Obama: - Gun Control - We Had 80, 90%...

Obama: - Gun Control - We Had 80, 90% of the Country That Agreed With It'CNS

There are 2469 comments on the Cybercast News Service story from Sep 16, 2013, titled Obama: - Gun Control - We Had 80, 90% of the Country That Agreed With It'CNS. In it, Cybercast News Service reports that:

Appearing on ABC News's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday, President Barack Obama said he had 80 to 90 percent of the country agreeing with him in favor of gun control, but the he could not get gun-control legislation enacted because of a "faction of the Republican Party."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Cybercast News Service.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1920 Oct 31, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are defending the deception then? How can you claim "no it is not". When the Constitution itself proves both you and the court to obviously to be wrong? Why are you upholding and defending tyrannical usurpation? One of the main stated purposes of the federal government being instituted. Was to "secure the blessings of liberty". The right to bear arms PRE-EXISTED the Constitution. It was the right of ALL British subjects,(which all the people of the original colonies were. One of the main stated reasons the U.S. Constitution was called for. Was to insure that ALL rights were guaranteed across the whole union.
Once again, why do you side with the deceivers by claiming "no it is not". When the Constitution itself states; YES, it most certainly IS?
I am not defending your Deception of the US Constitution I am defending the US Constitution and what it says and it sad you dont understand the US Constitution.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1921 Oct 31, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you are calling this U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice a liar?-
"...More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."--Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, U.S. Supreme Court, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).
you need a lesson in US History & US Government is what you are saying.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1922 Oct 31, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are defending the deception then? How can you claim "no it is not". When the Constitution itself proves both you and the court to obviously to be wrong? Why are you upholding and defending tyrannical usurpation? One of the main stated purposes of the federal government being instituted. Was to "secure the blessings of liberty". The right to bear arms PRE-EXISTED the Constitution. It was the right of ALL British subjects,(which all the people of the original colonies were. One of the main stated reasons the U.S. Constitution was called for. Was to insure that ALL rights were guaranteed across the whole union.
Once again, why do you side with the deceivers by claiming "no it is not". When the Constitution itself states; YES, it most certainly IS?
Did the 14th Amendment really incorporate the Bill of Rights?

Posted on July 28, 2011

The Myth

The Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level. This granted the Supreme Court the power to strike down any State and local law it feels violates the Bill of Rights.

The Truth

It is only possible to make the case that the 14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level if you distort the plain meaning of the amendment as understood by those that wrote it and ratified it. This distortion must be so great that it violates many of the fundamental philosophies the Constitutional was based on . The Supreme Court has been engaging in exactly this level and type of distortion ever since the 1940s when it began implementing the doctrine of incorporation. Through this doctrine of incorporation the nine unelected justices that make up the Supreme Court have completely re-written the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have done this by distorting the meaning of these documents so much they now mean nearly the opposite now than they did when written and ratified.

http://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/07/28/...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1925 Oct 31, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I am not defending your Deception of the US Constitution I am defending the US Constitution and what it says and it sad you dont understand the US Constitution.
Now you have proven that you are nothing more than a willing participant in the treason. Congratulations on joining the ranks of the cursed.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1926 Oct 31, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you need a lesson in US History & US Government is what you are saying.
Not quite 'treasonous of Indy'.

"...Baldwin J charged the jury...."

"The first section of the bill of rights in the constitution of Pennsylvania declares that all men have the inherent and indefeasible right of enjoying and defending life and liberty of acquiring possessing and protecting property that no man can be deprived of his liberty or property but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land Sect 9 That the right of citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state shall not be questioned Sect 21 The second section of the fourth article of the constitution of the United States declares the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. The tenth section of the first article prohibits any state from passing any law which impairs the obligation of a contract. The second amendment provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"...We shall pursue this subject no further, in its bearing on the political rights of the states composing the union--in recalling your attention to these rights, which are the subject of this controversy, we declare to you as the law of the case, that they are inherent and unalienable--so recognised by all our fundamental laws.

"The constitution of the state or union is not the source of these rights, or the others to which we have referred you, they existed in their plenitude before any constitutions, which do not create but protect and secure them against any violation by the legislatures or courts, in making, expounding or administering laws.

"The nature of this case, its history, and the course of the argument, call on us to declare explicitly what is the effect of a constitutional protection or guarantee of any right, or the injunction of any duty. The twenty sixth section of the bill of rights in the constitution of Pennsylvania, is in these words; "to guard against transgressions of the high powers we have delegated we declare [we the people of Pennsylvania], that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall for ever remain inviolate." A higher power declares this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme laws of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" Const U.S., art. 6, clause 2.

"An amendment of the constitution is of still higher authority, for it has the effect of controlling and repealing the express provisions of the constitution authorizing a power to be exercised, by a declaration that it shall not be construed to give such power. 3 Dall 382.

"We have stated to you the various provisions of the constitution of the United States and its amendments, as well as that of this state; you see their authority and obligation to be supreme over any laws or regulations which are repugnant to them, or which violate, infringe or impair any right thereby secured; the conclusions which result are too obvious to be more than stated."--U.S. Supreme Court Justice BALDWIN, Circuit Court of The United States,[PENNSYLVANIA APRIL TERM 1833 BEFORE Hon. HENRY BALDWIN, Associate Justice of the [U.S.] Supreme Court, Hon JOSEPH HOPKINSON District Judge, Johnson v Tompkins,(13 F. Cas. 840 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833)), and others.]

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1927 Oct 31, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Did the 14th Amendment really incorporate the Bill of Rights?[snipped fro brevity]
The first 10 amendments had ALREADY been totally "incorporated" on December 15, 1791. Which is when the Bill of Rights had been ratified by the requisite number of states.

"Congress of the United States;

"Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789.

"The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;--

"Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of the several states, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said legislatures, to be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, namely,--..."

"Art. IV.[Later abridged to II.- Ed. by EDQ](The following breakdown of Amendment II by clauses is not contained in the original document - Ed. by EDQ).

"Declaratory" clause:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

Restrictive

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article VI - This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.--U.S. Constituion

"The Senators and Representatives, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.''It has been asked why it was thought necessary, that the State magistracy should be bound to support the federal Constitution, and unnecessary that a like oath should be imposed on the officers of the United States, in favor of the State constitutions. Several reasons might be assigned for the distinction. I content myself with one, which is obvious and conclusive. The members of the federal government will have no agency in carrying the State constitutions into effect. The members and officers of the State governments, on the contrary, will have an essential agency in giving effect to the federal Constitution."

- James Madison, Federalist No. 44, New York Packet, Friday, January 25, 1788.

Take a hike.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1928 Oct 31, 2013
PrinceofDarkness wrote:
<quoted text>
just think, under ACA even you will be able to get the meds you desperately need..and you won't have to use your foods stamps...
Unlike you, I receive or take NOTHING free from ANYONE - including our corrupt federal government. Now put your feed-bag back on and get back to the trough. Your 'masters' say it's feeding time.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1929 Oct 31, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you have proven that you are nothing more than a willing participant in the treason. Congratulations on joining the ranks of the cursed.
no you are the willing participant and why you are posting this nonsense BS that you continue to post because you know too that is how the Federal and State Government have been able to restrict the 2nd amendemnt for years and you are one of those that would have like keep things the way were prior to 2010(Mcdonald v Chicago) so the states & local goverments would have still had the right to restrict the 2nd amendment like they have been able to after the passage of the 14th amendment if they wanted to just like in Chicago which they have done for years so Congratulation on being part of the willing participants in the trying to Ristrict the US Constitutions Bill of Rights which is your guys goal and has been for years.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1930 Oct 31, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
The first 10 amendments had ALREADY been totally "incorporated" on December 15, 1791. Which is when the Bill of Rights had been ratified by the requisite number of states.
"Congress of the United States;
"Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the 4th of March, 1789.
"The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;--
"Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the legislatures of the several states, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said legislatures, to be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, namely,--..."
"Art. IV.[Later abridged to II.- Ed. by EDQ](The following breakdown of Amendment II by clauses is not contained in the original document - Ed. by EDQ).
"Declaratory" clause:
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
Restrictive
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Article VI - This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.--U.S. Constituion
"The Senators and Representatives, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.''It has been asked why it was thought necessary, that the State magistracy should be bound to support the federal Constitution, and unnecessary that a like oath should be imposed on the officers of the United States, in favor of the State constitutions. Several reasons might be assigned for the distinction. I content myself with one, which is obvious and conclusive. The members of the federal government will have no agency in carrying the State constitutions into effect. The members and officers of the State governments, on the contrary, will have an essential agency in giving effect to the federal Constitution."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 44, New York Packet, Friday, January 25, 1788.
Take a hike.
study the reconstruction admendents after the Civil War that is when everything changed which altered the Original US Constitution which states were now free of the US Constitution and the Federal Government to restrict those Bill of Rights under the US Constitution which states did especially in the south after the Civil War which is why none of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights applied against the confederate state governments which they were free to restrict freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, and more which many of them did especially to the new freed black slaves.

http://law.duke.edu/news/1730/

Reconstruction Amendments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_A...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1932 Oct 31, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>no you are the willing participant and why you are posting this nonsense BS that you continue to post because you know too that is how the Federal and State Government have been able to restrict the 2nd amendemnt for years and you are one of those that would have like keep things the way were prior to 2010(Mcdonald v Chicago) so the states & local goverments would have still had the right to restrict the 2nd amendment like they have been able to after the passage of the 14th amendment if they wanted to just like in Chicago which they have done for years so Congratulation on being part of the willing participants in the trying to Ristrict the US Constitutions Bill of Rights which is your guys goal and has been for years.
Not quite, O' treasonous and clueless one. My position is that NEITHER the federal OR the states have the 'right' to impose ANY restrictions WHATSOEVER. Rather, they are ALL Constitutionally BOUND from enacting ANY 'gun control laws' WHATSOEVER. They only have the Constitutionally delegated authority to provide punishments for ABUSE or MISUSE of the right to keep and bear arms.

The 14th amendment mostly involved the new rights of FREED SLAVES. As well as covering other issues that arose as a result of the Civil War. IT DID NOT 'INCORPORATE' ANYTHING. Rather, as pointed out by Mr. Justice [Hugo] Black, in dissent,(along with Justices Douglas and Swayne), in Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court, June 23, 1947. THOSE RIGHTS EXISTED ALREADY. And he PROVED that the 'incorporation doctrine' IS A FARCE.

Go "lick the hands which feed you", and take a hike.
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#1933 Oct 31, 2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01...

This is written in OBAMACARE - the bottom is just a piece of what is on the web site above.

Acting with an assist from CNN, right-wing bloggers and gun advocates in the know, let loose with a tidbit of information they have, no doubt, been long chomping at the bit to unleash—the revelation that there is already a law on the books that would prevent the government from making good on Biden’s tantalizing suggestion, a law that would actually prevent the government from collecting data on firearm ownership and more.

And what might that law be?

Obamacare.

That’s right—it turns out that there is, indeed, a provision buried deep in the thousands of pages that is the Affordable Care Act entitled,“Protection of Second Amendment Rights”. You’ll find it in Section 2716 part c of the Affordable Care Act although, to save you the trouble, I have re-printed the provision below for your perusal.

Certainly, one strains to imagine how anything touching on gun ownership, the Second Amendment, etc. could find its way into a health care reform bill just as it confounds the imagination to contemplate who might have been responsible for adding such a clause in the first place. Obamacare is, after all, primarily the creation of a President who gun advocates have long believed is out to strip them of their firearms—not to mention a law written, supported and passed by those in Congress identified as coming from the “far left” of the political spectrum under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi.

So, how did such a strange provision find its way into health care reform?

You might be surprised to learn that the language was offered in a Senate amendment proposed by none other than Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. While this news may come as a shock to those who view Reid as a leader of the left, politics will always trump ideology and—in the State of Nevada—politics dictates that running for office as a gun supporter is a way better idea than seeking office as a gun regulator. So, it should shock nobody that Senator Reid is a long-time gun rights advocate who has consistently counted upon the support of the NRA when running for election in his home state.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1934 Oct 31, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>study the reconstruction admendents after the Civil War that is when everything changed which altered the Original US Constitution which states were now free of the US Constitution and the Federal Government to restrict those Bill of Rights under the US Constitution which states did especially in the south after the Civil War which is why none of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights applied against the confederate state governments which they were free to restrict freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, and more which many of them did especially to the new freed black slaves.
http://law.duke.edu/news/1730/
Reconstruction Amendments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_A...
Not quite. As ALL of the state Constitutions of the former confederate states AFTER the Civil War PROVES most conclusively. That which >you< are claiming was nothing more than a FRAUD perpetrated against We The People by the kongress and kourts. The Bill of Rights was INTENDED to apply to ALL forms of American government since 1791. ALL of the states that have entered the Union AGREED to that when they entered into the compact. And NOTHING alters that FACT. Just because the kangaroo kourts have fiddled with it and declare it not to be so. Does NOT mean that is the truth of the matter. And >you< are doing nothing ore than perpetuating a bold faced LIE.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1936 Oct 31, 2013
teddyr4me wrote:
<quoted text>
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/ob...
A friend sent this article to me today. Obama has forced several officers to retire or simply relieved them of their command. These are the officers who swore an oath to the Constitution to defend our country from "enemies foreign and domestic." We need to pay attention to those he appoints to replace these defenders of our Constitution!!!
I agree

Level 5

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1937 Oct 31, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
Support for 'gun control' is the lowest it's EVER been.
NInety percent support universal background checks to stop sales of guns to felons.

Ninety percent.

That leaves ten percent.

And one in ten Americans are felons.
Ten percent.
Ga Girl 56

Roswell, GA

#1938 Oct 31, 2013
I'm not a felon. My weapon belonged to my Dad. It's probably 40 years old. I've been told there's no telling what it's worth. I use it like he did. Protection of myself and my home. It may be old but I have it loaded with hollow points. It will bring down whatever I hit it with. "Out of my cold dead hands". I use mine for the same reason those that wrote the Constitution used theirs. There were criminals in those days, too, just like today. Not as many but just as dangerous as the ones we have now. Our country is larger, more people. I'm sure if there were records from the early days and prior to the days after this nation was born, we'd find probably the percentage of chrimals would be about the same. Bad people preyed on good people just as they do today. There have always been mentally ill folks too. Many of them probably resorted to violence mostly toward their on family members because farms and villages were great distances. Who can say how many of the crazies back then didn't murder their families then roam the country. Whose to say. I don't know.
Ga Girl 56

Roswell, GA

#1939 Oct 31, 2013
No one can prevent felons from getting their hands on guns. Guns disappear from police evidence lockers all the time. It's happened here in GA. So what's with that and where are those weapons now. There are corrupt cops all over the place just like there are good ones.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1941 Nov 1, 2013
Ga Girl 56 wrote:
No one can prevent felons from getting their hands on guns. Guns disappear from police evidence lockers all the time. It's happened here in GA. So what's with that and where are those weapons now. There are corrupt cops all over the place just like there are good ones.
Very true.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1942 Nov 1, 2013
Ga Girl 56 wrote:
I'm not a felon. My weapon belonged to my Dad. It's probably 40 years old. I've been told there's no telling what it's worth. I use it like he did. Protection of myself and my home. It may be old but I have it loaded with hollow points. It will bring down whatever I hit it with. "Out of my cold dead hands". I use mine for the same reason those that wrote the Constitution used theirs. There were criminals in those days, too, just like today. Not as many but just as dangerous as the ones we have now. Our country is larger, more people. I'm sure if there were records from the early days and prior to the days after this nation was born, we'd find probably the percentage of chrimals would be about the same. Bad people preyed on good people just as they do today. There have always been mentally ill folks too. Many of them probably resorted to violence mostly toward their on family members because farms and villages were great distances. Who can say how many of the crazies back then didn't murder their families then roam the country. Whose to say. I don't know.
It's your right. Protect it.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1943 Nov 1, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite, O' treasonous and clueless one. My position is that NEITHER the federal OR the states have the 'right' to impose ANY restrictions WHATSOEVER. Rather, they are ALL Constitutionally BOUND from enacting ANY 'gun control laws' WHATSOEVER. They only have the Constitutionally delegated authority to provide punishments for ABUSE or MISUSE of the right to keep and bear arms.
The 14th amendment mostly involved the new rights of FREED SLAVES. As well as covering other issues that arose as a result of the Civil War. IT DID NOT 'INCORPORATE' ANYTHING. Rather, as pointed out by Mr. Justice [Hugo] Black, in dissent,(along with Justices Douglas and Swayne), in Adamson v. People Of State Of California, U.S. Supreme Court, June 23, 1947. THOSE RIGHTS EXISTED ALREADY. And he PROVED that the 'incorporation doctrine' IS A FARCE.
Go "lick the hands which feed you", and take a hike.
you are clueless and have proven it and part of the same group that wants to keep the establishment in place that you worship which is why you were the ones that were doing everything to stop the Mcdonald v Chicago case from preceeding to the SCOTUS because it went against your agenda which you are proving here.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1944 Nov 1, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite. As ALL of the state Constitutions of the former confederate states AFTER the Civil War PROVES most conclusively. That which >you< are claiming was nothing more than a FRAUD perpetrated against We The People by the kongress and kourts. The Bill of Rights was INTENDED to apply to ALL forms of American government since 1791. ALL of the states that have entered the Union AGREED to that when they entered into the compact. And NOTHING alters that FACT. Just because the kangaroo kourts have fiddled with it and declare it not to be so. Does NOT mean that is the truth of the matter. And >you< are doing nothing ore than perpetuating a bold faced LIE.
nothing was perpetrated that was the intent with the Reconstruction Amendments to the US Costitution to alter the US Constitution which they did especially the 14th amendment which weakened the authority granted by the US Constitution to the US Federal Government involvement in State Rights and how do you think for years in the south the south got away with Jim Crow Laws because of the flaw in the 14th amendment which excluded the US Bill of Rights from states and made each state its own Country within the United States.

Getting the 14th Amendment Right

The Chicago gun case and the fight for economic liberty

Damon W. Root | February 26, 2010

http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/26/getting...

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.

Immigration Reform Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Has Donald Trump Already Failed Us? (Nov '16) 12 min Jill 18,993
News Trump wants military to secure border with Mexico 1 hr flyin hawaiian 374
Rose's Pub (Mar '10) 1 hr Perry Mason 149,048
News Liberals say immigration enforcement is racist,... 1 hr Ms Mack 273
News Father Whose Son Was Murdered By Illegal Immigr... 3 hr tomin cali 1
News You'd Be Surprised How Many Support Boosting Il... 3 hr tomin cali 8
News More California cities may join fight against s... 4 hr Catherine the Great 16