The Usual Suspects

0 Shares

Ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” stipulation rejoiced when Senator Rand Paul and his Constitutionalist Republican allies vowed a fit of filibusters against any Senate attempts at new gun-control legislation. But another group of Republicans, the usual suspects, has sided with the Democrats, moving Thursday to clip the wings of those wacko birds.

Following the addition of a bipartisan compromise on new gun legislation presented by Senators Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.)  that would extend background check requirements to gun shows and Internet firearm purchases Paul’s filibuster threat was neutered in a procedural vote.

wacko
Credit: DAILYPAUL

Sixteen Republicans sided with Senate Democrats to give the legislation which would burden law-abiding gun owners and expand a paper trail that could conceivably be used to put together a national database of gun owners.

Here are the Republican Senators who don’t mind the prospect of Democrat gun-control success:

  • Lamar Alexander of Tennessee*
  • Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire*
  • Richard M. Burr of North Carolina*
  • Saxby Chambliss of Georgia *
  • Tom Coburn of Oklahoma*
  • Susan Collins of Maine*
  • Bob Corker of Tennessee*
  • Jeff Flake of Arizona
  • Lindsey Graham of South Carolina*
  • Dean Heller of Nevada
  • John Hoeven of North Dakota*
  • Johnny Isakson of Georgia*
  • Mark S. Kirk of Illinois
  • John McCain of Arizona*
  • Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania*
  • Roger Wicker of Mississippi*

The Senators with an asterisk beside their name also recently attended swank dinners with the President either in March or this week during which Obama implored them to once again allow the GOP to buckle and give Democrats wiggle room on billions in new taxes.

McCain remains notable for his disregard of any truly conservative ideas from his Republican colleagues. And in recent months Graham is guilty of backing several Obama-pushed projects, like new gun restrictions, a tax increase and the immigration reform that could bring at least 11 million low-skill illegal immigrants — and their relatives — into the country.

These guys truly bring new meaning of keeping friends close and enemies closer.

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Warrior

    Gee, I wonder how those “investigations” on benghazi and fast and furious are coming along? Looks to me like the “busy people” are sooo “busy” doing the “peoples” work maybe they’ve forgotten about those issues. Oh, right, I almost forgot myself that mac cain has a war to wage against that dangerous little fella UN. Well, I do know that there is an increase of U.S. deployment in the pacific arena right now, so let’s wind up this afghanistan “thing” and get on with the next adventure because this tin pot is threatening our “freedom”. What? No, I wasn’t talking about UN!

    • Right Brain Thinker

      The benghazi and fast and furious “investigations”? Haven’t you heard?—-they’re finished and have been filed under “ancient history”. The country has moved on, why haven’t you?

      • Steve E

        No.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          No? NO what?

          • vicki

            The answer to your question

          • Right Brain Thinker

            The queen of cuteness says “The answer to ‘why haven’t you moved on’? is NO?”

            Must be one of them there obfuscatory or deflectatory sentences Vicki likes to use, because it makes no sense to me.

      • $20888627

        Haven’t you heard? You’re a HYPOCRITE, LIAR and TRAITOR to the American people for supporting a Kenyan fraud in his bankrupting and destruction of the US.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          I was talking about behghazi and F & F. What the heck are YOU talking about? Do you even know the definitions of HYPOCRITE, LIAR and TRAITOR? Sounds like you just like to mindlessly run your mouth and call people names

      • WTS/JAY

        RBT: they’re finished and have been filed under “ancient history”.

        Obstruction of justice.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          Ancient History.

          • WTS/JAY

            Dereliction of duty.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Ancient History.

  • Doc Sarvis

    Finally, some Americans aligned with the Republican Party that are willing to govern of the people, by the people, and for the people – as opposed to of the NRA, by the NRA, and for the NRA. Governing like this requires at least a little bit of backbone.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Shhhhh, Doc. Don’t encourage Republicans to behave as if they cared about the country. If too many of them start worrying about “the people” rather than the plutocracy, “the people” might start voting for some of them, and that would arrest their slide into oblivion. .

      • $20888627

        This dumbass intentionally ignores the hypocrisy and lying from his preferred criminal cartel.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          You have intentionally not done any careful thinking here (in your rush to call names?). I said absolutely nothing about the Democrats, which I assume you think is my “preferred criminal cartel”. Their hypocrisy and lying is almost non-existent anyway, at least when compared to the right, so, to that extent, I DO “prefer” it.

          • momo

            So why do you think justsomeguy151 was refering to the Democrats RBT? “Their (Democrats) hypocrisy and lying is almost non-existent anyway.”
            You sure you don’t want to edit that BS?

          • Right Brain Thinker

            I don’t see how he could have been speaking about anyone but the Democrats with his “preferred criminal cartel”. No need to edit anything—-I’ll stand by the thought that the Democrats, since they are a very minor “criminal cartel” in comparison to the Repugs, are preferable. Just like I prefer my neighborhood teenage gangs to the Mafia—-they’re both criminal groups but my neighborhood gang is not as bad as the Mafia.

          • Bill Henry

            A bull with diarrhea!!!

          • Frank Kahn

            Your imposter president has told more lies in the last 5 years than the entire republican party. It is just that you are incapable of rational thought that prevents you from recognizing their lies.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            “Your imposter president has told more lies in the last 5 years than the entire republican party”, says Frank? That’s just rhetoric and unsupported ignorant opinion, Frank. Have you got some statistics that prove that assertion?.

          • Frank Kahn

            If I was under the delusion that you are using the proper definition of rhetoric (intelligent and knowledgeable speaking) I would thank you for the compliment. However, since you are perpetually negative and hateful, I must assume it is just another of your moronic attempts at demeaning me.

            Now to the second part, unsupported ignorant opinion, well, yes you are ignorant of most things in life but I pity you for it so it will be okay. It is not unsupported, it is only hidden from your blind and / or myopic view of the impostor. I will go so far as to say that I have never heard him tell anything truthful in his entire administration. If he is speaking, he is lying. He is almost as bad as you are, but not quite. He tells as many lies as you but, he has one redeeming quality that you don’t, he is able to fool some people into believing and liking him. You, on the other hand, have failed to garner support from anyone that has encountered you on this site.

            So, Mr. Science Fields, give us one, just one, example of Obama telling the truth.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Frank, pointing out that you are a WIFI of the highest order is not a “moronic attempt at demeaning” you—-it is merely pointing out a truth that is self-evident to anyone with an IQ above 90 that reads your posts. And you are like the weighted-at-the-bottom punching dolls—-you just keep popping back up to prove repeatedly what you are—you “demean” yourself, and here are some examples of how you do that—-you say,

            “I will go so far as to say that I have never heard him tell anything truthful in his entire administration”.

            “If he is speaking, he is lying”.

            More inane rhetoric and ignorant unsupported opinion. Blah , blah, blah—-are you really going to stand behind those two statements? I’ll ask again, show us some statistics that sho9w he has NEVER spoken truth at ANY time—-it is YOUR job to “give examples”, not mine—–I’m not the one talking ignorant trash here.

            (and the score changes by another few (+) points for RBT, but remains ~0 for Frank))

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Give it up, Frank. NOBODY on this site believes I am a moron, not even you. You just call me that in order to insult me. Which you do because you are impotent—-you have no REAL arguments to present and are frustrated by that. I’ll take another two points for this piece of stupidity.

      • hungry4food

        You think because you are a supporting vote to these Big Government Fools that you will be spared HA Fools you are !!!

        You Empower the Government as a Massive collective of individual rights under the Vail of by , for and of the people the Vanity of these who are rooted deep within the confinements of Government as Career Officials will allow their GREED for power corrupt their SWORN OATH to DEFEND we the peoples rights to just pass Laws that takes your rights away by their FEAR of those Rights taking their POWER AWAY !!!!

        And you LIBERAL BIG GOVERNMENT TYPES ARE THE ONES HISTORY HAS ALWAYS DOCUMENTED AS THE VICTIMS OF A GOVERNMENT THAT GREW TO BIG AND SAW THEIR OWN AS THEIR GREATEST THREAT AND THEN PASSED LAWS THAT NEUTRALIZED YOUR THREAT TO THEM !!! ,

    • rendarsmith

      Doc, do you own any guns? Just curious…

      • Doc Sarvis

        Yup. A nice deer rifle, 30-30.

        • rendarsmith

          Well, better start thinking about what you support, because they just may be coming after that too. Maybe not now, but this legislation could lead to that one day….

          Just saying…

          • Doc Sarvis

            Another one who FEARS the “slippery slope”. If true Americans were fearful of slippery slopes in the past we would not have ended slavery, given women the vote, allowed interracial marriage, etc. etc.
            There has long been a need to further restrict criminals, across the country (not in isoloated jusriscicions), free access to firearms and much push and pull against that. There is not slippery slope here as it has been an uphill struggle to move an inch toward that worthy goal. What is being proposed does not infringe on law abiding citizen’s right to bear arms. I am not fearful – I am an American.

          • independent thinker

            You Doc are the one that is fearful. You fear anyone who wants to fully and freely enjoy their right to “keep and bear arms”. If you were truely concerned about the criminals and guns you would be calling for enforcement of the existing laws against the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime instead of calling for laws that only affect the law abiding gun owner. Good by as I have things to do and have no time to read anymore of your inane, pointless, and boring comments.

          • Bill Henry

            Are you willing to stand up when they tread on you?? If not then ‘shut’ up!!

          • independent thinker

            Doc better be careful or he will be charged with having a gun easily converted to full auto. And Yes you can easily convert a lever action to full auto the patent for it was issued in the late 1800s.

          • Doc Sarvis

            I have no need or intention to do so.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            “EASILY convert a lever action to full auto”? In your dreams, Indy—-it wouldn’t be easy. The .30-.30 lever action is best left alone and used as it was designed to be used—–A saddle gun or a compact short range hunting gun for deer and smaller critters.

            It wouldn’t be cheap or practical either for many reasons—-and why would you want to do that when you can more easily convert guns that were designed to be semi-auto into full auto?

        • Bill

          I wonder how many deer you have hunted with your 100 yard gun?

          • Doc Sarvis

            Lots actually. I like stalking close for a good shot, I hate scopes and long range hunting – less of a challenge/sport.

          • Bill

            You are so full of it, Doc. So, the deer is just going to stand around while you quietly sneek up on it? And then you are going to use your 30-30 to shoot it?
            I think you are just making this up. Your ignorance to actual hunting is showing. It is people like you that should not own guns

          • Doc Sarvis

            I’ve done both stalking and sitting to get deer, and yes – with my 30-30. Don’t know why you can’t believe that. It is NOT a unique technique.

          • Bill

            Yeh, Doc, we believe you are Mr experienced hunter/gun owner like we believe in Santa Claus

          • Right Brain Thinker

            [comment has been removed]

          • Doc Sarvis

            I’ve been on drives too but don’t get good looks on those.

          • boyscout

            Nah, ya got it all wrong Bill. If ya use Doc’s special deer call, trophy bucks will run ya right over iffen ya don’t blast away, no matter how much stalking (stomping) ya do. Course, if yer good like Doc, then it’s one shot one venison roast. Ha ha ha ha ha…

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Actually, Bill, you are the one that sounds like you know little about guns or deer hunting and are “making this up”. “The deer stand around while you sneak up on them”, you say? LOL And the .30-.30 lever action has long been considered an ideal deer rifle for the close-in kind of hunting Doc likes.

            Where I grew up in NJ, it was too crowded for rifles to be used so we were limited to shotguns. There were so many hunters also that it was easier to post and wait for a deer to be driven past you by the “thrash around in the woods” types—–some of them thought they were “sneaking up” on the deer.

            The last deer I fired at actually “sneaked up” on ME. I had posted behind a 25 foot wide thick clump of brush where I had a clear view to both sides—-for maybe 20 minutes I heard small noises like squirrels approaching the other side. After it got quiet for a while, I walked around to see what the noise was and a good-sized buck leaped up and took off—-he must have nearly crawled to get to where he was and laid down there because he couldn’t get past me. I swung on him and fired, but a tree that was only a few feet away from me appeared as I was squeezing the trigger—-it took the full load and he was gone before I could fire again.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Bill (the gun and hunting expert) again regales us with his wisdom. What’s a “100 yard gun”, Bill?

    • Frank Kahn

      Yes, finally some of them are standing up to the tyrannical anti-gun idiots in our nation.

      There is a very fine line between bravery and stupidity. The anti-gun morons have crossed the line this time.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        What? Who are “them”? What about the anti-gun folks who are NOT morons, Frank? What “tyrannical” behaviors are you talking about? Why do you run your mouth without thinking? Why do you make yourself sound like an idiot by using the word “idiot”?

        So few words here in your comment, such monumental cluelessness.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          Uh, Frank? Didn’t you understand that the ones Doc was referring to were Republicans? And that they were were standing WITH the “tyrannical anti-gun idiots”, not “up to” them? It’s hard to discuss things with you when you get so many things backwards.

          All the rest of what you said here is meaningless and mindless ad hominems, not worth responding to except that your use of the English language and your vocabulary are laughably deficient. “True reality”? LOL

          And don’t forget, carrying on like this WILL cost you some points.

          I warned you. Score is now RBT~33, Frank~0

          Yes, let’s leave the land of your self-delusion and talk about AGW. Still waiting to hear your thoughts on the “Arctic Sea ice Death Spiral” video. Go for it!

          • Frank Kahn

            Unlike you, I understood the stupidity of Doc’s post. I was explaining who the real heroes are, not the morons who forgot who they represent and vote unconstitutionally.

            I only get things “backwards” because all of your thoughts are ass-backwards to begin with.

            I will continue to use the same type of mindless attacks as you until such time as you deign it appropriate to start acting like an intelligent adult.

            We have already discussed your lack of understanding of basic American English, so what language would you like me to converse in? I can accommodate you in 6 different languages.

            And the score is, as always RBT 0, that is a big fat ZERO. Kind of like you and your life.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            The article says “But another group of Republicans has sided with the Democrats, moving Thursday to clip the wings of those wacko birds”.

            Doc Sarvis says in response, “Finally, some Americans aligned with the Republican Party that are willing to govern of the people, by the people, and for the people – as opposed to of the NRA”

            Frank says to that, “Yes, finally some of them are standing up to the tyrannical anti-gun idiots in our nation”. That made no sense (still doesn’t), so I asked Frank what he was talking about.

            And now Frank is here ranting about what language we’re speaking? We’re all speaking English, Frank—–and Sam, Doc, and I seem to be able to understand each other perfectly—–why are you so lost, Frank?

  • Paul in NH

    I HAD such high hopes for our New Hampshire Kelly Ayotte R-NH (RINO). Keep up this nonsense Ms. Ayotte, chipping away at constitution and agreeing with the illegal squatter, and your days as New Hampshire’s senator are limited…

    • podunk1

      We have 16 republicans who must be ousted from office in their next election!
      I don’t have a problem with background checks provided 1) the fee is a locked in nominal $10 or $15 with prohibitions for revenue generation. 2) with strong ironclad felony & jail charges to any who collect or possess such data for any purpose.

      • Native Blood

        I agree that they must be removed but, what about the ones who delayed voting until the motion carried? I maintain that there is no such thing as a non-corrupt republican party. Chances are, they have all been recently visited by K street and have gotten some handsome bonuses for their lack of conviction to what their constituents stand for.
        Both parties need purging and sent home and the K street lobbyist banned from the DC area entirely. The people must be included back into the legislative progress and shun all corporate influences as well as the international AIPAC lobby!

        • podunk1

          very true

    • Ron

      I agree

  • TeaParty Patriot (TTP)

    Gun Debate Highlights Voter Distrust of Government
    A Commentary By Scott Rasmussen

    Gun control advocates sound puzzled by congressional resistance to relatively modest gun control legislation. Many cite a poll showing 90% of Americans support more background checks and suggest the National Rifle Association is the only reason Congress won’t implement the will of the people.

    There are a few problems with this argument. First, it implies that Congress normally does what voters want. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most voters consistently opposed the Wall Street bailout, the president’s health care law and the cash-for-clunkers plan. All became law.

    Voters overwhelmingly support term limits, an end to the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street and an end to congressional pensions. But nobody’s holding his or her breath for any of those things to become law.

    Most voters also believe cutting government spending would be good for the U.S. economy, but total government spending in America has gone up every single year since 1954.

    As the above list highlights, the Political Class typically gets what it wants regardless of public opinion. What’s unusual about the gun control debate is that the Political Class appears to be stymied in one of those rare instances when it appears to agree with public opinion.

    However, public opinion is more complicated than gun control advocates want to acknowledge, and there is real political risk in voting for the proposed legislation.

    Expanding background checks for would-be gun owners is a commonsense proposal much like requiring a photo ID before someone is allowed to vote. Both have overwhelming support.

    But while people think requiring more background checks makes sense, most don’t think it will make much of a difference. Only 41% believe more background checks will reduce gun violence.

    Second, people want to make sure the checks are limited to only restricting convicted felons and those with serious mental health issues. Only 30% want broader background checks.

    Third, just 40% want to see a national database of gun owners created. This last point really frustrates some advocates of gun control, including President Obama.

    In Denver last week, he said, “You hear some of these quotes: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’ ‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away.’ Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you.”

    On one level, the president is right. If people trusted the government, there would be no reason to be concerned about background checks, but only one-in-five voters believe the government currently has the consent of the governed.

    Half the nation views the federal government as a threat to individual liberties rather than a protector of those rights. Sixty-five percent (65%) recognize that the purpose of Second Amendment gun control rights is protection against tyranny, and 44% believe it’s likely the government will try to confiscate all privately owned guns over the next generation.

    This helps explain why the legislation is struggling in Congress. People like the idea of background checks but don’t think they’ll make much difference. They’re also suspicious about the motives of those in government.

    In the end, those who would like to see stronger federal restrictions on gun ownership should start by supporting reforms that will enable the government to re-earn the trust of the American people.

    • boyscout

      TTP, TYVM for a perspective that lacks angst and that’s in perspective.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        In perspective? LOL Don’t you recognize propaganda and grasping at straws when you see it? What you are looking at is the illogical presented as logical—-apples vs. oranges

        • boyscout

          RBT, what I see in TTP’s post is the whole fruit basket as seen from many points of view (a rarity in the postings here,) and yes with some Libs pro 2nd Amendment and some Conservatives anti 2nd Amendment (No, I don’t need a lecture on definitions) choice of a stance on this issue can be taken from quite a variety of perspectives.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Agreed to a point—-I am a gun owner and do see the whole gun regulation question as a very complicated issue. You need to reread TPP’S posting several times until you see what I saw. It is subtle, and not full of “angst” as you say, but it IS biased and pushing a pro-NRA agenda. Don’t you see the straw men in the first few paragraphs?

            As far as “points of view”, those who say the 2nd Amendment is absolute and that no gun regulation of any kind is permissible are the biggest danger to gun ownership—-their continued denial and foot stamping is going to solidify anti-gun sentiment in the country.

          • Frank Kahn

            I wish I could find the follow check box for this new comment crap system. I need it so I can respond to your insane posts.

            There is no straw man logic contained in his original post. Your ignorant opinions is the only cause for concern here.

            It is your stupidity that is the most dangerous to gun ownership in this country. You should be stripped of your privileges in gun ownership because of your lack of reasoning ability.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            It’s easy, Frank—-just click on the little gray “reply” word beneath a comment and a box will open. Fill the box with your inanities, put your name and email address in the boxes under “pick a name”, click on the arrow, and it will appear right under my comment.

            And may I suggest in this new round that you refrain from using words like “insane” and “ignorant”? They are meaningless and add nothing—–actually, they will get people thinking that YOU are “insane” and “ignorant”—-maybe you should let folks decide that for themselves after reading your comments rather than inviting it?

            And you’re a “gun grabber” now? YOU are deciding that I should not be allowed to own guns? LOL I will be going to the range soon to pattern my new Remington 870 Tactical—-I will think of you as I send the OO down range.

            And please don’t soil your skivvies because you think I’m threatening you—I wouldn’t think of putting more than some bird shot into your behind even if I ever did get mad at you—-and that hasn’t happened yet—-I actually think of you fondly, just as I do the Three Stooges.

          • Frank Kahn

            You apparently have no concept of context. I was using your pathetic loser pathos of determining someones right to bear arms being limited by their mental capacity for reasoning.

            Would be more than happy to engage you in a shooting match. You want to use targets or be them?

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Frank,

            As Dirty Harry said, “A man should know his limitations”, and you should not go around beating your chest and crowing like a demented rooster. You want to challenge me to a “shooting match”? LMAO

            In your world of self-delusion, you haven’t thought this “challenge” through, Frank. Of COURSE we will use each other as targets, and, since you have challenged me, I get to pick the weapons.

            I choose M-1’s with iron sights at 200 yards, a rifle I was able to hit a head-sized target with EVERY time at that distance from the prone position. I know that you’ll never hit me, unless you get lucky on your first shot. I promise that I won’t hit you—-I’ll just send rounds snapping close by your head—ever hear that sound, Frank?—I have. First one to soil his skivvies LOSES, and that WILL be you! Semper Fidelis!

          • Frank Kahn

            Garand or carbine? And you wont have time to soil your panties, you will die with my first shot.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            OOOOOH! Frank talks SO big! Should I be afraid?

            The Garand, of course. The M-1 carbine is a popgun, and the round isn’t powerful enough to make the proper sound as it passes within a foot or two of your head. I’ll ask again—-have you ever heard that sound?

            And the SO BIG talker has probably never even fired a rifle at 200+ yards. If he had, he wouldn’t be so sure that I would die with his first shot. At that range, I wouldn’t try to put my first round too close to his head, for fear of hitting him, which I promised not to do)—-and the .30-06 round from the M-1 Garand would definitely penetrate—-the round from the .30 cal M-1 carbine would probably bounce off his VERY thick skull. Maybe Frsank knew that and that’s why he suggested the carbine—-LOL

            (Two more points for RBT, because Frank asked a stupid question and made a stupid statement about his first shot)

          • Right Brain Thinker

            You are hopeless, Frank. You are so in need of some small victory that you just jump with both feet and give little thought to what you say. I’m about done with PLD for the day—it’s near dinner time and I have a good Netflix to watch—-Justified. So I won’t waste time dealing with all the illogic in your comment. You obviosuly didn’t get my implications about sighting in and such.

            I’m glad to hear you do have some experience with a rifle. I don’t know that much about the .30-40 Krag other than that it is rather archaic and obsolete. I doubt that it is more accurate than the .30-06, but whatever floats your boat is fine with me.

            As I said, you are in too much of a hurry, Frank. You said “Also, you made a stupid remark about the calibers of the M-1 rifles. Both are .30 caliber, not just the carbine. Just like my 30-40 Krag is a 30 caliber bullet”. Never said they weren’t .30 cal—they are—-they are NOT the same cartridge—-.30-06 does NOT = .30-40 Krag does NOT = .30 cal M-1 carbine cartridge. Stupid is what you are for even bringing that up.

            PS Did it make you feel like a big man when you killed Bambi’s Daddy? Did you field dress it on the spot and take a bite out of its heart? What did you do with the meat and the hide and head?1

  • Guest

    They sure are wasting a lot of time on gun control as our country goes down the [expletive deleted]

  • Cessna

    I hope that its not to much longer before the wicked wipe out the wicked, then we can start with a new leadership !

  • http://www.facebook.com/votefor.liberty.3 Votefor Liberty

    I was an avid Pat Toomey supporter, worked hard to get him elected, donated money to him and have been a Republican Precinct Comitteeman for several years, although I have not given the Party any money for many years and, after yesterday, have asked to be removed from their mailing list. If we had open primaries here in Pennsylvania I would re-register as an Independent.
    I am so extremely disappointed in Toomey on this issue and his vote against Rand Paul’s budget proposal in March. It appears he has already been corrupted by the Party kingpins and has become another go along to get along Republican. I hope he enjoys the spotlight. I have a feeling his 15 minutes of fame will be shortlived. I will work against him in his next primary. I sincerely hope Tom Smith will consider a primary challenge against this traitor.
    I am having similar problems with my Congressman, Lou Barletta, who also appears to be selling out his conservative principles.

    • Sarah417

      I voted for Tom Smith and will again if he runs. I no longer give to or belong to the RNC. The spin must stop.

  • Lorraine E

    These senators have violated their oath of office and need to be sued with a class action suit by we, the people, whose second amendment rights are being shredded by traitor politicians. Money and power is their goal and so we should sue the traitors.

    • Doc Sarvis

      Nobody is coming for your gun!

      • $20888627

        Just like they said in Red China, Russia and Nazi Germany. But you already know that. Mao, Stalin and Hitler are the leaders of yr moronic fascist wet dreams.

      • Ken Prehart

        Oh yes they are .an inch at a time

        • Doc Sarvis

          =Paranoia

      • S.C.Murf

        All ready started in New York.

        up the hill
        airborne

    • Mike W

      Senator opposed to the proposed gun control legislation have every right to speak and vote against it. But they should have no right to prevent other senators for speaking and voting on the measures. The filibustering senators are violating the constitution, which contemplates that that a majority, not 60%, of senators is sufficient to enact a bill.

      • vicki

        “everyone likes the filibuster when it’s their time to use it.”
        http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1933802,00.html#ixzz2QH1Lhzzh

        Just depends on who’s ox is being gored

        • Right Brain Thinker

          And Vicki reveals her personal philosophy to us with “Just depends on who’s ox is being gored”.

          Yes, we have always known that she believes in “situational ethics” rather than honesty and a regard for truth, and now she admits it. Thank, you, Vicki—there may be hope for you yet.

          • vicki

            Liberals just so love to twist words to fit their agenda.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            And the “whatever-Vicki-is” contingent just so loves to try to twist their way out of the things they say once they find that they have misspoken. “Fire, ready, aim” doesn’t work too well, dear—-you need to think before you speak.

          • Frank Kahn

            Actually, she said that politicians likes to use the filibuster when it comes to their own personal agenda. That does not indicate that she believes in situational ethics, just that she sees congressmen for what they truly are. It was you that twisted her words to fit your personal agenda. The same way you twist most all of the english words when attempting to defend your misguided opinions.

          • TIME

            Dear Frank,

            Strange how feckless pseudo intellectual’s such as rbt, who is at best,~ a clear case of whats broken within the human condition, know as {“the nano witted moral pygmie factor.”}

            Peace and Love, Shalom

          • Right Brain Thinker

            “nano witted moral pygmie factor”?

            NANO WITTED MORAL PYGMIE FACTOR?

            Lord love a duck, Time! That’s a sorrier attempt than rocketride’s immortal “Gut Associated Lymphatic Tissue” and puts YOU squarely amongst the “feckless pseudo intellectuals”. LOL

          • vicki

            For the benefit of the audience. Frank correctly read my post about oxes and gore (not the same gore as al :) ).

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Vicki, you have surely lost your mind. I spoke in another post about you losing credibility by making foolish statements. You apparently didn’t listen.

            Associating yourself with the incomparable Frank Kahn like this is like saying you and Daffy Duck are in total agreement on all issues. Frank “correctly reads” well less than half of what is posted on PLD, even less where I am concerned because of his deluded little “war” with me.

            It IS nice that Frank has one “supporter”, though. You may have noticed that NO ONE ever supports Frank’s foolishness? At least not beyond chipping in with mindless name calling because they can’t counter what I say or find anything positive to say about Frank’s comments? Brave (or foolish) of you to be the one.

            (PS Nice little word game with gore-al gore—cute but meaningless, since the “gore” we were talking about was the verb form and was descriptive of the act of being “gored”. I would caution you about being distractatory and obfuscatory, but you’d probably ignore my advice there too).

          • vicki

            Argument to ridicule and ad hominem.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Lord love a duck! Frank is back, once again trying to sound logical and intelligent, but instead showing us how confused his alleged “thinking” can be.

            Vicki said “Just depends on who’s ox is being gored”. That’s a clear statement of her belief in “situational ethics”, Frank. It has nothing to do with congressmen—-it’s a statement of her personal values and needs no “twisting” to be seen for what it is.

            As usual, YOUR fractured logic and “misguided opinions” are being used to pursue YOUR personal agenda, that agenda again seeming to be that you want me to beat your brains out in this discussion. I will oblige if you insist. The score is already RBT~3, Frank~0.

            PS Have you finished reading The Republican Brain yet and learned some things about yourself? How about taking time out to google Youtube Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral and tell us what it proves? (since you’re such an expert on climate change)

          • Frank Kahn

            NO you pathetic waste of resources it is not a statement of her belief.

            “”everyone likes the filibuster when it’s their time to use it.”
            Just depends on who’s ox is being gored”

            If you were not functionally illiterate you would be able to see the context of the statement, she is clearly talking about congress and its members using the filibuster when they want to use it.

            If you want to try and beat my brains out, I would suggest you drag your old carcass here and have a go at it.

            Your lack of ability to use or even identify true logic is astounding.

            Score RBT -555,555,555 FRANK 555,555,555

            The republican brain is as worthless as the book the liberal brain. Do you also accept the faux science in it?

            Have not watched the biased environmentalist video yet but I will let you know.

            AND, IT IS YOU THAT IS PRETENDING TO BE AN EXPERT ON CLIMATE CHANGE NOT ME. I SIMPLY POINT OUT THAT YOU’RE WRONG.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Frank,
            Since you are the one who is demonstrably “functionally illiterate”, as shown again by the total incoherency of this statement, I will “pass” on trying to reply to it.

            Please DO watch the “environmental video” that you have predetermined to be “biased” without even seeing it and talk to us about it. Perhaps, since you claim to have such superior “thinking skills”, you should have waited until AFTER you viewed it before declaring it was biased? Hmmmmmm?

            Score is now RBT~12, Frank~0
            (All those mindless and meaningless ad hominems are costing you points, Frank)

          • Frank Kahn

            I watched them and found them to be totally lacking in any form of proof for AGW. Bias is evident in everything you support because you have severe bias against humanity. You need to just put your M-1 under your chin and pull the trigger so you can help the environment by reducing the human burden on it. As I stated before, the Title of something is indicative of the content being put forth. Using the emotional response activating phrase “death spiral” is proof that they are biased and attempting to use emotion rather than logic to further their agenda.

  • James Dennis Lee

    Wow

  • 010sonny

    Naïve are those that keep saying they will lose their guns. Just as unregulated capitalism, promotes the failure of our financial institutions so does poorly regulated gun control. USA with its 30,000 gun deaths per year, which is a greater lost in life to our country than a decade of two wars. That we are the ranked as the most violent nation in the world. That we have the highest incarceration rates. Indicates we have serious problems and flooding our nation with more lethal weapons is not the answerer. Arms race on the macro level between nations has proven this a failure. Now to have it on the micro is quite apparent to be a failure. Stringent regulations are now required to reign in the NRA’s agendas of an arms race mentality.

    • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Bernard Forand,

      Congratulations. I believe you inserted every Obama talking point. Your check ,I’m sure, is in the mail. Now, please come back only when you have an original thought.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Right Brain Thinker

        WHOA, Bob! They’re not O’BAMA talking points but the “talking points” of a lot of well-informed and patriotic citizens that want to see the country move forward. Bernard doesn’t need to be “original” when pointing out big problems that are self-evident and need to be addressed.

        PS I love the “original thought” admonition. LOL Considering the amount of mindless parroting of right wing horsepucky that takes place on this site, that rates a “Lord love a duck!”

        • Bill Henry

          I as a Constitutional Conservative also would like to see the country move forward and to heal the divisiveness that plagues this nation, and I don’t see that happening when you are taking away the rights of law abiding citizens. The government banning and taking away weapons will not achieve what this regime claims it will. That has been proven, by statistics supplied by the very regime that wants it. I call it pandering to the few to the harm of the many. As I posted before “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom” in other words question any thing that any elected official proposes, because they are infamous for their lying and deceit, and you as their spokesman tells me that you don’t give a damn about it as long as it pushes the agenda. You say no revolution. I hope there is not, but if it happens before I die, then I will die in it, especially if the agenda is subjugation to the UN.

          Non sibi sed patriae!(Not for self, but country)

          • Right Brain Thinker

            I don’t see the divisiveness being healed either when a significant minority of the population has allowed itself to be conned and coopted by the plutocracy and corporate oligarchy into creating more divisiveness. The “owners” of the Party of No don’t really care one way or the other about “rights”—-guns, LGBT, immigration, taxes, women’s—-they just want to divide the country and create turmoil so that they can destroy the government we have had for 220+ years and replace it with corporate feudalism.

            I’m not sure who you think I’m a “spokesman” for and what “agenda” I have. I suspect that you are viewing my comments through a cloud of confirmation bias and hearing what you want to hear rather than what I say. (Anyone who talks about “subjugation by the UN” has obviously imbibed a lot of Kool Aid.)

    • Ken Prehart

      Loll.30.000..gun deaths.just have to salt and pepper everything

      • vicki

        30,000 deaths where the tool used was a gun. Compared to ~2.5 Million times that a gun is the tool used to defend life.
        http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

        Compared to

        ~300 MILLION individual Americans who didn’t even SHOOT ANYONE let alone kill them.

        Yet the liberals continue to demand that we must PUNISH them for the acts of a VERY few ( 30,000 is about 0.01% of 300 million)

        Stop it
        Stop it NOW

        • Right Brain Thinker

          Sing the one-note song, Vicki. Bore us to death.

          (and are you saying that guns are used to “defend life” ~2.5 million times a YEAR?—-PFTA, I presume?)

          • vicki

            Right Brain Thinker doesn’t and writes:

            (and are you saying that guns are used to “defend life” ~2.5 million times a YEAR?

            Yes. Complete with supporting cite. Here is another.
            http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

          • Right Brain Thinker

            You call yet another citation to Kleck “supporting”? That was what your first citation was. Are you doubling down on horsepucky?—-it won’t smell any better piled higher and deeper. LOL

            Kleck is a discredited pro-gun shill who has been exposed as such, and his “studies” have been attacked and torn to shreds by many people.

            You really ought to rely on more credible, sources, Vicki, and try to speak truth rather than lies. One piece of truth you might deal with is the ~30,000 gun deaths each year—-THAT is fact, not the fiction of 2.5 million “life defenses”.

          • vicki

            Are you doubling down on your obvious inability to either provide evidence that my assertion is incorrect or to simply accept that my assertion IS correct?

            Here is another assertion for you to attempt to disprove. Be warned that proving it is trivial. Anyone can do it.

            In the last year

            ~300 Million Americans DIDN’T shoot anyone.

            Stop Punishing the INNOCENT for the acts of a VERY few.

            Stop it
            Stop it NOW.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            No, Vicki, the way the game is played is that YOU are the one that must provide evidence to back up YOUR assertion. What you have done is throw horsepucky against the wall to see if it sticks, and I merely told you “NO, IT ALL FELL DOWN”. Now you need to find something that will “stick”—–I keep telling you that you’re losing credibility with each misstep like this—why won’t you listen to me?

            Citing Kleck once, twice, or twenty times proves nothing. His “studies” have been analyzed many times, and his data and methods have been shown to be highly suspect. I won’t bore you with his history—-you can look it up yourself—-but Kleck appears to be more than a bit biased—–he has taken money from suspect sources and is not “clean”.

            The truth is that we have NO good data on “defend life” gun usage—-we know that it happens but we’re not sure how often—-and anyone like you that wants to baldly state ~2.5 MILLION is being dishonest. We DO know that the figure of ~30,000 gun deaths a year IS true—–we have multiple sources for that number (and don’t nitpick with “It’s only 29,416″).

            Stop making arguments that make you look foolish
            Stop it
            Stop it NOW

            PS ~310 Million Americans didn’t stop breathing today, walk on the moon, or climb Mt. Everest. Add that to your pile of meaningless statistics.

    • WTS/JAY

      Another left-wing-libel(ral)-fear-moungering-cybot for Obama…

  • http://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.giermanski Elizabeth Giermanski

    It really amazes me how some people can talk as though they understand so much, yet, to understand some simple truths such as, the rite to bear arms, and shall not be infringed, they all at once become brain dead. Let me make it clear, for those that just can`t seem to get their brains around it. The supreme law of the land is the constitution, and no Johnny come lately has the rite to take it upon themselves to change it. It sounds to me as though you guys are either ignorant, or you are for those that are hell bent on destroying this country. You need to read the constitution, if ten, and eleven year olds can understand it`s simple, and clear meaning, it seem to me that you should, I am sorry that was years ago before the educational system started dumbing us down, in any event, I would encourage you to read what the true law of the land say`s, not what some politicians are trying to make it say, and keep it in context!!! A good man, or woman will receive correction, but a stiff neck, and rebellious person will call me names, the choose is yours. Incidentally, when I used the word, ignorant, I did not mean it in a detrimental way. I am looking forward yo hearing from you all. Johnny G, PS Executive orders are unconstitutional when they are written in a way that would attempt to change the purpose, or intent of the constitution.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Elizabeth says “The supreme law of the land is the Constitution, and no Johnny come lately has the right to take it upon themselves to change it”. I just picked up my copy of the Constitution to make sure I wasn’t imagining things and found 27 things called “Amendments” (TWENTY-SEVEN) that were made to the Constitution by “Johnny come lately” types after it was first ratified. Article V even lays out the process for changing what Elizabeth says can’t be changed.

      Elizabeth also says “You need to read the constitution, if ten and eleven year olds can understand it`s simple”. Follow your own advice, Liz, read it and understand it—–you obviously don’t. (You are older than 10 or 11, I presume?)

      PS Executive orders are unconstitutional only when A COURT decides they are “written in a way that would attempt to change the purpose, or intent of the constitution”. Your OPINION matters not one bit, unless you are a judge with standing to make such decisions. It really amazes me that you understand so little about the Constitution and much else about how this country operates, yet you feel as if you can lecture all of us. That is “ignorant” (and it’s not meant in a “detrimental” way).

      • vicki

        Those 27 changes were not done by a single person (nor a small group).

        Executive orders are to the employees of the federal government and not to the people in general.

        Her opinion matters at least as much as yours.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          Vicki, you should take a bit more time and think a bit more before you comment. Were you rushing out to lunch and just couldn’t resist being a “pest” as you left?

          Elizabeth has a right to express her opinions, but her opinions need to be based in fact and well supported before they “matter” as much as mine. She has spouted nonsense—-I have pointed that out—-my opinion matters more—-and you have made a foolish statement in denying that. Or are you too going to deny that the Constitution itself provides for its amendment?

          It is nonsensical to talk about changes not being “done by one person nor a small group”. In fact, nearly all change begins with the ideas of one person or a small group and builds from there. Are you saying that the 13th. Amendment, for instance, just simultaneously popped into the heads of a large group and was then enacted? Rather than representing the culmination of many years of effort that began with individuals and built from there? And was the cause of much turmoil? Have you heard of the Civil War and what occurred over the preceding decades and seen the movie “Lincoln”? How about the 18th or the 19th?

          And executive orders are “not to the people in general”? They are issued to “the employees of the federal government”—–they tell the “employees of the federal government” what to do—-the “employees of the federal government” then do as they’re told and take actions that impact on “the people in general”. Yet you say that they are NOT “to the people in general”. I’m sorry, but there is NO logic there at all.

          You’re O for 3 here, Vicki, a score that would be more appropriate for your handmaidens rather than the Queen. And just to give you something that you can talk about rather than address the substance of what I said here, I will say that what you said was just plain dumb. There’s your “ad hominem”—-I’m sure you will concentrate on that rather than talk about how dumb your comments actually were.

          • Frank Kahn

            Oh ye of no brain, how doth the survive your ignorance.

            YOUR OPINIONS ARE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE, THEY LACK ANY LOGIC OR FACTS, SO THEY ARE WORTHLESS. THEY HAVE NO VALUE OR WEIGHT IN THE DISCUSSION SO THEY ARE LESS THAN ANY OTHERS.

            LOGIC? If you ever give any indication of a logical thought, the world will stop and praise the creator for his divine intervention with your debilitating disability.

            We are all following your lies here. Even the administration of this site has called you on your blatant lying. We can all quote several of your lies and misrepresentations.

            We could have a battle of wits, but my father told me to never engage an unarmed person in battle.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Frank must be close to OD’ing on Red Bull here—listen to him rant!

            He says, “We can all quote several of your lies and misrepresentations”, a comment similar to many he has made before. OK, Frank, quote away and we’ll talk about it. Of course, when challenged like this before, Frank has always “chickened out”—will he do so again?

            And he closes with the ever-witty “We could have a battle of wits, but my father told me to never engage an unarmed person in battle”, a very old dog to be trotting out in 2013. And he has screwed it up a bit, as he screws up most everything—-when I first heard it back in the 1950’s, it was “never engage in a battle of wits with someone who is only half-armed”, which is WAY more sophisticated than Frank’s feeble attempt.

            I will explain that for Frank’s benefit—-“unarmed” implies NO wits, and that fits only dead people, “half armed” implies “half wit”, a much more believable term that IS used to describe folks like Frank.

          • Frank Kahn

            You have provided a repeat of one of your lies and misrepresentations in this post.

            ” Of course, when challenged like this before, Frank has always “chickened out”—will he do so again?”

            Never have chickened out of any discussion with you, that is both a lie and a misrepresentation.

            You recently posted that you had replied to a couple of posters but your reply was deleted and the administration corrected your lie by saying that none of your posts had been deleted.

            You claim to be more educated in science than me. That is both a lie and a misrepresentation. First of all, you have no way of knowing my level of education or fields of study.

            You claimed to know more about math than me. Wrong again, another lie and misrepresentation. I have had extensive math courses in college.

            You stated that discussing the technical aspects of interstellar travel is pointless because, in your opinion, it will never happen. This is a gross misrepresentation of probabilities considering your extremely limited knowledge of future technical possibilities.

            You dismiss everyone that does not bow down to your god like opinions. Not sure if that is misrepresentation or just a mental disease.

            You, incorrectly, label someone as willfully ignorant simply because they don’t agree with your warped view of reality.

            You and GALT are both guilty of these two misrepresentations. Claiming that we are both willfully ignorant and functionally illiterate, just because we see the stupidity of your maniacal ranting. If we were functionally illiterate, we would not be capable of participating in these discussions.

            Again you are wrong on the unarmed / half armed quote. The original quote was

            “I would challenge to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed!”

            Note that is says unarmed not half armed.

            How you learned it, which is like everything else you supposedly learned, is questionable.

            You don’t have to be dead to be witless, you are a prime example of being witless.

            “Adj.1.witless – (of especially persons) lacking sense or understanding or judgment

            nitwitted, soft-witted, senseless

            stupid – lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity”

            I dont see where it says dead in the definition.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Where to begin? So much mindless rhetoric and ignorant opinion from Frank. Perhaps by ignoring most of it? Yes, a good plan and one that will save space on the thread. To address just some of it.

            Frank says, “Never have chickened out of any discussion with you, that is both a lie and a misrepresentation”. No, Frank, you’re the one that’s “misrepresenting”. Have you forgotten that all your “chickening out” was right out in the open for everyone to see? Half a dozen times or more—-you have evaded direct challenges on threads and just faded from view.

            Frank says, “You claim to be more educated in science than me. That is both a lie and a misrepresentation. First of all, you have no way of knowing my level of education or fields of study”. No again, Frank, you’re the one that’s “misrepresenting”. Have you forgotten
            that all your LACK of education and knowledge about science has been right out in the open for everyone
            to see?

            Frank says, “You claimed to know more about math than me. Wrong again, another lie and misrepresentation. I have had extensive math courses in college”. No yet again, Frank, you’re the one that’s “misrepresenting”. Have you forgotten
            that all your LACK of math knowledge has been right out in the open for everyone
            to see? Have you forgotten A = B x C? Even an eighth grader could see the fallacy in your thinking there.

            Frank says, “You dismiss everyone that does not bow down to your god like opinions. Not sure if that is misrepresentation or just a mental disease”. Frank continues to be wrong, failing to recognize that my “opinions” are grounded in fact (unlike his), and that HE is the one who suffers from “mental diseases” as he continues to wage this already lost and hopeless “war” against me..

            Frank is on a roll here, with “You, incorrectly, label someone as willfully ignorant simply because they don’t agree with your warped view of reality”. No again, I label YOU willfully ignorant because of your mindless refusal to face the reality that ALL thinking people accept—-you ARE ignorant, and it IS “willful” to the point that you almost seem proud of it..

            And “If we were functionally illiterate, we would not be capable of participating in these discussions”. That’s EXACTLY the point, Frank. GALT and I have been trying to tell you that you apparently are NOT capable of participating in intelligent discussions. “These” discussions are not intelligent beyond the intelligence WE use to point out that YOU display very little intelligence in what you say—-when you attempt to “function”, you merely prove that you are “functionally illiterate”.

            And “Dictionary Frank” appears at the very end of this string of WIFI-isms to regale us with an irrelevant and illogical screed about word meaning. Yep, WIFI fits Frank perfectly.

            (Add a few more (+) points to RBT’s score, Frank is still at ~0)

          • Frank Kahn

            And once again you prove your inability to accept your own lack of intelligence. More proof that you are a worthless bag of hot air. My science is sound, your science is non-existent.

            You are just a poor, worthless mind dead ex-marine that has never accepted the fact that you are a failure in life in every respect.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Sorry to have beaten you down so badly that you can’t respond with even the slightest bit of intelligence here, Frank. But that’s what happens to those who don’t know their limitations.

            I have picked up another 5 points because of your use of mindless and meaningless ad hominems (I have been generous and not counted the “poor” and “worthless” inserted in front of “mind dead”). And to remind you of another gap in your oh-so-tiny knowledge base, Frank, there is no such thing as an “ex” Marine—-we sign up for life. Semper Fidelis.

          • Frank Kahn

            The fact that you are incapable of recognizing intelligent thought has reduced my ability to communicate with you. I have lowered my standards to something that you understand.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Say Goodnight, Frank. The only thing that has reduced your ability to communicate with me is this blind little war that you are waging (and imagining you are surviving). You make less sense each time you speak. And your “standards”? LOL—-you had hardly any the first time we ever exchanged comments and I understood that perfectly then, just as I know that you are lowering them now because you really have nothing to contribute—-so you just sling ad hominems.

            How about we talk about the Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral? I gave you some clues as to what it meant—-want to show us something other than mindlessness?—-talk about the Death Spiral—-why has it been given that name?

          • vicki

            How about you, Frank and I talk about statistics. Like the statistic that in the last year

            ~300 Million Americans didn’t shoot ANYONE

            Yet you and all other anti-gun people insist on punishing the innocent for the acts of a VERY VERY few.

            Stop it
            Stop it NOW.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Oh no! Vicki is back with her boring and meaningless~300 number—-and she wants to play!.

            How about talking instead about the “statistics” from the last few days regarding the number of Republicans who have swung to the side of common sense gun control?—like the 16 Senators? Or the statistics relating to that pro-gun group of 650,000 that has broken with the NRA and gone with the patriotic Senators that want to move the country forward.

            Good job, Republican Senators with a brain and Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

            (and leave Frank out of it—–he can’t even deal with A = B x C)

      • Frank Kahn

        Actually it amazes me that someone a bereft of thinking capacity can actually feed himself.

        Yes, the constitution can be changed, but ONLY BY A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RATIFIED BY THE STATES. You cannot legislate changes or any other form of modification. So her statement is correct.

        You appear to be somewhat ignorant of the purpose and authority of Executive Orders also. They are supposed to be administrative only. They cannot create law, only clarify the purpose of already existing laws. To do anything else is unconstitutional. This definition of usage of EO’s is supported by SCOTUS rulings.

        Your use of the word IGNORANT is incorrect also. For us, who have the capacity to think for ourselves, to state facts that go against your pathetic opinions is not ignorance of anything except knowing what warped sense of reality you live in.

        I have several more bones to pick with you about your stupid AGW too, but it is hard to argue the point when I have not been getting notifications of replies.

        Your ideas about the constitution, our government, the economy and gun rights issues are as poorly based as your pretend knowledge of science.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          And here is Frank yet again! Spewing nonsense as usual. He has been looking things up in his “Knowledge for Dummies” books again, and he still misinterprets what he reads there. His search for knowledge is not succeeding—-he remains clueless.

          Does not Frank think that the process outline in Article V is a form of legislative action? And that the ratification by the State LEGISLATURES is not “legislation”?

          Frank’s “discussion” of Executive orders is so fractured and nonsensical that I don’t even know how to address it. So I won’t.

          “Dictionary Frank” is also back, defining words for us and ranting on about “ignorance”. LOL over the irony there—Frank lecturing ANYONE about ‘ignorance”..

          i CAN’T WAIT to discuss AGW with you again, Frank. Maybe you’ll let me educate you this time around. How about the Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral video for a start?

          You have to “sign up” to get notifications of replies, Frank. I haven’t bothered—-I just scan the thread and reply to anyone who is speaking to me if I notice them. If a thread isn’t too long, that works well enough.

          By the way, the score is now RBT~8, Frank~0.

          • Frank Kahn

            Don’t give a rats behind about what article it is, to change the constitution takes an amendment, it is not legislation, never has been and never will be. It is a proposed amendment, which has to be sent to the states (state legislature not federal) who then vote on ratification or not, congress is powerless to change the constitution on its own accord. If you THINK you are some kind of legal god then keep trying but it won’t help change the facts. YOU ARE DEAD WRONG, – 1 POINT FOR RBT.

            Would you like me to provide you with remedial lessons on the purpose and authority of executive orders? You make stupid remarks that have nothing to do with the actual facts so I am assuming that you are ignorant of them. Score RBT -1

            The death spiral video(s) (you forgot to mention which one you think supports your opinion of AGW) are all worthless as proof of anything. I really enjoyed the stupid one that just had 2 minutes of an icon circling the pole which showed exactly nothing. Just so you will know, ice cap shrinkage is not evidence or proof of AGW, it simply shows a change in climate. I keep chasing your rabbit holes of delusional opinions trying to find where anyone has said that global warming IS CAUSED BY MAN. I have seen differing opinions on the actual percentage of contribution greenhouse gasses contribute. The largest percentage given, by your sources, is 1/3 which still makes it just a small contributor of the process. Score RBT -1.

            I have been signed up since day one, and replies were not being sent to me. Nobody here, including me, needs you to give condescending advice on how to navigate the site. Score RBT -1.

            Your childish lord loves a duck is stupid. Score RBT -1.

            I have actually, only one time, purchased a book for dummies. The book was called “The Internet for Dummies”. It took me about 30 minutes of reading it to understand the meaning of the title. Only a dummie would think he had learned anything by reading the book. Score RBT -1.

            You have finally convinced me that it is actually you that has been using books for dummies to accumulate your brand of wisdom. When you taught little children physics in high school, were you using a book called “Physics for Dummies”?

            Do you have any personal scientific background and expertise in the study of global climatology that makes you believe that you are capable of making grand scientific proclamations?

            Do you have some special definition for words that turns the phrase contributing into causing?

            To have encountered your pathetic misrepresentation of true science, it is appalling to think that you actually were entrusted to help children learn things in school. I pity those poor children that will forever be deluded in their beliefs in science.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Frank apparently stays up half the night writing his “Alice in Wonderland” comments—he is sounding more and more like The Duchess with each one.

            And, in spite of my warnings, Frank continues to devote most of his time to the meaningless, mindless, and childish ad hominems that are the refuge of the ignorant and those who are unable to present real arguments. So let’s dispose of of them first before we address anything of substance Frank may have said in this message.

            You THINK you are some kind of legal god
            You make stupid remarks.
            You are ignorant.
            Worthless as proof of anything (videos)
            Enjoyed the stupid one.
            Your rabbit holes of delusional opinions
            Condescending advice on how to navigate the site.
            Your childish lord loves a duck is stupid.
            It is actually you that has been using books for dummies
            Your pathetic misrepresentation of true science,
            Appalling to think you were entrusted. to help children learn. They will forever be deluded in their beliefs in science.

            Yep, mindless, meaningless, and childish opinions from Frank, nothing more—-and they contribute NOTHING to the debate. Just the rantings of a sore loser who is obsessed with the little “war” he thinks he is fighting with me on PLD. Frank is so lacking in awareness that he fails to see that the war has been fought and won by me several times over at this point, and that the Alice in Wonderland country he inhabits has been reduced to the proverbial “parking lot”. So, on the basis of the mindless ad hominems, I am already ahead by 12 points on this comment, and I will add another half dozen now before I address anything else—–wouldn’t want Frank to have to wait to find out that the score for this comment is RBT~18, Frank~0.

            Let’s now look at the few things Frank said that might appear at first glance to have any substance at all. As usual, Frank doesn’t disappoint us—-they don’t. have any substance at all, and some border on spectacular in their nuttiness.

            “Constitutional Scholar Frank” appears to lecture us on the Constitution and the Amendment process.

            Frank says “to change the constitution takes an amendment, it is not legislation, never has been and never will be. It is a proposed amendment, which has to be sent to the states (state legislature not federal) who then vote on ratification or not”. Perhaps “Constitution Frank” needs to consult with “Dictionary Frank” on the meaning of “legislate” before he goes back to the Constitution and tries to figure out why he is so deluded. He should begin with the first sentence of the first Article, in which “legislative powers” are the SECOND AND THIRD words. He should then reread Article 5, the one he doesn’t give a “rat’s behind” about, and try to understand that he is
            mistakenly trying to argue against something I never said. But that’s Frank—-make up some deluded interpretation of others’ comments and argue against that—-he is in effect arguing against his own delusions.

            I won’t even wast time talking to “Executive Order Frank”—-it would be fruitless.

            “AGW Expert Frank” outdoes all the other “Franks” with a truly spectacular display of stupidity. And that’s not an ad hominem, Frank, you said some truly STUPID things here.

            “2 minutes of an icon circling the pole which showed exactly nothing”. Ah, Frank—are you really that stupid? Did you not see the data from which the movement of the icon was plotted?—–the yearly minimum volume of arctic sea ice over the last 30+ years? Are you so unfamiliar with that data and what the dozens of sea ice-global warming models have predicted? Do you know what a “Death Spiral” is? Do you know that the losses in arctic sea ice volume over the last few years have greatly exceeded what ALL the models predicted?—-that we may have NO sea ice remaining after the summer melt in just a few years? That no one had predicted that to occur until 30 to 70 years from now? Do you know how that interrelates with albedo and reflectivity, oscillations in the jet stream, temperature rise in the arctic regions, Greenland ice sheet deterioration, wild fires and drought in the U.S., and a host of other phenomenon? Don’t bother answering, Frank, because I know the answer—-a resounding NO—-you are a :know nothing”, as evidenced by your words at the beginning of this paragraph.

            “Know Nothing Frank” proves my point by stating “ice cap shrinkage is not evidence or proof of AGW, it simply shows a change in climate”. And…? AND…..? I was hoping against hope that Frank would be logical for a change and carry that one step beyond. No such luck—-Frank fails to see that all the climate scientists have concluded that MAN-CAUSED climate change (AGW) seems to be the driver for many things, including the arctic sea ice “death spiral”. That is IS one more VERY BIG and VERY SCARY piece of evidence, in that it may represent the passing of a very important “tipping point” (Does “Know Nothing Frank” even know what a “tipping point” is?—doubt it).

            “Frank Who Thinks He Is Fighting A War” (that he has already lost) asks, “Do you have any personal scientific background and expertise in the study of global climatology that makes you believe that you are capable of making grand scientific” proclamations?”

            And in closing. Yes, Frank, all my scientific background and expertise is VERY personal. I have gained it through much study over the last 40+ years and it does make me capable of explaining AGW to the WIFI’s like you. Too bad you are too self-deluded to taske the help I offer to you.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            I may as well repeat what I just said to Frank in another reply—it fits here as well.

            “Sorry to have beaten you down so badly that you can’t respond with even the slightest bit of intelligence here, Frank. But that’s what happens to those who don’t know their limitations”.

            Although Frank has managed to use only one mindless and meaningless ad hominem here, he HAS made two egregiously wrong statements of fact, so I gain another 3 points.

            One, they most definitely WERE ad hominems, all 11 of them, since they were attacks by unsupported OPINION, and not of any facts.
            Two, “Dictionary Frank” has embarked on some nitpicking adventure over the definition of “legislation”. I HAVE used the term in its full meaning with reference to the ratification process. Frank can’t seem to grasp that what “legislators” do is “legislate”, and that involves proposing “legislation” and voting on it, and then sending it out for implementation. In the case of an amendment, sending notification to the Archivist, who tallies up the votes from all the states. If it is NOT “legislation, Frank, just what is it?.

  • http://billericapolitics.org/ Rick

    Unfortunately for me, I have no “conservative” Senator to vote against. All of the one’s representing Massachusetts are collectivists to the core.

    • vicki

      Much like the problem we have in California :(

  • Ron

    I am from NH and I am shocked and very disapointed in Kelly Ayotte voting this way, she has all ways been a true conservative!!

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Are you sure she isn’t behaving as a “true conservative” by doing what she’s doing? She is trying to help the country move forward and preserve what made it great—-that’s “conservative” to me. Paul K is already ranting about “getting rid of her”—-LOL—-don’t hold your breath, Paul—–she has 5 years and 9 months left in her term

      (Bernie Sanders is also a true conservative).

      • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Right Brain Thinker,

        You write: “(Bernie Sanders is also a true conservative)” Sanders is a socialist and calls himself such.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

        • Right Brain Thinker

          Labels are labels, Bob, and they are thrown about and misused so recklessly on PLD that it doesn’t mean much when you nitpick.

          I consider Bernie to be a “true conservative” because he is “trying to help the country move forward and preserve what made it great”, as I said about Ayotte.

          That to me meets the REAL definition of “conservative”, certainly more so than those who call themselves such but whose actions are destroying this country.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Right Brain Thinker,

            You bastardize the English language and change the meaning of words on a whim. That is why you and I will never be able to communicate. I believe words mean what they mean. You believe words mean whatever you want them to mean at a given time.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Does not “conserve” mean “preserve”, Bob?

            No “bastardization” there. And no “whim” either—just expression of careful thought.

            And I’m sorry to hear that we “will never be able to communicate”. and that you fail to see that words have MANY meanings, and that “at a given time” is exactly the point of having a dialogue—-making points and clarifying them.

            Even though you have not been quite the ‘gracious host” here, I will refrain from accusing you of any hypocrisy about how you use the English language in your articles and comments.

          • Bill Henry

            You are right RBT but you omitted “with sugar” which pertains to fruit….I prefer “Use cautiously and frugally.”. and
            Keep in safety and protect from harm, decay, loss, or destruction.”
            Source Sage2 dictionary and thesaurus.

            I believe these to be the more appropriate when discussing the political views of a person.

          • Bill Henry

            Then you should know the words “Shall not be infringed” mean what they mean. Seems you are the word twister.

          • Bill Henry

            that post was not for you Bob. I thought these were the words of RBT. Sorry..

      • Ron

        Spoken like good little democrat.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          Duh, says Ron, because he can’t think of something intelligent to say. Actually, I’m speaking as a “conservative” who thinks the Democrats are the more conservative party at present.

          • Ron

            Duh, must be your favorite intellectual word. You are as conservative as Biden, you should start thinking with your left brain your right does not do you any favors. I will match intelligence with you any time!

          • Right Brain Thinker

            “I will match intelligence with you any time!”, says Ron. OK, Ron, go for it! Say something intelligent and we’ll look at it. (Your “Duh” comment was NOT intelligent, and neither is this latest effort of yours—you have AGAIN said nothing).

        • WTS/JAY

          Democrats, (from latin Demon crafts) is a political party known for recanting what they say, and then claiming the opposing party was wrong about something and not themselves. They also spend money like a bunch of irresponsible teenage girls with brand new credit cards.

          Also known as Emocrats, they are a form of alien life controlled by the evil overlord Jar Jar Binks from his space castle made of Ramen noodles, located in a cave deep within the nether reaches of Uranus.

          Many hundreds of years ago, Brian Peppers sent them to Earth on a mission to kill babies and destroy America… and so far they have been succeeding.

          Think of anything or everything that seems messed up or out of place in America and there is a good chance a democrat had something to do with it.

  • skihard

    The LEOs don‘t bother to arrest the people that are disqualified under current background checks most of the time. I don‘t see any point in expanding them.

  • Framingham47

    Why is it so f…..g difficult to sign in and comment on this page?No ,I don’t want to sign in with Google,FB or twitter

    • Spencer Cameron

      You don’t have to sign in with any service. You can comment as a guest if you like. To the right of SIGN IN WITH, you’ll notice OR PICK A NAME. Just fill in your desired display name and your email address. You can then post your comment.

      • vicki

        There does not appear to be a “pick a name” option anymore. I went to
        a different browser and verified that I had to log in with disqus to
        comment.

        There is a “share” option and there is a gear. The gear has only login or feedback.

        replies has the option to pick a name but initial comments do not appear to.

        • Spencer Cameron

          @disqus_TpoRGyqxzb:disqus, the option to “pick a name” is still there. When not logged in, you should see something that looks like this.

          • vicki

            I just rechecked (using chrome instead of firefox) and the option to “sign in with …….. or pick a name
            (circles for Disqus, Facebook, Twitter,…) is missing

            The first thing under the “leave a message” is the word best and then community. to the right under the “leave a message” is the “share” and the gear just as in the “this” link you provided.

            If I choose to REPLY to someone elses comment I get the choices like your screenshot. (Starting from the box “leave a message”

          • Spencer Cameron

            @disqus_TpoRGyqxzb:disqus, you need to click the text Leave a message…. Then you’ll see the login options. :)

          • vicki

            It is totally not obvious but when I do start to leave a message the other options appear. Thanks for explaining that. I realize you likely have no control over the behavior.

      • Karolyn

        I still hate this format!

        • WTS/JAY

          I’m getting used to it…it’s actually not that bad.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lee.carlson.3956 Lee Carlson

    I sent McCain and all his cohorts the following email:

    Senator McCain,
    I am writing to you to report several acts of treason by some of your fellow senators. These men and women have turned their backs on the their constituents and the citizenry at large. They have violated their oaths of office and are acting to subvert and violate the constitution. Specifically are trying to infringe upon the rights of the citizens of the United States of America to keep and bear arms as delineated by the Second Amendment by supporting Harry Reid and his gang of lawless thugs in their quest to disarm the American People. They are:

    Lamar Alexander of Tennessee
    Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire
    Richard M. Burr of North Carolina
    Saxby Chambliss of Georgia
    Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
    Susan Collins of Maine
    Bob Corker of Tennessee
    Jeff Flake of Arizona
    Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
    Dean Heller of Nevada
    John Hoeven of North Dakota
    Johnny Isakson of Georgia
    Mark S. Kirk of Illinois
    Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania
    Roger Wicker of Mississippi
    John McCain of Arizona

    Yes sir, you are on the list and you should be ashamed. That you continue to call yourself a Republican is reprehensible. I wish I was a resident of Arizona so I could vote against you. I sincerely hope that you would take this to heart and act responsibly but failing that I hope your constituents smarten up and elect someone who cares about them and throw your butt into the street along with your mangy fellow RINOs.

    Lee Carlson

    • GALT

      Dear Lee.

      Have you filed your “reservation of rights” as required by UCC 1207/308, duly notarized and sent certified mail with return receipt requested to all
      relevant authorities, federal, state, city, county, etc. and have prominently displayed stickers on all forms of legal identification, claiming this reservation

      and exempting you from admiralty/maritime jurisdiction?

      If you have not, you have only those rights granted you by congress and

      defined by decisions of the supreme court after 1938, which are now referred to as benefits, privileges and immunities.

      Your charge of treason is therefor in error and your ignorance of the law

      is no excuse, because the “oath” is sworn to admiralty/maritime law and you are subject to that law until you claim your rights under ‘common law’, by reserving them as so indicated.

      You may be taken aback by this…….you may even doubt what you have just read. You may ask yourself why such notable people like

      Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Judge Nepolitano and “others” who constantly

      kvetch about all those “unconstitutional” acts of government have failed to mention this……even though government violates the ‘constitution” every day….and other than using the word “unconstitutional”, nothing seems to happen? You may wonder why the the writers at PLD have failed to mention it….but like you, cry “treason and unconstitutional” to abandon, and all for naught.

      The answer; Follow the Money…..or in this case, there is no money to
      be made from this information…….and there is risk in attempting to make money from it……and most important, you have to do this for YOURSELF.

      YOU have to learn! YOU have to act!

      Don’t you find it strange that self proclaimed “patriots” who are clamoring for another revolution, and claim they are willing to die, for something that no longer exists……have failed to learn and act on this far less risky, yet CORRECT solution?

      http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

      You have to admire the cleverness of this construction…..and in the end, besides making it a little difficult to “learn”, setting it up so
      that in order to “free yourself”….you had to be willing to stand
      by yourself…..ALONE.

      REVOLUTION?…..ain’t happening anytime soon.

  • Ken Prehart

    The focus should be how to stop, prevent,and defend agaisnt the Adam Lanzas of the earth..laws only provide prosecution of a law breakers…nothing else..iam guilty of nothing other then cutting my lawn, loving my dogs and feeding my family…iam not the one who should be loosing any rigjts or freedoms

  • http://www.facebook.com/jean.appleton.3 Jean Appleton

    I think they need to freeze everything obozo wants to do and everything that is in progress until he proves he is qualified to be in the wh. We all know he is full of s–t and needs to be arrested. There is more evidence recently that proves he is illegal. If congress or whoever has the power needs to stop him. MAYBE THEY SHOULD NOT BE PAID UNTIL THEY DO THEIR JOB AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. DON’T THEY WORK FOR US.

  • http://www.facebook.com/james.reidii.3 James Reid II

    THESE 16 REPUBLICANS & ALL DEMS. WHO VOTED FOR TYRANNY SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON ,CONVICTED , AND FACE THE FIRING SQUAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 DEMS .AND ALL THAT CHOSE TO STAND WITH RAND & VOTED WITH AMERICA, PRAISE THEM AS THEY FOLLOWED THIS COUNTRIES LEADER. THE BILL OF RIGHTS &THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Framingham47

    I wasn’t surprised by cino McCane’s vote ,although his names biblical connection should have warned me;but I didn’t think Flake would .Again,I wasted my votes and should have known better .

  • Karolyn

    They’ve just heard the voice of the people for a change. Can’t stand the heat from all the input by Sandy victims’ families.

  • WTS/JAY

    Congress Seeks Answers on Huge Homeland Security Ammo Contracts.

    Concerned lawmakers and activists across America from all points on the political spectrum have for months been seeking an explanation about the Obama administration apparently stockpiling weapons of war for domestic use. Estimates suggest, for example, that the federal government has committed to purchasing up to 2 billion rounds of ammunition over several years while rolling outdozens of armored vehicles known as MRAPs on U.S. soil. Meanwhile, the controversial Department of Homeland Security and its boss Janet Napolitano are refusing to provide real answers.

    Now, however, at least one member of Congress is proposing to stop funding DHS unless and until it explains the controversial arms buildup, which has sparked widespread suspicion even among Obama’s most devoted supporters…

    full article: http://ca-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=262032326&action=showLetter&umid=2_0_0_1_99253_ALrTi2IAAAZOUWhbVARLbhvK%2FXc&box=Inbox

    • WTS/JAY
    • Right Brain Thinker

      More horsepucky from a wing nut site, courtesy of JAY. Do you even know what a MRAP is, JAY? It’s a huge vehicle that is WAY beyond what might be needed in the U.S. APC’s and armored HumVees are more than adequate.

      “Estimates SUGGEST”? “APPARENTLY stockpiling”? “widespread suspicion” (as in unfounded paranoia) And you want REAL answers? How about asking REAL questions about REAL events first?

      • Bill Henry

        Eternal vigilance is the watch word of liberty. My documentation from both sides of the coin follow:

        “But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.” — Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

        “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” — Wendell Phillips, (1811-1884), abolitionist, orator and columnist for The Liberator, in a speech before the Massachusetts Antislavery Society in 1852, according to The Dictionary of Quotations edited by Bergen Evans

        The final chapter of Ida B. Wells’ autobiography, Crusade for Justice (University of Chicago Press 1970), begins, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” She goes on to argue that although the United States does have some “wonderful institutions” to protect our liberty, we have grown complacent and need to be “alert as the watchman on the wall.”
        Ida B. Wells (1862-1931) crusades against the oppression of African American for all of her adult life. She’s is best known for her work against the growing lynchings of African American in the 1890s. See Southern Horrors and A Red Record, her pamphlets which detail her efforts to show that these lynchings were a means of terror to oppressed African Americans

  • Gail Lane

    Well I won’t be voting mine back in.

  • WTS/JAY

    OBAMA PREPARES HUGE BAILOUT FOR MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN EGYPT!!!

    The Obama administration is close to finalizing a massive $1-billion bailout for the increasingly totalitarian Muslim Brotherhood regime ruling over Egypt, according to U.S. government officials cited in news reports. The move is already drawing fierce criticism from opponents arguing that bailing out the new Islamist ruler, who is already working to bolster Egyptian ties with the communist Chinese dictatorship while becoming increasingly despotic at home, would be a mistake on multiple levels.

    In addition to forgiving the $1 billion in Egyptian government debt, almost a third of its total burden, the administration is also working with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) — largely funded by American taxpayers — to secure a $5-billion loan for the regime. On top of that, U.S. officials are in the process of creating multiple funds and programs worth almost $500 million to help politically connected U.S. and Egyptian businesses.

    Full article:
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/12720-obama-prepares-huge-bailout-for-muslim-brotherhood-in-egypt

  • WTS/JAY

    DAD FURIOUS AFTER FINDING THIS CRAYON-WRITTEN PAPER IN FLORIDA 4TH-GRADER’S BACKPACK: ‘I AM WILLING TO GIVE UP SOME OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS…TO BE SAFER’

    The words are written in crayon, in the haphazard bumpiness of a child’s scrawl.

    “I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure.”

    They’re the words that Florida father Aaron Harvey was stunned to find his fourth-grade son had written, after a lesson in school about the Constitution.

    Aaron Harvey’s son wrote as part of a school lesson, “I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure.” TheBlaze has redacted the child’s name.

    Harvey’s son attends Cedar Hills Elementary in Jacksonville, Fla. Back in January, a local attorney came in to teach the students about the Bill of Rights. But after the attorney left, fourth-grade teacher Cheryl Sabb dictated the sentence to part of the class and had them copy it down, he said.

    Full article:
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/12/dad-furious-after-finding-this-crayon-written-paper-in-florida-4th-graders-backpack-i-am-willing-to-give-up-some-of-my-constitutional-rights/

  • http://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.giermanski Elizabeth Giermanski

    To R.B.T. : I didn’t think I would have to spell it out. The amendments were placed in the constitution to give guidance as to the right way of adding, or subtracting, what was needed. That process has not been exercised, their for, the second amendment has not been changed in any way. I was not lecturing thea”all” of the people on this site, just those that seem too be leading thought in a wrong direction with misleading words. A large majority are hitting the nail on the head. As for lecturing any one, you misted my intent, please read what I really said, and to whom it was intended, by the way I said SOME people, NOT ALL, you should not change what people say. Like I said, the majority of comment on this site are right, vary few are misleading. This is what it`s all about, our freedoms to give our view points with out being shot, or being locked up, as it is in communist countries. Thank God for our constitutional freedoms, and one is free speech, by the way, I counted the same as you did,27, so we are in agreement on that point ! Johnny G.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Elizabeth, You say, “That process has not been exercised, therefore, the second amendment has not been changed in any way”. True enough, no Amendment to the 2nd Amendment is anywhere on the horizon. My copy of the Constitution is pocket sized, 3″ x 5″, and it has just 38 pages in total.

      The body of law that has been passed to implement that 38 page Constitution would probably fill at least several railroad cars. That’s what we’re talking about now in this country, the interpretation of the 2nd. Amendment and the implementation of laws and regulations that relate to it. There are already many gun “laws” and gun “regulations” and a number of court decisions that say gun laws and regulations ARE constitutional. Not even the Supreme Court has said that “shall not be infringed” means “totally unregulated”, and those on PLD that keep insisting that it does are in my mind hurting the cause. Such blind and mindless adherence to “doctrine” is more likely to lead to a backlash. There IS a common sense middle ground on guns and we need to get there.

  • BBMAN

    I KEEP HEARING THAT THERE IS A COURT ORDER TO IMPEACH OBAMA,

    BUT IT MUST ALL BE HEAR SAY,IF YOU WERE WHITE YOU WOULD BE IMPEACHED!!!BUT IT APPEARS NO CONGRESS HAS BALLS ENOUGH TO DO THAT,AND NOT A MUSLIM

  • Dragon 1

    Ole John Mccaniac must have been tortured to much when he was captured as sometimes he forgets that he is back here and safe from that now. But he is waging war against the American public and the constitution, Nazi attitude me thinks.