 6 hr Batch 37 Pain Is ... 7
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) 22 hr Wolfwoman 990
TRY IT BEFORE YOU BUY IT: Roof Melt (Jan '08) Feb 27 Snowstruck 69
Attorney's shortchanging of State Bar scuttles ... Feb 26 duh 3
MARVIN unemployment service now online (Jan '09) Feb 24 Pissed 173
Local News Women (Apr '09) Feb 24 Dumbo 2,342
Grand Rapids Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:18 am PST

Bleacher Report 7:18AM
Lions Won't Use Franchise Tag on Suh
NBC Sports 8:02 AM
PFT Live: Panthers/Ravens offseason to-do lists
Yahoo! Sports 8:40 AM
Lions' website reports team won't franchise Suh
NBC Sports 9:08 AM
Kendall Langford visiting the defensive tackle-less Lions today
Bleacher Report 2:27 PM
OAK, CLE and IND Among Updated Top Landing Spots for Free Agent Ndamukong Suh