Mark,
That is such BS. Obama will not be happy until he has disarmed the public.

I will never go into a Walmart or Dick’s again. We all should do the same. Hit them in the pocket book. That is their only vulnerability.

Good, it will be a lot safer in those stores without you gun guys there.

The people in the Nordstrom’s Store want the CEO to sell guns! Especially after the invasion! What nut case would invade a clothing store anyway? AH yes! Those $250 sneakers!

Yeah like we could depend on you for protection. We would have to find you first.

That reply was to mark

With all due respect to you, Robert, the article you linked has some flaws.

It claims to change the word Spirit into breath or wind, be he a Hebrew scholar?

He also fails to include the relevant portion of the scripture he pretends to analyze. It does say that killing the pregnant woman is punished with life for life. However, it says that if she is INJURED there will be monetary compensation if there is no further damage, in which case it shall again be life for life. In the interpretation of further damage, it can be posited that injury (as in death) of the unborn child is what is meant. Since we are talking about life for life, and the mothers life is NOT the reason, then who’s LIFE is it talking about?

Also, the word play on NATION and ISRAEL is pure nonsense. God referred to Jacob as Israel, which is later shown to be a NAME change for the man. Since the family of someone is called a NATION, it is not saying that there was an entire geographic nation in the womb, just the FATHER of the NATION. With these facts in play, it is easy to say that God Spoke to the PERSON Jacob / Israel in the womb, thus giving him status as a Human Being before birth. I am not sure of the exact timing in the gestation, but I doubt that it occurred in the 3rd trimester of the pregnancy.

Since the article was aimed at discrediting Romney’s stance on abortion, I dont see the overall relevance in a purely “lets define when life starts” kind of factual discussion. And lets get real, “when it can survive on its own, outside the womb?”, a baby cannot survive on its own outside the womb even at full term. It is still dependent on either its mother or some other person for survival for several years. Do you consider a 1 year old child to be a human? A 24 week (6 month) premature baby can take its first breath. By that you give it human being status? Most 6 month preemies cant survive even 48 hours without extreme intervention by medical personnel. The idea of breath being the determining factor of when life starts is extremely flawed.

PS. the controversy over when life begins and whether it is murder to abort a child does not have to be based on religious beliefs. I only used the Bible here because you did so in your link.

By the way ROB—— the Bible says….. “I knew you when you were conceived in the womb”.

Robert,
If the “anger is with religious zealots,” then why are you always so angry when someone voices their opinion? Do you think you are the only one who has the freedom of speech?

From Frank: “The idea of breath being the determining factor of when life starts is extremely flawed.”

“life” or “person”? What are you talking about?

Like I said, at conception particularly when there aren’t even two brain cells to rub together… oooooy gooooy…

That conception thing is extremely flawed.

But in fact I’m not here to argue YOUR religion, only to point out that it is contradictory onto itself leaving it open for “interpretation.” There are some religious folks who live in our society here in America who understand that. For an example you can go to: http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/

Rob

By the way Bob, if you are going to insult Christians with scripture at least quote it correctly. Jeremiah 1:5 God speaking to Jeremiah said, “Before I formed you in the belly I knew you “……. By the way, what part of before do you not understand…? Oh, by the way, it’s really not religion, it’s REALITY

I’m not exactly sure where you are attempting to “place yourself” Joe. But if you are wanting to look at “life” from that perspective .~ the spirit never dies. ~ so you are not really making a very good argument. ~ How can you suffer internal hells fire and damnation if you can die? ~ ~ You have been told of everlasting life with differing locations, one with penalties and warm climate and one with rewards and frequent flier miles.

If that is what you wish to believe, you with experience issues with your other argument.

deerinwater,
God made our spirits, He can destroy our spirits.

Heb 12:29

29 For our God is a consuming fire.
KJV
2 Peter 3:3-10

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
KJV

Those who know the Lord and are His have no reason to be afraid, He is not mad at us.

Very good Jana , ~ I’m proud of you. well chosen words.

And the Bible says, “I (GOD) will protect you, after all you can do!” We must protect out selves from the enemy until HE, The True King, comes again to save the World from people like Obama!

Does it say that? ~ from people like Obama? or is that your own judgement. ~ in any case ~ all three of you have the bible saying different conflicting things ~ and no clear understanding has been made to support any position.

deerinwater, yes Bible says that, and you can’t swim and forgot your dragon head life vest!

Not my words child,
God’s Word

Deerinwater,
Yes, it does say that. The Bible is a book of letters from God telling us how to live and how not to live. We have to make judgments every single day as to what is right and what is wrong. You make judgements every day without the benefit of knowing what is God’s truth. This is why you are confused when you think that Shade and I made conflicting statements. We did not.
God is not a respecter of persons, meaning he accepts all and everyone. But His word also says He is a JEALOUS God and He will not tolerate forever someone who worships a false god.
Deerinwater, you can use the excuse of not understanding to disgregard God’s Word, but god knows your heart. He knows if you want to know the truth or not.

Where does it say “people like Obama” in the Bible Jana.

You find it and I’ll eat it.

Such a statement is only introducing a personal judgement Jana ~ and it’s not a statement from the scriptures but attempting to apply one with some self absorbed whimsical discretion whenever it seems to please you or the person that said it the most.

and while you are chewing on that ~ please discontinue assuming what I or anyone else might or might not know. ~ Unless you have a crystal ball or extremely gifted ( which you fail to show over and over again and again.) you will be incorrect a minimum of 50% of the time ~ and for you, ~ more than that.

You are little more then a bible thumping fruitcake with a pc and access service that we are left to muse over and endure. ~ If you continue down this road ~ I’m going to discontinue reading your postings or responding to you. It;s all up to you and how you wish to be viewed by the rest of the posters here Jana. ~ While it’s clear you are not growing very fast ~ and will take years to craft a meaningful posting ~ You have a few sand box friends here ~ Jana , ~ direct your posting to them.

For whatever it’s worth to you, ~ you are headed in the right directing ~ but you throw sand everywhere, failing to recognize the simplest understandings of person boundaries as you play. You are a space violator and too free with your sand.

You have yet to control you own thoughts yet Jana, ~ what makes you believe that you are in some position to past judgement or rule over others?

You are all over the road with your ideas, kicking sand in everyone’s face like a 3 year old ~ and your cuteness is beginning to grow somewhat thin.

Forgive them Deer, they know not what they type.

(I could use the same rational to say that is in the Bible too)

Deerinwater,
You keep showing your ignorance of the Word of God and it is obviously by your CHOICE.
You also show your ingnorance of the English language as you cannot comprehend what you have read.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God.
Another point:
Matt 7:6

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

When you grow up and decide to become a true man then I will talk to you. Otherwise you do not deserve respect.
You are a kid. You are a rude, mean little kid, and you need to grow up and at least talk and act like a man, then you will get respect.

“You are a kid. You are a rude, mean little kid, and you need to grow up and at least talk and act like a man, then you will get respect”.

So says the church lady! Do you have one hand on your hip when you type this drible?

Isn’t that special!

You were promised what would happen Jana. You had your opportunity , ~

The only reward for us here is to watch deerinwater standing before GOD trying to talk his way out his ignorance!

Oh deer, I am writhing in absolute panic and fear! NOT!
Grow up little boy!

Shade,
Yes, and he has promised to not bother me any more with his nonsense, thank goodness. I will miss that like I would miss a pebble in my shoe.
Have a good day shade.

However, I will make one more comment. He is not going to bully me from making any more comments about his or anyone elses posts. No matter what this child thinks, he doesn’t control me or this site.

manuel rosa,
You are so right. That was a great reply. We need to keep saying it because it is true, and we know the truth.
We have too many who laugh at the truth or mock us because of our beliefs, but all they are doing is showing their own ignorance.

right ! while confusion is only offered when you start applying it to the gleam in two lovers eyes.

The basic problem is that the inglorious State of Illinois certifide him as legal, and nobody wanted to upset the apple cart after the fact.

Only among an extemist “birther” minority. Everyone else accepts that he was born on U.S. soil in the state of Hawaii in 1961 (it became a state in 1959) to an American mother and an African father. That makes him a U.S. citizen. Case closed. Except for a small minority who will never accept him as an American because his father was black and they diagree with his policies.

Gordon so,so Right. Politicians do not impeach ea other, Its againest their rules of protection for ea other, Oh sometimes they go thru the motions But nothing comes from it, Only used to pease the Public.

AARON, The NRA has become a Compromising Group, When the Day comes when they no longer compromise on our rights I will become a member again.There is NO compromise when it comes to the Constitution and our Rights They have become more like Politicians than People looking after our rights. Maybe its the Money and the group they run with.

And no nation since the beginning of humanity, has ever been in this much debt. And that is absolutely the fault of our supposed representatives for the last 100 years. You can only go so far and then comes judgement day…And we as a nation are approaching that day quickly…

Yes it is. I agree. BUT based on the facts of the past, stereotyping and profiling are actual valid ways of pre-judging a situation to prevent further abuse… Facts people don’t want to see: Blacks move in, whites move out. Mexicans move in, blacks move out. Muslims move in everybody moves out. It’s just the way it is. Society in general has gotten to the point that NO BODY can be trusted until they prove themselves. period. We must be suspicious of everybody because the honesty, ethics, integrity, and honor have been removed from all segments of society. Face it….. almost every one will do stuff because it suits their fancy…. drive too fast?…. keep the extra nickel that the stupid cashier gave you?……parked in a handicapped?…… integrity is integrity…… very few people actually have it. period.

So, Gordon according to your own logic, you are saying that no American gunowner should be trusted. Every one of them should be considered a absolute killer like Adam Lanza, like the loon at Aurora – until they prove otherwise. Since lots of gunowners have murdered innocents in the past, all gunowners should be suspect. I totally disagree with this philosophy. I hold like our Constitution and our American legal system does that every individual regardless of race, religion, income level, or gun ownership is innocent until proven guilty. You hold that people are guilty until they can prove themselves othewise. You realize that this, of course, is the legal system and social attitude that exists in totalitarian societies – within them all people are guilty until they can prove themselves (and good luck with this!) innocent. This is telling and reveals a lot about your poltical philosophy and view on life.

ranger09, because Barak Obama is black he has received more death threats than the last twenty presidents combined. And the vast majority of these death threats have come from white males from the South, Plain States, and Mountain West. Gee, I wonder why? The very places that have the highest membership rates in the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nations, the Skinheads, the survivalist and militia movements. Starting to detect a pattern here, ranger09? President Clinton’s adminstration perpetrated Ruby Ridge and Waco. President George W. Bush enacted 2 unConstitutional wars and the unConstitutional Patriot Act, established Homeland Security, FEMA camps, extraordinary renditions and unConstitutional torture. And Bush doubled the national debt from $5.5 trillioin to $10 trillion. But neither of these 2 guys got anywhere near the number of threats President Obama received. Could it be because they were both white while President Obama is black, the first black president in U.S. history? Gee, I wonder if that could be it?

Mark wrote: “… because Barak Obama is black he has received more death threats than the last twenty presidents combined.”

Granted, there are probably some who would even threaten him because he is black, but I think Obama, himself, has earned all of the threats made against him, regardless of his race. Who would really give a crap if he was black or some stowaway from Mecca, or Beijing, …… so long as he grew a set of gonads and fully supported the Constitution and stuck to his campaign promises. This guy is just another charismatic globalist stooge whose only assignment was to mesmerize the weak-minded masses.

I confess, I fell for it in 2008. I wasn’t that stupid in 2012.

Regarding one respondent’s comment about 80% of the population turning in their guns; I don’t think that will happen. I’ll even go so far as to say that liberals may be desiring a world without guns (a noble gesture), but I’ll bet there are a whole slew of them out there right now secretly buying guns ……. just in case. Who can blame them? Nothing would be better than to live without the need for weapons, but as long as the rich cats want all the rubber duckies in their tub, the rest of us will have to continue to pay the price for their insecurity and lack of integrity.

thats good interrity Gordon.

Nonsensical? Ok, Paul, so you agree with Carol and with Bob Livington that Obama engineered the massacres at Sandy Hook and Aurora? And you call me nonsensical?

Seriously, mark, I now think that Sandy Hook never even existed before this event. The whole town is actors; and everything is fake! Even the kids who went on GMA this morning and sang “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” are actors, as is the music teacher. Then there are the parents of dead children who are starting to post remembrances online. What’s really odd is that nobody who lived in the area prior to the killings has noticed that none of those involved actually lived there!

The news media reported: multiple bombs found inside in Okie City…. videos of napalm tanks at Waco, specific kill orders at Ruby Ridge…… second persons at Columbine, Sandy, Aurora, etc…. grassy knoll… Jack Ruby .. It seems that many many situations are clouded by seemingly coordinated “alphabet company” organizations/ contractors.

And the kind of people that entertain this kind of thinking wants to run this country and have their guns both is a single breath while what they need to be in a rubber room and the key thrown away.

According to the right wing gods! Keep saying it long enough and it will happen!

The reelection of Obama serves to prove one thing. We have to many stupid people in America.

and you are not one of them , ~ Right?

manuel rose say , “they called him the Messiah. ”

I say , Who does besides you?

New Your is Satan’s headquarters.

Satan also has branch offices in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Detroit.

My previous post is meant for Mark…just want to be clear about it.

Ranger09, As I read this about your family, your heritage, I can feel your emotions of your proud patriotism. Liberty is won by the blood of tyrants and patriots. I hate to say it, but I believe our blood will be spilled here. Our generation and my children’s generation never had to fight to gain or to maintain our freedom in this Country. Our Forefather’s did, some gave the ultimate sacrifice, their blood and their lives so we could live as free men…The same sacrifice that as a Father, I am willing to give so that my children have the same freedom …. And Mark, you sir are an idiot.

Rickey – “He said he would do a private swearing in with a private bible ” Rumor or do you have proof of this? Everything I’ve heard has been rumor. He will take the oath on a Bible in front of an audience. You guys just take the cake. You hear or read something and immediately take it as gospel and start the spread.

They become scarier by the day Karolyn! They say Liberals are scared of looking at a semi-automatic which isn’t true. The real fear is all the stupidity they come up with and bogus comments. Like the ones about no one was killed in the Newtown shootings! A few are sick beyond repair!

To Karolyn & Elton
IT’S NO RUMOR THAT HE DID NOT FINISH TAKING THE OATH OF OFFICE. I watched that swearing in again on the “FreeSpeech” channel months later. IF YOU BELIEVE HE FINISHED IN PRIVATE BECAUSE HE SAID HE WOULD OR BELIEVE ANYTHING HE SAYS, THEN OR NOW, YOU’RE A FOOL.

My mistake was not being able to read Rickey’s incoherent post properly. I thought he was talking about the coming inauguration. However, since you are talking about the last swearing in, yes he did complete it. The only problem was that the justice gave him the wrong words to repeat, which he did repeat, hesistantly. Later, he did it again privately with all the right words. We are all fools, Karen in one way or another.

Too bad folks can see what provoked my response.

Rob

” What we need is to change the failed economic policies of the left, which is creating more criminals that we need to protect ourselves from.”

Hey Bill, how’s ’bout that failed “trickle down” thingy?

BTW, the “left” has reason to believe that it has had an impact on crime to reduce it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

Rob

Oh, “Rob”! {sigh} Wikipedia? Really? Maybe [comment has been edited] should show you some legitemate reference sites…

Okay Bill scrap the old laws and enact some new ones with teeth in them!

I’ll bet “they” will have no trouble taking it from your cold dead hand.

Why not just cut to the chase and save ‘em the trouble? You have the means in your hand if you don’t like this world.

Rob

Rob, I want to make sure I do something productive before the get me. I wish you would be there when they try to take my gun.

Both impeachment attempts and protest will accomplish nothing. Harold is correct in that the Senate would never convict. As to protest, that is nothing but political theater that changes nothing.

The Supreme Court needs to get involved in this. From http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html : “In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from “congressional intent” or exceeds the President’s constitutional powers.”

Vigilant, I don’t trust the Supreme Court either. They changed Obamacare into a tax to make it legal, they’ll find some excuse to further the socialists’ agenda.

Right that is how slavery existed for 250 years on American shores. And why segregation existed for another 100 years. Because good men did nothing. But the majority of Americans were just fine with that. But put a regulation on ammunition clips or insist on criminal and psychiatric background checks before gun purchases? Hey, wait a minute, that’s cause for a revolution!. But buying and selling other human beings? Or preventing citizens from voting because of their skin color? Hey, that’s no problem. After all they’re black. Hypocrisy thy name is America!

Rendar, you may not trust the SCOTUS, but it’s a step that MUST be taken prior to any calls for violence. Unless, that is, you believe violence is the first answer when you don’t get your way.

The call to violence will be “confiscation” or mandatory gun tax/ registration.

“…you may not trust the SCOTUS, but it’s a step that MUST be taken prior to any calls for violence.”

I think that to be the wrong course of action. Executive Orders used to get around Congress are unconstitutional and not any different than dictatorial power. To then promote the idea of using another unconstitutional power such as judicial review on another is ridiculous. The power rests with the states to pass resolutions of nullification of unconstitutional laws and mandates, up to and including secession if the federal government defaults the contract by violating what it was created by the states to protect. I believe that secession would come before any armed resistance and even then, such resistance would only be defensive if the federal government acts as the preemptively aggressor.

phideaux, The 74% and 82% numbers cited in my post are from the New Republic, see below:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/105354/do-nra-members-support-more-gun-restrictions-members-congress-do#

“To then promote the idea of using another unconstitutional power such as judicial review on another is ridiculous.”

TML, you would do well to study your history. “In their comments relating to judicial review, the framers indicated that the power of judges to declare laws unconstitutional was part of the system of separation of powers. The framers stated that the courts’ power to declare laws unconstitutional would provide a check on the legislature, protecting against excessive exercise of legislative power.” (Wikipedia)

The concept and application of judicial review existed at state level even before he Constitutional convention. Moreover, “delegates made comments indicating their belief that under the Constitution, federal judges would have the power of judicial review. For example, George Mason said that federal judges “could declare an unconstitutional law void.” James Madison said: “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” (Ibid.)

FYI, Marbury v. Madison did not establish the doctrine of judicial review, it was already accepted by the Founders.

“The power rests with the states to pass resolutions of nullification of unconstitutional laws and mandates, up to and including secession if the federal government defaults the contract by violating what it was created by the states to protect.”

Nice summation of the neoconfederate theology.

Didn’t work for SC during Jackson’s administration, and didn’t work for the confederacy either.

Vigilant,

I know my history; however, you should learn your Constitution. It is no question as to the fact that the Constitution does not explicitly erect a tribunal of judicial review, and because that power was not explicitly delegated to the federal government it therefore resides with the state. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson adamantly opposed such doctrine of judicial review (Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798) while agreeing that the courts had the power to nullify any law that violated the constitution as it pertained to a specific, and legitimate, case within their jurisdiction. The fact that other founders argued for judicial review does not change the fact that the Constitution does not anywhere erect a tribunal specifically to review any and all acts of Congress just to give the ‘ok’ on the law without a legitimate case to rule upon.

I will say however, that I am less inclined to oppose such judicial review of executive orders by a single man, as I am legislation by the entire Congress, in contrast to a small oligarchy group of unelected officials who maintain their office for life.

Vigilant says, “Nice summation of the neoconfederate theology. Didn’t work for SC during Jackson’s administration, and didn’t work for the confederacy either.”

It worked. The federal government just overstepped its power to make war on the states who made a peaceful declaration of secession, invading their land to subjugate them under central governmental control unconstitutionally… that doesn’t change the law of the land.It only proves the federal government violated the rule of law with the barrel of a gun. Besides, this isn’t the 1860’s anymore… in case you haven’t noticed.

Nullification is a valid option, as we see many States already preparing to pass legislation resolutions to do exactly that.

TML, if you were indeed versed on history, you would know that Madison adamantly opposed nullification.

From http://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/james-madison-on-secession/

“James Madison in his old age lived through the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833. He was against nullification and secession, which he saw lurking clearly in the background of the Crisis. As the author of the Virginia Resolution of 1798 which contended that Congress had no power to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, Madison had his own words thrown back at him, and he took pains in his letters to explain the differences between his Virginia Resolution and the revolution South Carolina was attempting to initiate. I find his words on secession to be of great interest in light of the battle over the right to secede fought after Madison was long in his grave. Here is a letter to Nicholas Trist on December 23, 1832 in which Madison makes his position clear.”

You may read the letter at the URL cited. He deals at length with the mistaken notion that nullification by a single state was ever a part of the Virginia Resolution. He wrote it; he certainly knew what he meant.

One excerpt of that letter is particularly revealing, and is abundantly clear with respect to Madison’s sentiments regarding secession: Said Madison, “It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.”

You may find it elucidating as well to read Jackson’s words regarding the nullification crisis, words I have posted here many times. On May 1, 1833, Jackson wrote, “the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question.”

“Pretext” was the word he used, not “justification,” and the wise man can tell the difference between the two words.

TML says, “The federal government just overstepped its power to make war on the states who made a peaceful declaration of secession, invading their land to subjugate them under central governmental control unconstitutionally…”

Yes, TML, there is only one side to the question, and yours is unfailingly correct. That, notwithstanding the historically accurate information I’ve provided above. Or the opinions of many Constitutional scholars regarding the illegitimacy of secession.

Fine by me. Your neoconfederate blindness is unassailable. None so blind as those who will not see.

Vigilant says, “TML, if you were indeed versed on history, you would know that Madison adamantly opposed nullification.”

Nay, he opposed secession which was the extreme version of nullification, but not interchangeable and have very different justifications and purposes. The Virginia resolution argued that the states “had the right and the duty to declare unconstitutional any acts of Congress that were not authorized by the Constitution.” In doing so, they argued for states’ rights and strict constructionism of the Constitution. He did oppose secession, but under the principles of contract understood that secession is justified, not at will, but only when the contract had already been defaulted and “absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created [federal government]”. No founder, who just won their independence through secession from a tyrannical government, would have unequivocally opposed secession under the reasonable grounds of utter violation of the Constitution, and that such a state cannot withdraw without the consent of their oppressors.

As he points out, even Jefferson’s words are often used as a pretext to secession at a whim, but that’s not what’s being said (reference Jefferson’s 1st inaugural address – “if there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it”).

Madison only opposed the principles of nullification he laid down in the Virginia Resolution being perverted to justify secession, not nullification itself, since nullification is a legitimate act which should keep the act of secession from having to occur. It is the means of avoiding secession, not the justification for it.

Vigilant says, “Your neoconfederate blindness is unassailable.”

Let’s refrain from trying to place me under a label and say I am blind simply because I don’t agree with you.

I do believe the U.S. Constitution gives us a way to secede from the Union, although it would not be easy. It also gives us the right to “replace” the Government if it is out of control “which it is”.

Shade, you’re confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

TML, kindly read an excerpt from another of Madison’s letters to Nicholas P. Trist, December, 1831. Madison made it very clear that nullification by a single state in disregard of the will of the several states would have “such a deadly poison in it, no Constn. could be sure of lasting a year.”

“Another circumstance to be noted is that the Nullifiers in stating their doctrine omit the particular form in which it is to be carried into execution; thereby confounding it with the extreme cases of oppression which justify a resort to the original right of resistance, a right belonging to every community, under every form of Government, consolidated as well as Federal. To view the doctrine in its true character, it must be recollected that it asserts, a right in a single State, to stop the execution of a Federal law, altho’ in effect stopping the law everywhere, until a Convention of the States could be brought about by a process requiring an uncertain time; and finally in the Convention when formed a vote of 7 States, if in favor of the veto, to give it a prevalence over the vast majority of 17 States. For this preposterous & anarchical pretension there is not a shadow of countenance in the Constitn. and well that there is not; for it is certain that with; there having scarcely been a year, since ours was formed, without a discontent in some one or other of the States which might have availed itself of the nullifying prerogative. Yet this has boldly sought a sanction under the name of Mr. Jefferson, because, in his letter to Majr Cartwright, he held out a Convention of the States, as, with us, a peaceable remedy in cases to be decided in Europe by intestine wars. Who can believe that Mr. J. referred to a Convention summoned at the pleasure of a single State, with an interregnum during its deliberations; and, above all with a rule of decision subjecting nearly ¾ to ¼. No man’s creed was more opposed to such an inversion of the Repubn. order of things.”

And with regard to your feelings about judicial review and the function of the judicial system, you may want to read another portion of Madison’s letter:

“With respect to the supremacy of the Judicial power on questions occurring in the course of its functions, concerning the boundary of Jurisdiction between the U. S. & individual States, my opinion in favor of it was as the 41 No. of the Federalist shews, of the earliest date; and I have never ceased to think that this supremacy was a vital principle of the Constitution as it is a prominent feature in its text. A supremacy of the Constitution & laws of the Union, without a supremacy in the exposition & execution of them, would be as much a mockery as a scabbard put into the hand of a Soldier without a sword in it. I have never been able to see, that without such a view of the subject the Constitution itself could be the supreme law of the land; or that the uniformity of the Federal Authority throughout the parties to it could be preserved; or that without this uniformity, anarchy & disunion could be prevented.”

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mjmtext:@field(DOCID+@lit(jm090134))

Incidentally, TML, Madison was also in favor of protective tariffs:

“On the subject of the Tariff for the encouragemt of manufactures, my opinion in favor of its constitutionality has been invariable from the first session of Congs. under the new Constn. of the U. S. to the explicit & public maintenance of it in my letters to Mr. Cabell in 1828.” (Same letter)

In essence, Madison is saying that South Carolina’s opposition to the tariff, and its attempted nullification of it, were UNCONSTITUTIONAL in nature.

Vigilant says “TML, kindly read an excerpt from another of Madison’s letters to Nicholas P. Trist, December, 1831. Madison made it very clear that nullification by a single state in disregard of the will of the several states would have “such a deadly poison in it, no Constn. could be sure of lasting a year.”

Indeed, he did argue for “interposition” which required states to act jointly in the effort to strike down unconstitutional laws, but this still upholds the idea that the right and the duty to declare void any acts of Congress which were not authorized by the Constitution, was indeed a power that does rests with the State. Personally I have no problem with Madison’s interposition approach to nullification until it comes to violations of the Bill of Rights, at which point, I favor nullification by a single state, even if other states do not agree… which is not such a deadly poison. Whether the nullification of drug laws, or gun restrictions, etc… these should not require the convention of the several states.

Vigilant says “And with regard to your feelings about judicial review and the function of the judicial system, you may want to read another portion of Madison’s letter:”

There were times when he favored judicial review, but in the end, the check on Congress was given to the veto power of the President, not the Judiciary outside of their jurisdiction. He too opposed the doctrine privately as he did a letter in 1788, he wrote, “In the state constitutions and indeed in the federal one also, no provision is made for the case of a disagreement in expounding them; and as the courts are generally the last in making the decision, it results to them by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with the final character. This makes the Judiciary Department paramount in fact to the legislature, which was never intended and can never be proper.” Id. at 294.

It is by the nature of the court, through the legitimacy of a case within their prescribed jurisdiction, that they have the power to nullify a law (by refusing or not refusing to execute a law), as I said, but not as oversight of all congressional acts without a legitimate case to rule upon.

Vigilant says “In essence, Madison is saying that South Carolina’s opposition to the tariff, and its attempted nullification of it, were UNCONSTITUTIONAL in nature.”

While as I pointed out, he did not feel that the interposition form of nullification was unconstitutional, I have no objection to the tariff being considered constitutional, albeit excessive.

Well, what’s your plan of action?

No legislation has even been formally proposed yet, let alone argued over and voted on in the Congress, Joe, which is always a very long and dragged out process. And all government offiicals are talking about is closing loopholes on doing criminal and psychiatric background checks before gun purchases which 74% of NRA members agree with as do 82% of gunowners. They are also talking about limitng the sale of multi-round magazines above 10 or 12 bullets. Some politicians are calling for a reinstatement of the ban on semi-automatic assault rifle sales that existed between 1994 and 2004. I don’t remember any revolution against the End of America during that 10 year ban. I don’t remember any concentration camps or mass genocide of Americans during that ban that spanned the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations?

Calm down, Joe. You’re going bonkers over zero legislation and only proposals over some moderate reforms which we have experienced in the past with no infringement on American rights or the massive numbers of gunowners. This whole “gun grab” conspiratcy theory is a huge money-maker for the IRA and the Far Right who are getting their base all riled up and ready to contribute – cash, money, escarole! It a “money grab” by the right – not a “gun grab” by the left. Don’t fall for it. Keep your powder dry and your cash away from the politicians.

as long as the devil has control of the white house he can’t be impeached,

You people don’t get it. THEY want surrender or confiscation ASAP, ……. before the citizens have a chance to get this legally decided. THEY are deliberately pushing the public to confrontation so that THEY can declare Marshal Law…. suspend congress and elections…… Straight out of the nazi playbook.

Gordon, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Somehow, the left doesn’t see that scenario happening with their beloved Obama at the helm, so they continue with blind obedience.

Even during the Bush Administration I had overseas clients saying, “Can’t you see what’s happening here?” Obama is just the latest baton holder in the globalists’ relay race to hell.

80% of the population will acquiese and surrender their weapons. Hide and watch.

We pay these retards to protect the Country and the People as our constitution spells out, It has worked for a long time, But the Powers to Be have slowly been chopping a way at it, And they are still chopping away And the Sheep do nothing but stay quite and follow the bell. The American people should let themselves be heard Loud and Clear WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH. But we will only talk and complain and let them run free.to do as they see fit. We will just keep on following the Bell.

” which 74% of NRA members agree with as do 82% of gunowners. ”

That is twice you have used those numbers mark and you have yet to give any links or other evidence to support them. I have already caught you in one lie today so until you can support your claims I say this is a lie as well.

I have seen the same figures Phideaux. The Luntz poll said the number is 70% for NRA members.

Montana , Wyoning and other states are already acting in the protection of their citizens’ rights.The federal laws are nullified in this states. If any federal agent or agency try to implement any of these un-constitutional laws , he(she) will be arrested and jailed for 5 years.
Montana Firearms Freedom Act , Wyoming Firearms Protection Act

I use to think the “Gun Nuts” in Wyoming and Montana were just that “NUTS”! But I have Seen the Light! Where do I sign up?

AMEN SISTER !!!

Here’s the difference. Progressives obsess all day, every day on how to skirt around the constitution. Conservatives are always in reaction mode on how to protect it.

Finally, a legislator with some cohones. Let’s hope the globalist NWO bankers don’t threaten his family as well. Hopefully, enough people across the country may start asking THEIR legislators why they haven’t joined onto the impeachment bandwagon.

Well said, Vicki

No, it’s not that simple, Vicki. We should close all loopholes that prevent criminal and psychiatric background checks for gun sales at gun shows (something 74% of NRA members agree with as do 82% of all gunowners) and we should limit multi-round clips above 10 rounds for ordinary gun owners. These are very modest proposals that will be hashed out in the legislative process. This is not the end of America, the end of the Second Amendment or the beginning of a dictatorship. They are simply some modest proposals regarding gun legislation most of which will probably never pass. This isn’t a “gun grab” by the left, it is a “money grab” by the NRA, gun industry, and the Far Right who are ginning up their base by exaggerating all this and reaping big money from panicked, frightened contributors and gun buyers.

BR549 says:

“Finally, a legislator with some cohones.’

For Pete Sake’s ~ Look at him! He a ambulance chasing Phil Gramm weasel look-a-like. He ‘s got that Huckabee Christian Right all over his face like peanut butter and jelly on a 4 years old. This is the same man that supported W’s administration’s two wars on rag heads and tax breaks because it was the right thing to do and to hell with everything else or what the ramifications might be.

It doesn’t take kahunas to hold the rope in a lynch mob!

AMEN, Vickie – Let’s hear it for TEXAS too! Got the dear in headlights blinded & looking

HE should have been impeached years ago. Flaccid congress will placate HIM again, and we will be shafted again.

Right on Girl, Some People just do not seem to understand what real freedom is all about. Also i would like to see this Politician do what he says he will do, But as we all know politicians belong to the same club, Nothing but garbage comes from their Mouths. But i sure would like to be wrong about this Rep. from Texas.

No one is trying to take anyones gus away .times change and if you are living in the times of the old west where you need a canon to shoot a rabit and fortify you house from indians you do not need wepons beyond that need .you should join arm service of your choice and shoot away. Unless you are a redneck pickerwood that wants to cry and be heard.

Vicki,
Short and to the point and right on!!!

vicky harrey!

Mark, Here is whats simple, If you don’t want a gun DON’T BUY ONE! If you don’t want an abortion don’t make a baby! Your loose facts and smarmy talk scream “I am a gun hater, my home is gun-free”. If you can’t conclude that there are very real similarities to 1930′s Germany then you are as blind as you sound. Its not just about guns Mark. Obama and his “aparatchiks” are systematically blunting, stopping, and decreeing (by the demigod himself) our freedoms daily. No you say? How about the EPA threatening property seizure over a roadside ditch, on private property that some government idiot decided was a wetland and the EPA would protect it? How about your demigod stopping drilling on public land because he thinks making the public suffer with higher prices will somehow change things. You and all the other obama worshippers don’t have any better answers than ” we’re in charge now”. Before you freak out I will say that the Republican answers often leave a lot to be desired but at least most Republicans have or are able to read the Constitution and COMPREHEND IT!

justamused, I own a gun and unlike all you crybaby pantswetters on this site, I have zero fear of the government taking it from me. You know why? Because they are not going to do so.. At most, all that will come out of this bruhaha is a stricter law on background checks and the NRA and gun lobby reaping millions more in donations from suckers like you. The gun industry will also have a huge windfall with all the pantswetters running out to buy more guns and ammo. Other than that nothing will change. Until some nutso Congressman makes a call for some new control in a couple of years, and then all the right- wing blogs and NRA sites go bonkers, pulling all the pantswetters around by the ring they have in their nose for more donations and more gun sales. I’m old enough to have seen this movie a dozen times. It does not impress me. What I don’t understand is how easily you can be manipulated and how millions like you fall for this same old propaganda crap year after year.

Wow mark you really are as blind as you sound if you don’t think that they will attempt to take guns away from us. It happened after Katrina in New Orleans and they will do it again. A national registry is just the means for them to know where to show up when they decide to start confiscation. If you bought your gun from a store you had to fill out an ATF background form and the store then called them to get go ahead for the sell. That means the the ATF already has your info for when they decided to come get that back from you. My advice is to hide your guns now while you still can. Don’t hide them horizontal to the ground either because satilites can detect the heat signature.

Absolutely Mark! The NRA use to be one of the biggest supporters of gun control until 1970 and then they were hijacked by extremists. 40 years later they have gotten worse.

Hey Howard, they didn’t take mine after Katrina. Did they take yours? You gave it to them? Did they hand them all back after Katrina? Cause last I checked they’re are about 300 million of them in the U.S., right now. So let’s get this straight, the Bush adminstration took away every Americans’ gun after Katrina, and then they apparently gave them all back since about 300 million of them are privately owned in the U.S. right now. So why should I hide my gun? I mean if they give them right back again, after I don’t know a week, a month? You dreaming Howard, the government didn’t take away every Americans’ gun after Katrina. I would have heard something about this, plus they would have had to come to my house and take mine – and they didn’t. Come back to me when you have something intelligent to say, Howard, and not just spread all these unsubstantiated Chicken Little right-wing cuckoo-clock internet propaganda lies. Come back to me when you can speak some truth and not just the paranoid nightmares of bedwetting children.

They didn’t simply return the weapons they “stole” from those Katrina victims Mark. It took a great deal of pressure from pro-gun groups to initiate the return. The accounts of what occurred, as stated in this video, are truly sickening! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A PRODUCTIVE MEMBER OF SOCIETY CAN SPEND EIGHT HOURS A DAY COMMENTING ON THESE SITES?
HEY “MARK” IF THIS ISN’T YOUR SHILL PAID JOB GO GET ONE YOU FOOLISH A$$ WYPE (OR “BROWN NOSE” WHICH EVER YOU PREFER.)

mark says:
“No, it’s not that simple, Vicki.”

Yes it IS that simple. WE DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE AND WE ARE WAY PAST TIRED OF YOU PUNISHING US.

STOP IT. STOP IT NOW.

- mark: ” and we should limit multi-round clips above 10 rounds for ordinary gun owners.”

WHAT PART OF STOP IT NOW are you having trouble with? The same part as SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

- mark: ” These are very modest proposals that will be hashed out in the legislative process.”

STOP PUNISHING US . STOP IT NOW.

MANNY says rather loudly :
“HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A PRODUCTIVE MEMBER OF SOCIETY CAN SPEND EIGHT HOURS A DAY COMMENTING ON THESE SITES?”

Overachievers?

Multi-tasking! It’s easy with two hands, two brains, and several mind sets!

Right On, Vicky.

Everyone remember to support Representative Steve Stockman (R-Texas)! We must stand with ‘The Free and the Brave’, as they act on our behalf.

Charlie,
Yes yes yes. I agree.

People who LIE and STEAL are not Civilized Humans.

Randy wrote: “People who LIE and STEAL are not Civilized Humans.”

Well, now that we’re talking about Congress and the President …………

Randy, you are talking 99.99% of the people. They are willing to lie, cheat, steal, etc. if they think it is in their best interest. Admit it Randy. Integrity, ethics, and honor are concepts from a lost and bygone era.

Gordon, count me out!

ranger 09

How can the jews be the problem when they are the victim?

Come on, I think you can do better than that.

Kind of like progressive (lack of) logic…leads nowhere.

No, the NRA did not organized these killings and to impute that is obviously ludicrous but many posters on this site including Bob Livingston have stated their belief that the Obama administration organized the killings at Aurora and Sandy Hook and that is just as patently ludicrous as suggesting that the NRA had anything to do with it. But good luck trying to convince the contributors on this website of that because they have such a virulent hatred of their own government that it unhinges their reasoning to the extent that they regard such bizarre, off-the-charts-crazy conspiracies as perfectly credible.

P.S. They also think that the George W. Bush adminstration organized the 9/11 attacks and that the main goal of every U.S. president since Wilson is to commit genocide against the American people, a goal they are only prevented from achieving by the mass gun ownership in America. Can you imagine living in a country where you really think that the poltical leadership’s true goals are to kill and imprison tens of millions of their own citizens? Well, they do believe this and state it everyday on this site. For me, if I actually believed this I would immediately leave the United States and settle in another nation just as intelligent German Jews left Germany after Hitler came to power. But of course the whole notion of an American president rounding up and killing tens of millions of his own citizens is so absurd as to defy all logic. Except for the majority logic on this site.

Yes, if you sold the knife to some deranged, whack-job. I agree that guns don’t kill people. Insane, violent people kill people. The object is to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of mental defectives, something the NRA seems to have no interest in doing.

Mark, We do not need any more gun laws. We need more guns and larger mags to protect ourselves from the thugs created by the lefts failed economic policies.

Our seniors need to be protected and the cops cannot

We don’t necessarily need more laws but better ones to replaced the weak older laws.

That is simply not true and if you don’t know it not true, you need to bone up on the time period. ~ The German Jews had call for concerns of many years and many did leave the country with not only their lives but their wealth as well. Sadly not enough of them.

Stick with speaking of things that you know and you can offer a much more powerful posting.

“Restrictions imposed by the treaty of Versailles
In 1919 and 1920, to stabilize the country and in part to comply with the Treaty of Versailles, the German Weimar government passed very strict gun ownership restrictions. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles stated, “Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless.”[1]
In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that “all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately.”[2] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.
On August 7, 1920, the German government enacted a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.”

At this time in history Hitler had only served as a messenger of Corporal rank in the Germany army and was recovering from a mustard gas attack at the end of the war.

It was the treaty of Versailles imposed on a defeated Germany by allied forces that disarmed the German people. ~ So you can say that it was the England, Canada, French and American people that disarmed the German people.

So how do you feel about that ?

“Indeed, there was no need for the Nazis to pass a law like that, because the earlier Weimar government had already passed gun registration laws. When I asked Cramer about his research, he said, “The laws adopted by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm Nazis and Communists were sufficiently discretionary that the Nazis managed to use them against their enemies once they were in power.” In other words, they didn’t need to pass additional laws. The Nazis did pass a weapons law in 1938, but that only added restrictions to the previous law, especially for Jews and other “non-citizens.”

“Did gun control, then, pave the way for the Nazi rise to power? If guns had been readily available, would the people have risen against their oppressors? That seems dubious. The Nazis had a great deal of popular support. Much of their campaign of intimidation involved old-fashioned strongarm tactics, not guns. Had opponents of the regime been armed, and had there been a tradition of armed resistance in Germany, the Nazis might have had a tougher time of it. But that gets us into a pretty speculative realm.

When the Nazis enacted their own law in 1938, they added restrictions aimed at Jews, such as not allowing Jews to work in any business involving guns. They also prohibited those under eighteen from buying guns, added yet another permit for handguns, and banned silencers and small hollow-point ammunition. Of course, Nazi officials were exempted from all gun permits. Later that year, after “Kristallnacht,” Hitler forbade Jews to possess pretty much any weapons.

To summarize, Hitler did “effect total gun control,” but only for the Jews, and only after his regime had been in power for several years. For the rest of the population he relied on laws already in place.

To focus exclusively on gun control is to lose sight of the larger picture. The Nazis controlled EVERYTHING. If you went through the Bill of Rights you’d find that most of them were abridged in Hitler’s Germany. Did the loss of one particular right have more impact than the others? That’s a question we here at the Mailbag can’t answer. I doubt anybody can.”

DEER= Obama is running the nazi playbook step by step. 2012 was the end of life as we have known it…… impeachment…… never will be convicted.

Gordon say “2012 was the end of life as we have known ”

I think that can be said for every year ~ but for a man you claim that can’t do anything ~ you are certainly giving him a lot of credit. ~ It’ can’t be both ways.

A ludicrous, inane historical overreach but typical on this site. Jews were a tiny, despised, and frightened minority in 1930s Germany. Gunowners are a highly respected and feared majority in the United States. Comparing the two in anyway speaks to your almost total lack of historical knowledge.

Wow Mark,
6 million people, jews or any peoples does not sound like a tiny minority, and they wouldn’t have been frightened if they weren’t being hunted down and murdered like animals.
This was low Mark, even for you.

deerinwater,
You missunderstood Steve E’s post, he was being facetious. You actually both agree.

Jana, German Jews were a frightened minority for centuries before Adolf Hitler came to power and started to enact the Holocaust, due to the long tradition of anti-Semitism in that nation. In 1933, around 300,000 Jews lived in a German nation of 70 million – a very tiny minority as I stated, and largely powerless once the Nazis came to power. To compare them to the very powerful over 80 million mostly white Americans who own guns is ludcrous. Of the 6 million Jews who Hitler murdered the vast majority came from Poland, Russia, and other parts of Eastern Europe, and considerable numbers from Western Europe as well. Only arround 5% of the 6 million came from Germany. This is the historical record that you and Steve E. should be aware of.

[comment has been edited] Every reference I found said over half a million jews in Germany in 1933.

So give or take 200,000 count of 1933 German Jews makes Mark a liar?

you are tough, ~ I don’t believe anyone can satisfy you.

mark,
I stand corrected. They actually were living in fear. They were pacifists and leftists, just like the leftists are today.
They sat back and let themselves be led around by their noses while all of their rights were being taken away from them and did nothing, hoping that everything would be all right. They kept blinders on so they could see nothing, just like the liberals do today.

Hmm? ~ ignoring and living in fear at the same time?????? I wonder how that works?

Then Jana if Liberals are pacifists then Conservatives much be treacherous war mongers!

Jana, first you had sympathy for the German Jews, now suddenly you have contempt for them. Neat switdh. German Jews were a tiny minority with little poltical power after 1933. Many of them fled, a few went underground, but most as you note were slaughtered. The blame for that slaughter lies totally with the Nazi government and the white Christian Germans who either acquiesced or did nothing to try and stop their slaughter. The blame for their murder does not lie with the German Jews themselves. They were the victims of these horrible atrocities. We should not blame the victims but rather the murderers when a murder takes place. Thus we do not blame the slaughtered children at Sandy Hook or call them weak liberals or progressive socialists who deserved to die because they weren’t packing heat. No, we blame the immoral and cowardly Adam Lanza, the murderer who slaughtered them. While many anti-Semites in this country do blame the Jews for the Holocaust any reasonable and thinking human being blames the Nazis. They were the criminals and not only did the vast majority of the German people support the Nazis but they fought down to 12 year old children and 65 year old men to preserve their horrific right-wing, racist regime in the final days of the Reich. Several extreme right-wing Christian groups in America today, the Klan, Aryan Nations, the skin heads hero worship the Nazis to this day and proudly wear their regalia along with Confederate flags at their rallies. They are the terrorists I worry about – not the U.S. government or the Obama administration.

mark,
You don’t read or understand english any better than deerinwater.
I never said I felt sorry for the Jews, I said 6 million Jews is a lot more than a tiny amount!

Actually I did feel sorry for them because they were pacifists and thought for sure that their plight would go away if they would just become invisible and show everyone that they were no threat. We need to learn from that mistake.

We will NOT become invisible nor allow our rights to be taken away, nor our Country to be turned into a Socialist/Communist Country without a fight. It may well happen, but not without a fight!

People like you may want it to be but there have always been the takers and gimmes in our society. you would take from someone else to give to others. It isn’t yours to give!

Actually deerinwater was confused about what Steve E was even talking about. I am talking about the same time frame Steve E was talking about. Poor deer had to go hunting and copied and pasted not comprehending what Steve E was even talking about.
Two very mixed up people!

Jana says’ ” Actually deerinwater was confused about what Steve E was even talking about. I am talking about the same time frame Steve E was talking about. Poor deer had to go hunting and copied and pasted not comprehending what Steve E was even talking about.
Two very mixed up people!”

I ignored your confusion regarding my posting the first time Jana. ~ seeing no one too interfere with children at play ~ thinking that experience is the best teacher. But the confusion is your and not mine my love.

In any case, carry on , engage the thread, I look forward to some personal growth that will serve you well.

I will not be here forever for you, your progress in assimilating dialogue and facts, I take as important and I would never discourage you from offering us robust debate.

German Jews were victims of being in the wrong place at the wrong time much like Katrina victims , that found any opinions on the board of positional play ~ limited by factors out of their reach and left to hunker down and endure the storm, ~ come what may.

You are showing sign of attempting to think things though Jana. A big improvement in just 8 months time.

I celebrate your progress,

Awww, Poor deer,
So childish.

Bad comedy does not suit you Jana ~ You are the more serious type. I’d stay clear of it and focus on your message if I were you.

Law abiding citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights have been “enfringed” for at least 80 years. The US citizens allowed it then, and progressively worse, until now we will be faced with serious actions.

Deerin water, Now both wars 1and 2 Involved germany, As you said the jews left and took their wealth with them. So i would assume that both wars were fought over the Jews and their wealth, considering they had all the wealth.And it seems like Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, lebanon seems like these wars all point to the jews again SO would you not say that the Jews might be the Problem.??

No I wouldn’t ~ and I said some Jews.

I have to agree that the National Guard is NOT a well established Militia! It is an extension of the Full time U.S. Army! A well established Militia is made up of the Citizens who would normally be unarmed! So it was in 1772 ( they were known as Minutemen, because they could assemble in minutes) and so it is today! The U.S. Constitution, an Artifact of TRUTH and JUSTICE, shall continue to be the envy of the World, copied by many, understood by few!

Shade,
And many may even be ex military who have already proved they are willing to lay down their lives for their country, along with their wives who they have taught how to handle a weapon.