Colo. lawmakers lose recalls over gun...

Colo. lawmakers lose recalls over gun laws support

There are 2021 comments on the Northern Michigan News story from Sep 10, 2013, titled Colo. lawmakers lose recalls over gun laws support. In it, Northern Michigan News reports that:

Colorado voters ousted two state lawmakers Tuesday in first-ever recall elections that came in reaction to the Democrats' support for tougher gun laws in the aftermath of last year's mass shootings in Aurora and Newtown, Conn.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Northern Michigan News.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1346 Nov 13, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Lame as usual.
Right: you post 40 SPAMS a day.

Putting aside I slapped the snot out of you AND you welched on your pledge to stop posted.

WHAT A *!

HAHAHAHAHa!

*!*!*!

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1347 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right: you post 40 SPAMS a day.
Putting aside I slapped the snot out of you AND you welched on your pledge to stop posted.
WHAT A *!
HAHAHAHAHa!
*!*!*!
"VERMONT--CANADIAN FRONTIER.

"MEMORIAL

"OF

"INHABITANTS OF ST. ALBAN'S, VERMONT,

"Upon the subject of the Attack on the Steamer Caroline, the Neutrality Law, and the Disturbances on the Canadian Frontier.

"FEBRUARY 19, 1839.

"Referral to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

"To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled:

   "Your memorialists, citizens of the county of Franklin, State of Vermont, would respectfully represent: That in the opinion of your memorialists, the act passed at your last session, commonly called the "neutrality law," is unjust and dangerous to the rights and liberties of the citizens of the United States, and uncalled for by the character of the times and the position of the country; that, thereby, the natural and constitutional rights of the people to keep and bear arms, to remove at pleasure with their effects, to be exempt from unreasonable search and seizures in their persons and property, and from the terror of excessive bail, are all infringed and only allowed at the discretion of executive and judicial officers; and, as if it were apprehended that these unprecedented encroachments upon the rights of the people might excite distrust and alarm, the Executive is invested with the extraordinary power of employing the whole military and naval forces of the Union to awe the citizens into submission, or, in the mild words of the act, to prevent its violation. These provisions of the act your memorialists deem repugnant to the spirit and letter of all American institutions, incompatible with freedom, and in direct violation of the rights of the people, solemnly declared and guarantied by the constitution of the United States...."

   "In the execution of this law, your memorialists have witnessed, with deep regret the officers of the United States army moving, with hysterical agitation, from one part of the Union to another, and tarnishing their Profession by searching the houses and seizing the property of the citizens, and acting in the double capacity of a supervisory police over the citizens, and of informers to a foreign Power--watching the acts and sayings of the former, and communicating the information thus derived to the officers the British Government; and, under color of neutrality have afforded aid and assistance to one belligerant, and have restrained the citizens from all commerce with the other. Large sums of money have already been appropriated to this extraordinary defence of the frontier; and it is understood that a special appropriation has been asked for secret-service
moneys, to render this military police complete.

   "Your memorialists are aware that the declared object of this law was to enable the country to fulfil the obligations of its treaties; but they would respectfully suggest that the laws of this country made to fulfil its treaty obligations prior to the passage of this act had been substantially the same for more than forty years--an eventful period in the history of the old and new world--and no reasonable complaints have ever been made that the citizens of this country were not sufficiently restrained from interfering with foreign states. And your memorialists are unacquainted with any obligations that the United States are under, by treaty, or otherwise to Great Britain or any other Power, that require the sacrifice of the rights of our citizens, whenever the exercise of those rights may come in conflict with the views of a foreign Government..."

[Message From The President of the United States, To The Two Houses of Congress, At The Commencement of the Third Sessionof the Twenty-Fifth Congress. December 4, 1838. Printed by order of the Senate of the United States. WASHINGTON: Blair and Rives, Printers. 1838.]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1348 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
December 4, 1838
Waitress:...spam spam spam egg and spam; spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam spam...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1349 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Waitress:...spam spam spam egg and spam; spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam spam...
"Affray....

"5. Nor unless such wearing be accompanied with such circumstances as are apt to terrify the people; consequently the wearing of common weapons, or having the usual number of attendants, merely for ornament or defense, where it is customary to make use of them, will not subject a person to the penalties of this act. Ibid. s. 9.[Pg. 50]

"Act of 1805, 2 Rev. Code, ch. 83, p. 108.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1350 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<
"Act of 1805
Why is it Called Spam?
Why is it Called Spam?

There is some debate about the source of the term, but the generally accepted version is that it comes from the Monty Python song, "Spam spam spam spam, spam spam spam spam, lovely spam, wonderful spam". Like the song, spam is an endless repetition of worthless text. Another school of thought maintains that it comes from the computer group lab at the University of Southern California who gave it the name because it has many of the same characteristics as the lunch meat Spam:

• Nobody wants it or ever asks for it.
• No one ever eats it; it is the first item to be pushed to the side when eating the entree.
• Sometimes it is actually tasty, like 1% of junk mail that is really useful to some people.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1351 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it Called Spam?
<quoted text>
Why is it called mindless spew?

There is NO debate that trolls spew repeated lies ad nuaseum. It is a sad fact of life for a troll. For they possess no sense of reality. And insist on living in a world of morbid fantasy. Frequently they make role models of phony politicians that reinforce their perverse sense of reality. Because they swallow the lies from these lying politicians; hook, line and sinker. Most often, this is due to a severe lack of intelligence on the part of a troll. As well as a below par feeling of inadequacy. Which they know in their heart is true. The truly sad part about all this. Is that the troll has no idea of just how ignorant they portray themselves to be. In addition to lacking the knowledge of just how much they are despised. Trolls are, by definition, pathetic.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1352 Nov 14, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it called mindless spew?
There is NO debate that trolls spew repeated lies ad nuaseum.
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it called mindless spew?
There is NO debate that trolls spew repeated lies ad nuaseum.
Come, come, precious little toad: ad nauseam... when you use words you don't understand, you should at least look them up -at least you can spell them right even thought you don't know what the mean.

And you don't debate, you fill the forums up with two hundred year old spam.

Pick on of your post- how many times have you posted the same damn thing, not just in one day, but day after day, ear after year.

Why Topix puts up with - I have hardly a clue, they must figure you at least generate them fill on pages they can hook ads to, it certain ain't for your "opinion".

HAHAHAAHAHAH!

Still waiting: slander of the very long time dead.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1353 Nov 14, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Come, come, precious little toad: ad nauseam... when you use words you don't understand, you should at least look them up -at least you can spell them right even thought you don't know what the mean.
And you don't debate, you fill the forums up with two hundred year old spam.
Pick on of your post- how many times have you posted the same damn thing, not just in one day, but day after day, ear after year.
Why Topix puts up with - I have hardly a clue, they must figure you at least generate them fill on pages they can hook ads to, it certain ain't for your "opinion".
HAHAHAAHAHAH!
Still waiting: slander of the very long time dead.
See, the problem is troll. Is that I actually DO understand much more than >you< ever will. And that is made quite apparent by your own posts. The FACTS I submit have ACTUAL HISTORICAL BEARING on the topics. While the drool >you< spew has ZERO significance or bearing.

You have done nothing more than proven that you are a traitor to We The People and our Constitution. You are filthy, vile, and grossly inept. If Topix instituted a voting method of excluding trolls - >you< would be the first to go. You are nothing more than utterly WORTHLESS in any topic that has ever been brought up on Topix. And there will be a grand celebration when you finally do leave, either voluntarily or by force.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1354 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
See, the problem is troll. Is that I actually DO understand much more than >you< ever will. And that is made quite apparent by your own posts. The FACTS I submit have ACTUAL HISTORICAL
No, darling.

Your link YOU gave was:
http://tinyurl.com/keatonskrap

You were quite proud of it- Constitutional.org

A piece of [email protected] blogsite put up someone like you who picked up the fake quote you used - something you swallow whole because you are a very stupid person, Vince.

This was my source:

http://tinyurl.com/actualcourtdoc

My source existed over a hundred years ago.

Someone paraphrased it and ended up with your fake "quote".

Gun gnutters are such a gullible crowd.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1355 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
The FACTS I submit
You don't submit facts, troll.

If you had facts, you wouldn't have to change your ID so frequently.

I know who you are though, Vince.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1356 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it called mindless spew?
There is NO debate that trolls spew repeated lies ad nuaseum.
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it called mindless spew?
There is NO debate that trolls spew repeated lies ad nuaseum.
Come, come, precious little toad: ad nauseam... when you use words you don't understand, you should at least look them up -at least you can spell them right even thought you don't know what the mean.

And you don't debate, you fill the forums up with two hundred year old spam.

Pick on of your post- how many times have you posted the same damn thing, not just in one day, but day after day, ear after year.

Why Topix puts up with - I have hardly a clue, they must figure you at least generate them fill on pages they can hook ads to, it certain ain't for your "opinion".

HAHAHAAHAHAH!

Still waiting: slander of the very long time dead.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1358 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, darling.
Your link YOU gave was:
http://tinyurl.com/keatonskrap
You were quite proud of it- Constitutional.org
A piece of [email protected] blogsite put up someone like you who picked up the fake quote you used - something you swallow whole because you are a very stupid person, Vince.
This was my source:
http://tinyurl.com/actualcourtdoc
My source existed over a hundred years ago.
Someone paraphrased it and ended up with your fake "quote".
Gun gnutters are such a gullible crowd.
REALLY? Then you'll have no problem giving us the link to the post that I [supposedly] left that link on, RIGHT?

Take a hike, you deliberately lying pathetic troll.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1359 Nov 15, 2013
Kentucky-Mitch wrote:
And JUSTICE pevails!
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/15/justice/michiga...
No more Trayvon Martin's please.
Yeah, it sure does:

Obama Admits That Obamacare is Unworkable

Peter Suderman|Nov. 14, 2013 12:33 pm
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/14/obama-admit...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1360 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't submit facts, troll.
If you had facts, you wouldn't have to change your ID so frequently.
I know who you are though, Vince.
You don't have the slightest clue, pathetic troll. You can't even get your own propaganda lies straight.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1361 Nov 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, darling.
Your link YOU gave was:
http://tinyurl.com/keatonskrap
You were quite proud of it- Constitutional.org
A piece of [email protected] blogsite put up someone like you who picked up the fake quote you used - something you swallow whole because you are a very stupid person, Vince.
This was my source:
http://tinyurl.com/actualcourtdoc
My source existed over a hundred years ago.
Someone paraphrased it and ended up with your fake "quote".
Gun gnutters are such a gullible crowd.
Here troll, "source" THIS:

"At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr.[Page 177 U.S. 529, 535] & Pl. 7th Am. ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P. C. 129, 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty's Crim. L.* p 15; 1 East, P. C. chap. 5, p. 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 El. & Bl. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 Barn & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox C. C. 4; Rafferty v. People, 69 Ill. 111, 18 Am. Rep. 601; S. C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37. If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest. 1 East, supra."--Mr. Justice Peckham, U.S. Supreme Court, JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17...
INFIDEL

Socorro, NM

#1362 Nov 15, 2013
Kentucky-Mitch wrote:
And JUSTICE pevails!
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/15/justice/michiga...
No more Trayvon Martin's please.
Ok... Charges filed and a court case will probably follow. I can see why you think "justice" has prevailed. If conclusive evidence is presented and a conviction follows then so be it. But if the accused is found not guilty will you accept that or will you just whine and wail about it not going the way your personal sense of political correctness dictates? Justice WAS done in the Trayvon Martin case. In spite of NBC news manufacturing the entire "racial profiling" issue (lawsuit in progress)the police felt there was no credible case. Then self serving politicians pandering for support and professional race baiters whipped up an emotional firestorm and forced an arrest. The evidence presented at trial was clear. The witness testimony was clear and the prosecution was exposed as a farce. The jury made it's decision and justice was done. Trayvon Martin was an angry, aggressive wannabe thug. He attacked the accused without any evidence of provocation. After being feloniously assaulted the accused shot and killed the criminal who assaulted him. The only part about the entire sad story that was unjust was charging the victim with a crime in the first place. I agree with your sentiment. "No more Trayvon Martins please". But avoiding situations like this in the future rests not upon gun control laws but upon parents doing their job and raising decent kids. Too bad Trayvon's parents didn't pay as much attention to him while he was alive as they do now that he is a dead cash cow.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1364 Nov 15, 2013
Kentucky-Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
She was nineteen years old and she was shot in the face by a crazed gun nut. Trayvon Martin was minding his own business but was shot in the chest by a crazed gun nut vigilante.
Two and two equal four not thirty as the NRA has brainwashed you to believe.
Yet in all reality you know NOTHING about either case. Other than what the LIEberal media spews forth. Yet, you jump out and drool half-witted commentary on them. WHY IS THAT?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1366 Nov 15, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet in all reality you know NOTHING about either case.?
What of this case, Shug:

Here you go:
Innocent Gun Owners Behind Bars
2ndAmRight
Since: Oct 13
Apache Junction, AZ
#21
Friday Nov 1

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”--The Constitution Society, "Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest"
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.ht ...
Funny how whenever you get nailed for being full of [email protected], you move the goalposts... when I proved your "quote" was false, you moved from Plummer case to Bad Elk, and then- hilariously- insisted that *I* brought up Plummer even though YOU HAVE BEEN COPY & PASTING Plummer for years and years and years!

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1367 Nov 15, 2013
INFIDEL wrote:
Justice WAS done in the Trayvon Martin case.
Justice was done in the OJ case.

Of course, in the Martin case, a juror said they felt he got away with murder.
INFIDEL

Socorro, NM

#1368 Nov 15, 2013
Kentucky-Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
She was nineteen years old and she was shot in the face by a crazed gun nut. Trayvon Martin was minding his own business but was shot in the chest by a crazed gun nut vigilante.
Two and two equal four not thirty as the NRA has brainwashed you to believe.
A nineteen year old female who was drunk off her a** was trying to get into a man's house at 3:30am and he shot her. Was it murder or justifiable homocide? That's what the jury has to decide isn't it? I agree that it would be much easier if we just let Mitch decide what is criminal and what is not but most people prefer a trial by jury. I have lost friends and family members to violent crime and the murderer was never a "gun nut" or an NRA member. The killer was always a self indulgent, spoiled, entitled looser. How many murderers do you know Mitch? I live in the prison capital of this state. I have dealt with lots of murderers. I wish we could execute them but the liberals love murderers. When I drive home in a few minutes, I'll be driving right past the prison where my best friends murderer is housed. She was an unarmed woman in her twenties when he let her stay at his place overnight because she had nowhere else to go. All her liberal friends were sick of her. She was a friend of his brothers and in desperate need. He let her sleep on his couch and she stabbed him to death in his sleep. You believe whatever you want but I know what evil is.

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
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 7 hr WasteWater 1,269
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... Wed payme 25
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a "paraly... Jun 28 Jagermann 1
News Obama to seek healing in Orlando even as politi... Jun 26 OK Barry 61
Freestanding B-e-l-f-a-s-t Sink Unit Jun 23 boyocuy 1
News The Latest: House GOP says electronic devices s... Jun 23 payme 2
News Bristol Palin is engaged (May '15) Jun 22 Uncle Bens AWOLdaddy 68
More from around the web