Gun control advocates ask Staten Island's Grimm to help close background check loopholes

Nov 23, 2013 Full story: SILive.com 57

Gun control advocates called on U.S. Rep. Michael Grimm Saturday to lend his support as a co-sponsor to legislation that expand gun background checks to Internet and gun show sales.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1 Nov 23, 2013
Apparently these treasonous 'gun control' advocates forget that:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

And that our governments were EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from interfering with that specific right in ANY way, shape or form.

The ONLY delegated authority that our governments have over the subject. Is to provide punishment for criminal misuse, or abuse of that Constitutionally secured right. ALL current 'gun control' laws are Constitutionally REPUGNANT, and therefore NULL and VOID.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#3 Nov 24, 2013
Oswald would've passed a background check.

Very few mass shooters purchased guns illegally. 99% of them passed background checks at gun stores.

I've never purchased a gun without passing a background check. The article lies.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#4 Nov 24, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
Apparently these treasonous 'gun control' advocates forget that:
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
And that our governments were EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from interfering with that specific right in ANY way, shape or form.
The ONLY delegated authority that our governments have over the subject. Is to provide punishment for criminal misuse, or abuse of that Constitutionally secured right. ALL current 'gun control' laws are Constitutionally REPUGNANT, and therefore NULL and VOID.
Yep. The only purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prohibit Govts from regulating our weapons.
Satan Almigty

Torrance, CA

#5 Nov 24, 2013
I just wish my black brothers would quit killing each other.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#6 Nov 24, 2013
Satan Almigty wrote:
I just wish my black brothers would quit killing each other.
Don't worry, they replace them even faster. Black females start having babies at earlier ages than whites and on average have more children than whites. Whites make up 80% of the population but only have 49% of new births are white.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#7 Nov 24, 2013
Tory II wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. The only purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prohibit Govts from regulating our weapons.
[Not so] Funny how that our 'governments' don't abide by that "SUPREME" instrument though, isn't it?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#8 Nov 24, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text>Don't worry, they replace them even faster. Black females start having babies at earlier ages than whites and on average have more children than whites. Whites make up 80% of the population but only have 49% of new births are white.
Yes, unfortunately we are on the decline. Not only here, but in the rest of North America, and in Europe as well.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9 Nov 24, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
Funny how that our 'governments' don't abide by that "SUPREME" instrument though, isn't it?
right...
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Justice Scalia
This Century
Speaking for the majority
Heller Decision
from the Supreme Court of the United States

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10 Nov 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
right...
<quoted text>
Justice Scalia
This Century
Speaking for the majority
Heller Decision
from the Supreme Court of the United States
False 'rulings' mean absolutely NOTHING:

"...There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid...."

"...It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law...."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 78, Saturday, June 14, 1788.

Why did 'Heller' totally dismiss the PRIOR CORRECT RULINGS of the VERY SAME COURT?-

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."--United States Supreme Court, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11 Nov 24, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
False 'rulings' mean absolutely NOTHING:
So you are saying that HELLER ruling was wrong, eh, DavyQ?

HAHAHAHAAHAH!

I promise I will remind you this is what you said.

With the quote.

Promise.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12 Nov 24, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
(1875).
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Does this sound familiar, GayDavyQ?

Remember when I promised I'd remind you?
2ndAmRight wrote:
I'm not the one stuck in the 1800's troll, >you< are.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#14 Nov 24, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
United States Supreme Court, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
Cruikshank, of course, the background of where the KKK slaughtered over two hundred Negroes, and the decision was used to keep Negroes from registering to vote- by instituted poll taxes and literacy tests- and assembly peacefully and to own firearms.

Most of which were determined to be bad law and tossed out by the 1930s.

And which the HELLER decision would throw out the last portions as bad law.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#15 Nov 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying that HELLER ruling was wrong, eh, DavyQ?
HAHAHAHAAHAH!
I promise I will remind you this is what you said.
With the quote.
Promise.
Indeed it was "wrong", troll. For the court held that the right can be infringed. When the Constitution itself plainly states that it CANNOT:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

"Remind" all you want, you blinded sycophant troll. It will just provide further evidence of how treasonous you really are.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#16 Nov 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Does this sound familiar, GayDavyQ?
Remember when I promised I'd remind you?
<quoted text>
"'It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.'"--Mr. Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 426, 15 L. ed. 691, 709. As quoted by Mr. Justice Brewer deliver[ing] the opinion of the court, U.S. Supreme Court,[South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)]

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#17 Nov 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Cruikshank, of course, the background of where the KKK slaughtered over two hundred Negroes, and the decision was used to keep Negroes from registering to vote- by instituted poll taxes and literacy tests- and assembly peacefully and to own firearms.
Most of which were determined to be bad law and tossed out by the 1930s.
And which the HELLER decision would throw out the last portions as bad law.
And yet you can provide NO proof of your claim. WHY IS THAT?

And why did THIS U.S. Supreme Court Justice instruct the jury in the following manner?-

United States Circuit Court,

DISTRICT OF MISSOURI,

SPECIAL JULY TERM, 1861.

PRESENT:

HON. JOHN CATRON,
>>>>>An Associate Justice of Supreme Court of United States.<<<<<

HON. ROB'T W. WELLS,
District Judge of United States for Western District of Missouri.

HON. SAMUEL TREAT,
District Judge of United States for Eastern District of Missouri.

CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY
BY THE COURT,
JULY 10, 1861.

ST. LOUIS:

PRINTED AT THE DEMOCRAT BOOK AND JOB OFFICE

1861.

"TO THE GRAND JURY...."

"...A brief reference to some of the offences of which you have cognizance, and a succinct statement of the law concerning them, may aid your investigations, and serve for your guidance:

"The Constitution and laws of the United States "are the supreme law of the land," anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding." Their supremacy is thus declared in express terms: "Whatever conflicts therewith has no operative or obligatory force. Allegiance to the United States, and loyalty to the United States Constitution and laws, are the paramount duty of every citizen. Within their legitimate sphere, they command the obedience of all, and no State Constitution or statute can absolve any one therefrom...."

"...Inasmuch as the Constitution provides a peaceable and regular mode whereby it or the U. S. laws may be amended, there can be no other rightful mode of effecting that end known either to the Constitution or law. As it is both the right and duty of every citizen to become fully informed upon all governmental affairs, so as to discharge his many political obligations intelligently at the ballot-box, and in other legitimate ways; and the freedom of the press and of speech >>>are guaranteed to him<<< for that as well as other essential purposes; and as the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances, >>>>>and to keep and bear arms, cannot be lawfully abridged or infringed<<<<<, it is evident that an assemblage for the mere purpose of procuring peaceable redress of supposed grievances cannot be treasonable; nor can a free and full discussion of the acts of public men or public measures, whether such discussion be in private conversations, public meetings or the press; nor can a military gathering when assembled for no purpose or design of interfering, by force or intimidation, with the lawful functions of the government or of its constituted authorities, or of preventing the execution of any law, or of extorting its alteration or repeal, or of overthrowing the lawful supremacy of the United States in any State of Territory...."

You aren't that bright, are you troll?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#19 Nov 25, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed it was "wrong", troll.
Gay Troll: you don't even know the difference between SLANDER and LIBEL and you are going to say the Supreme Court doesn't understand the law?

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#20 Nov 25, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
JULY TERM, 1861.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Does this sound familiar, GayDavyQ?
2ndAmRight wrote:
I'm not the one stuck in the 1800's troll, >you< are.
fingiswold

Newark, OH

#21 Nov 25, 2013
A very worthwhile cause. More gun nuts need to be disarmed, think of the malls, schools, and theaters that'll be safer as a result.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#22 Nov 25, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay Troll: you don't even know the difference between SLANDER and LIBEL and you are going to say the Supreme Court doesn't understand the law?
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!
REALLY?

"4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

"5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

"6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.

"7. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of [p394] the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument...."

--Syllabus, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 60 U.S. 393
Scott v. Sandford.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

Even though one of our FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENTS PLAINLY STIPULATES:

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."

You really are a vile little simpleton.
nac

Patchogue, NY

#23 Nov 25, 2013
Background checks are all well and good... but the legislation never passes because IT DOESN'T END THERE!

The reason that the recent attempts to increase gun control failed is because they always try to include more, including gun registration.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
-Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

In contrast:

"Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future."
-John F. Kennedy

*

The point is... let's learn from history. Let's pay attention to the mistakes that have been made in the past.

Let's listen to the words of a tyrant and learn from them.

Let's listen to the words of a man that died because he wasn't a tyrant or a partisan hack.

We can learn a lot from Hitler & JFK even though they're long gone.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min Nutz 165,226
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min SobieskiSavedEurope 131,964
US to start talks with Cuba to normalize full d... 10 min Retired SOF 37
Democratic backlash throws spending bill in doubt 16 min spocko 30
Grimes girds for legal fight with Paul 16 min tha Professor 5
Graham thinking about presidential bid 38 min tha Professor 12
Not much chance of Congress stopping Cuba policy 38 min Cordwainer Trout 11
More from around the web