A new front for gun background checks: the ballot

Apr 28, 2013 Full story: KTIV-TV Sioux City 182

"Iron Man 3" is the heavy-lifter at theaters with a colossal overseas debut that overshadows a sleepy pre-summer weekend at the domestic box office.

Full Story

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#43 May 3, 2013
CASE CLOSED:

"The right to vote, before this amendment to the constitution, was wholly granted or denied and regulated by the several states of the Union; and now the citizens of these United States have granted and guaranteed by national authority that which before they enjoyed--if enjoyed at all--at the will of the local or state governments. To make available the right to vote to all citizens of the United States without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude was the direct purpose of the fifteenth amendment. We cannot see therefore, how legislation which has this purpose directly in view cannot be appropriate because it was not directed against some denial or infringement by general or state legislation. The mode of the assertion of the constitutional right to vote in the fifteenth amendment is not altogether a novel feature in our constitution as has been remarked on a former occasion during the trial of this cause. "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Section 9, art. 1, par. 2. This clause comprehends the constitutional grant of the writ of habeas corpus under the form of an expression of denial of its suspension except in certain cases. Article 1st of the amendment to the constitution, is in these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." In this article it will be observed that the right to full liberty of religious faith, as regards any attempt to control it by the general government, secured to the citizen by the constitution of the United States, is granted under a form of expression, forbidding congress to make any law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and that the right to a free press and free speech are granted under a form of expression denying their abridgment. So also with the right of the people to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Article 2d of the amendment is in these words: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This constitutional right to keep and bear arms, is thus conferred by the declaration that it shall not be "infringed."--Judge Edward Green Bradford, UNITED STATES v. GIVEN,[17 Int. Rev. Rec. 195.] Circuit Court. D. Delaware. 1873. Civil Rights--Violation BY State Officer--Powers of Congress.
What

Santa Fe, NM

#44 May 3, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
an ffin liar

“The "entitled" =communist.”

Since: May 10

MY MONEY, come take it.

#45 May 3, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The right to vote, before this amendment to the constitution, was wholly granted or denied and regulated by the several states of the Union; and now the citizens of these United States have granted and guaranteed by national authority that which before they enjoyed--if enjoyed at all--at the will of the local or state governments. To make available the right to vote to all citizens of the United States without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude was the direct purpose of the fifteenth amendment. We cannot see therefore, how legislation which has this purpose directly in view cannot be appropriate because it was not directed against some denial or infringement by general or state legislation. The mode of the assertion of the constitutional right to vote in the fifteenth amendment is not altogether a novel feature in our constitution as has been remarked on a former occasion during the trial of this cause. "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Section 9, art. 1, par. 2. This clause comprehends the constitutional grant of the writ of habeas corpus under the form of an expression of denial of its suspension except in certain cases. Article 1st of the amendment to the constitution, is in these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." In this article it will be observed that the right to full liberty of religious faith, as regards any attempt to control it by the general government, secured to the citizen by the constitution of the United States, is granted under a form of expression, forbidding congress to make any law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and that the right to a free press and free speech are granted under a form of expression denying their abridgment. So also with the right of the people to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Article 2d of the amendment is in these words: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This constitutional right to keep and bear arms, is thus conferred by the declaration that it shall not be "infringed."--Judge Edward Green Bradford, UNITED STATES v. GIVEN,[17 Int. Rev. Rec. 195.] Circuit Court. D. Delaware. 1873. Civil Rights--Violation BY State Officer--Powers of Congress.
You are dealing with one who drinks the koolaid by the gallon many time a day.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46 May 3, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
CASE CLOSED:
"The right to vote,
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam...

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#47 May 3, 2013
Jack from Bedias wrote:
<quoted text>You are dealing with one who drinks the koolaid by the gallon many time a day.
No doubt!

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#48 May 3, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam...
^^^^And this is what the FACTS do the LIE-beral mind!^^^^

Go drink some more kool-aid, troll.

“RELAX”

Since: Dec 12

EVERYTHING WILL BE ALRIGHT

#49 May 3, 2013
Jack from Bedias wrote:
<quoted text>You are dealing with one who drinks the koolaid by the gallon many time a day.
Peach Mango!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#50 May 3, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
^^^^And this is what the FACTS .
Wipe your chin, GayDavy.

You are wasting valuable time you could be using to come up with a name of a new alias.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#52 May 6, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wipe your chin, GayDavy.
You are wasting valuable time you could be using to come up with a name of a new alias.
How much are you being paid to betray your fellow American citizens? Or, are you even an American?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#53 May 6, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
How much are you being paid to betray your fellow American citizens?
How much do you get paid to give homeless men happy endings?

Or do you get a stipend from the Phoenix Pharies?

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#54 May 6, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
How much do you get paid to give homeless men happy endings?
Or do you get a stipend from the Phoenix Pharies?
Stated the traitor with the intelligence of a flea.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#55 May 6, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stated the traitor with the intelligence of a flea.
Stated the mooch freeloader with the breath of someone collecting DNA samples.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#56 May 6, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stated the mooch freeloader with the breath of someone collecting DNA samples.
"Here, then, every man,--whether native or naturalized, whether free or bond--for the provision comprehended every class and colour--every man capable of shouldering a musket, was required to be trained and armed, by our present Constitution; and the proposed to it, designates the militia as only to be for defence, and in this view Blackstone himself regarded the militia. The very second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, previous to which several of the States had refused to come into the compact, he begged to recommend to the attention of his friend from Allegheny,(Mr. Forward)--"a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Mark the admirable adaption of the language. There is said (Mr. I) an argument in it more than I could make in a year, all condensed. A regulated right of every man, to do what? To hear arms--and the Constitution says this right to bear arms "shall not be infringed." This "well regulated militia," which is "necessary to the security of a free State" is the right of every man to bear arms, and it is a right which "shall not be infringed." And when his friend from Allegheny said at first,(as he had understood him,) that the federal power absorbed all the rights of the states on this subject, he (.Mr I) confessed that he had felt himself excited almost to pugnacity. This right exceeded, was beyond the reach of the federal Constitution--it was supreme, above the supremacy of the Constitution--it was a right which the Constitution could not touch. It was nothing less than man's right to self defence, that power which could not be impaired by any power of government."

- Mr. Charles Jared Ingersoll, Oct. 24, 1837, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE CONVENTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, COMMENCED AT HARRISBURG MAY 2 1837 VOL. IV. Reported by JOHN AGG, Stenographer: Assisted By Messrs. Wheeler, Kingman, Draks, and McKinley. HARRISBURG: PRINTED BY PACKER, BARRETT, And PARKE. 1838.(Ingersoll served twice as a United States representative, first from 1813 to 1815 and again from 1841 to 1847. In between these terms, he worked as the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from 1815 to 1829 by appointment from President James Madison, was Pennsylvania state representative in 1830, and in 1837, was a delegate to the Pennsylvania state constitutional convention. Over the course of his governmental career, Ingersoll worked with a few U. S. presidents such as James Monroe, John Tyler, and James K. Polk).

“The "entitled" =communist.”

Since: May 10

MY MONEY, come take it.

#57 May 7, 2013
The yoyos think they can vote the 2nd Amendment out, not.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#58 May 7, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Here, then, every man,
Vikings: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam...

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#59 May 7, 2013
Jack from Bedias wrote:
The yoyos think they can vote the 2nd Amendment out, not.
Most correct.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#60 May 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Vikings: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam...
Is that the new troll language?
Cat74

Barrington, IL

#61 May 8, 2013
They are going to vote the 2nd amendment out? It takes a 2/3 vote in the House, and Senate, and 2/3 vote of 37 states,to offer an amendment to the Constitution. Obama only won by 2%, and that was with all the dead, and multi voting. It cannot be done, but it is fun to watch the liberals do their kaboki dance.
LBer

Long Beach, CA

#62 May 8, 2013
President Obama with 62,611,250 and Mitt Romney with 59,134,475

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/did-obama-really-w...

The question must be asked. I wish I didn’t have to be the one to ask it. But, since no one else will, it falls to me.

Did Barack Obama actually, legitimately, fairly and legally win the election?
Ads by Google

Don't Invest in the EuroThe Dollar And Euro Are Doomed. These 3 Currencies Will Take Over. WallStreetDaily.com/Free-Report
Learn to Invest In SilverInfo on Prices & Market Values Get Your Free Silver Investor Kit! www.LearCapital.com

My answer is an unequivocal no.

It was not a free and fair election. In fact, if we as a nation don’t acknowledge the reality of what I am saying, we may never have a free and fair election again in the future of this once-great nation.

Here are some facts to consider:

The Obama campaign accepted at least some foreign campaign cash – willingly and knowingly. The campaign website could have prohibited it. It did not. In other words, it deliberately left open the door for illegal foreign contributions in its “by any means necessary” quest for re-election. WND has proven that by actually contributing under the name Osama bin Laden from a Pakistani IP address, with a phony physical address and other neon-lit red flags in hopes of catching attention. Obama accepted illegal foreign contributions in 2008 without penalty, so why would anyone expect him not to repeat his crime in 2012? No one can know the extent of the fraud, because Obama has refused to release the identity of donors of $200 or less – yet he boasts that most of the money he collected was in small amounts.
James O’Keefe and Project Veritas spent months heroically proving the absolute willingness and eagerness of Democratic operatives to commit voter fraud – especially by having people cast multiple votes.
Military ballots were systematically denied active-duty servicemen and women around the world. This would be a scandal if it happened once. But it has become the norm when Democrats are in charge of the Defense Department. It would be a scandal if it were due to incompetence. But it appears to be a deliberate effort to suppress the military vote. It would be a scandal if it were not a close election. But it was.
Prior to the election, Democrats fought for open voting requiring no identification – particularly photo ID. Coincidentally, Obama won every state that didn’t fully require photo ID to vote. Democrats contended that voter ID laws suppress the vote. But they do not. They only suppress the illegal vote.
Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations. Coincidentally (or not), Obama received “astronomical” numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received “over 99 percent” of the vote. Ward 4, which also had a poll watcher dressed in Obama attire, went massively for Obama. Obama received 99.5 percent of the vote, defeating Romney 9,955 to 55.
Obama also won 99.8 percent of the vote in 44 Cleveland districts. In another Ohio county, Obama won with 108 percent of the voters registered.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#63 May 8, 2013
LBer wrote:
President Obama with 62,611,250 and Mitt Romney with 59,134,475
http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/did-obama-really-w...
The question must be asked. I wish I didn’t have to be the one to ask it. But, since no one else will, it falls to me.
Did Barack Obama actually, legitimately, fairly and legally win the election?
Ads by Google
Don't Invest in the EuroThe Dollar And Euro Are Doomed. These 3 Currencies Will Take Over. WallStreetDaily.com/Free-Report
Learn to Invest In SilverInfo on Prices & Market Values Get Your Free Silver Investor Kit! www.LearCapital.com
My answer is an unequivocal no.
It was not a free and fair election. In fact, if we as a nation don’t acknowledge the reality of what I am saying, we may never have a free and fair election again in the future of this once-great nation.
Here are some facts to consider:
The Obama campaign accepted at least some foreign campaign cash – willingly and knowingly. The campaign website could have prohibited it. It did not. In other words, it deliberately left open the door for illegal foreign contributions in its “by any means necessary” quest for re-election. WND has proven that by actually contributing under the name Osama bin Laden from a Pakistani IP address, with a phony physical address and other neon-lit red flags in hopes of catching attention. Obama accepted illegal foreign contributions in 2008 without penalty, so why would anyone expect him not to repeat his crime in 2012? No one can know the extent of the fraud, because Obama has refused to release the identity of donors of $200 or less – yet he boasts that most of the money he collected was in small amounts.
James O’Keefe and Project Veritas spent months heroically proving the absolute willingness and eagerness of Democratic operatives to commit voter fraud – especially by having people cast multiple votes.
Military ballots were systematically denied active-duty servicemen and women around the world. This would be a scandal if it happened once. But it has become the norm when Democrats are in charge of the Defense Department. It would be a scandal if it were due to incompetence. But it appears to be a deliberate effort to suppress the military vote. It would be a scandal if it were not a close election. But it was.
Prior to the election, Democrats fought for open voting requiring no identification – particularly photo ID. Coincidentally, Obama won every state that didn’t fully require photo ID to vote. Democrats contended that voter ID laws suppress the vote. But they do not. They only suppress the illegal vote.
Across Philadelphia, GOP poll inspectors were forcibly (and illegally) removed from polling locations. Coincidentally (or not), Obama received “astronomical” numbers in those very same regions, including locations where he received “over 99 percent” of the vote. Ward 4, which also had a poll watcher dressed in Obama attire, went massively for Obama. Obama received 99.5 percent of the vote, defeating Romney 9,955 to 55.
Obama also won 99.8 percent of the vote in 44 Cleveland districts. In another Ohio county, Obama won with 108 percent of the voters registered.
'obama' is a treasonous imposter put in by foreign and domestic special interest groups. It's much cheaper to bribe and buy off a few thousand,(people in government positions). Than it is bribe and buy off a few MILLION.

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.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
National View: Shoot down the stupid Second Ame... 38 min Squach 3
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 1 hr Squach 12,136
Shoot Down the Stupid Second Amendment 13 hr Independent1 10
An Individual Right Rekindled 22 hr Marauder 1
Ferguson braces for grand jury decision Fri Michael S 16
Magnum Research Introduces Stainless Steel Dese... Dec 24 Here Is One 1
Concealed carry does not make us safer (Nov '09) Dec 23 fae31 6,985
More from around the web