Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Obama proposes tighter background checks.

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran kimbercarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    721

    Obama proposes tighter background checks.


  2. #2
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    He don't know us very well, do he?

    Why do people not realize that all tightened laws will mean is that the black market in stolen firearms will skyrocket. A person, like the Tucson shooter, who is bent on destroying will accomplish their purpose with either stolen firearms, edged weapons, or clubs.

    Far better would be, as we are trying to do, to create an armed, polite, self-policing society in which the criminal and, unfortunately, the mentally unbalanced would not be able to carry out their violence.

    I say "unfortunately" in the case of the mentally unbalanced because these are people who need treatment. In too many cases, they do not get it or they get ineffective treatment.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,182
    Too bad there aren't tighter background checks to become President...

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran kimbercarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by Blk97F150 View Post
    Too bad there aren't tighter background checks to become President...
    I'll second that!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    I will third that. Where is his records?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Felix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    186
    Obama said he's "willing to bet" that responsible gun owners would support laws to "keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few -- dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example -- from getting their hands on" guns.

    Sorry Prez, you're not speaking for me. Do a better job of enforcing what's already on the books before you come asking for my support on more intrusive measures.
    Daily carry: SIG P229 .40 S&W

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Felix View Post
    Obama said he's "willing to bet" that responsible gun owners would support laws to "keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few -- dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example -- from getting their hands on" guns.

    Sorry Prez, you're not speaking for me. Do a better job of enforcing what's already on the books before you come asking for my support on more intrusive measures.
    He is speaking for you. See he already has laws on the books to "keep an irresponisble, law-breaking few" from getting guns. He just needs to learn to properly enforce them.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Blk97F150 View Post
    Too bad there aren't tighter background checks to become President...
    Fourth.

    Someone needs to say this to his face the next time he wants our backgrounds checked!

    President Obama, you do not speak for me. Not even close. I do oppose background checks that are any more intrusive and obstructive than we have now or that require individual citizens (not dealers) go through a bureaucratic hassle to sell a firearm to someone who has given no reason to believe that they are prohibited by law from possessing.

    I believe, sir, that I have more common sense in my pinky than you and your ilk have in your whole being.

  9. #9
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Why do people not realize that all tightened laws will mean is that the black market in stolen firearms will skyrocket. A person, like the Tucson shooter, who is bent on destroying will accomplish their purpose with either stolen firearms, edged weapons, or clubs.
    Or fertilizer and trucks.
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 03-14-2011 at 12:44 PM.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    How ironic: I'm watching the Angels and Monsters segment of Heroes (season 3, ep 5)

    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    He don't know us very well, do he?
    No. Perhaps one of the worst sins any elected representative or president could commit.

    Time to get touch with us, Mr. President! Please start by reading these threads.

    Thanks.

    Why do people not realize that all tightened laws will mean is that the black market in stolen firearms will skyrocket.
    It's what's called the "false sense of security." Here's how it works: Person A exhausts any and all possible means, from A to X by which someone could hurt them, while Person B, the perp, figures out way Q, S, or Z, and it's game over.

    Most criminals fall somewhere between A and X, but a few hit upon Z, and the really good ones go on to masterminded ZM schemes. The few that hit upon those who're discovered, recruited, and trained by foreign governments, armed with databases armed with A-Z schemes, go on to become operatives capable of coming up with ZTSFG schemes without going through all the iterations between.

    It's called a "false sense of security," and most politicians are between stage A (totally naieve) and stage D (they know some of the threats, have taken some measures, including personal security, including either armed guards or arming themselves).

    Years ago I worked as a manufacturing engineering in the security electronics. Our products protected some of the best-known high-security facilities in our country. I learned a few things from the field guys, but nothing like what they knew. What I did learn is this: "If there's a way to protect it, there's a way to break it." Another motto they held was "we can circumvent anything the engineers come up with," and after implementing a three-day competition to that effect, hoping to help the other engineers come up with better ideas, I was instead on the out for a while, as the field techs put them all to shame.

    My point is somewhat veiled, but I'll make it rather simple: If whatever powers (actual powers, not the incompetants) that be wanted to take out either any one, or any system, overtly, they've have absolutely no problem doing so. I worked (and will always side with) the U.S. side of the fence, so I know our protective measures are among the very best. Perhaps not THE best, but up there.

    Without 2A rights with respect to personal amarment so as to directly respond to whatever threat we might face, and appropriate escalations, we citizens might actually be at risk!

    I have absolutely no objections to the U.S. Secret Service employing MAC-10s, Uzis, 50 cals, hand grenades, LAWs, or whatever in order to protect the President, and in fact, I'm as supportive of their efforts to use that advanced firepower as I am in support of my efforts to be able to use sufficient firepower to counter my own local threats. The Secret Service assesses the threats, they transport the appropriate firepower, and more importantly, the training and the methodology of their actions to counter those threats.

    A person, like the Tucson shooter, who is bent on destroying will accomplish their purpose with either stolen firearms, edged weapons, or clubs.

    Hell, with bare hands there are perhaps a million humans in the U.S. who could dispatch any Congressperson in the country half a second after a handshake.

    Why isn't this done? Because we are Patriots! We believe in our country. Those of us who've gone through any sort of military service have received some background checks, and those of us who've gone through more have received more.

    Personally, I believe the military leaves me alone is because despite the fact I'm no longer on an active payroll, I'm still espousing the virtues of the military as a whole. If I weed out a few bad apples in the process, they may be mighty incensed, so I simply talk about the same ideals we were all given back in the days of my great-grandfather's history class, my grandpa's, father's, and mine civics classes, and mine and my ancestors time serving the U.S. Military.

    Back to proposing "tighter background checks," I concur Obama should be at the forefront. HALF of America has either served in the military or been directly related to members of the military. Our country is BONDED by such family ties.

    Obama's family knows no such ties. Sorry, Obama - not your fault. It's the fault of the "give me my share" idiots who voted you into office.

    Far better would be, as we are trying to do, to create an armed, polite, self-policing society in which the criminal and, unfortunately, the mentally unbalanced would not be able to carry out their violence.
    Well, we had that well before 1776. Unfortunately, well-meaning but otherwise mentally inept folks who were allowed, often by popular vote, to rise to positions of authority wherein they enacted laws infringing on our Founder's Second Amendment "shall not be infringed" clause have indeed infringed upon the utmost principle of personal security: "I will not be a victim. I am not a target. I will fight back with anything and everything within my power and being to ensure that whoever, and whatever forces attempt to undermine my rights, from governmental down to personal, will be dealt with in an appropriate manner of response."

    Gees! Did I just write that? Someone please extend the signature characture limit so I can include that as my signature.

    I say "unfortunately" in the case of the mentally unbalanced because these are people who need treatment. In too many cases, they do not get it or they get ineffective treatment.[/QUOTE]
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Fourth.

    Someone needs to say this to his face the next time he wants our backgrounds checked!

    President Obama, you do not speak for me. Not even close. I do oppose background checks that are any more intrusive and obstructive than we have now or that require individual citizens (not dealers) go through a bureaucratic hassle to sell a firearm to someone who has given no reason to believe that they are prohibited by law from possessing.

    I believe, sir, that I have more common sense in my pinky than you and your ilk have in your whole being.
    I concur, eye95. I've had my background checked six ways to Sunday. Come to think of it, it went to around when I was fifteen. Talk about a lifetime of introspection! Didn't give it a thought at the time it began. I asked my Dad, who'd retired at an O-6, and he'd gone through the same.

    With all due respect, eye95, I don't think Obama's security background has gone a day past that of either of us.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  12. #12
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    I'm quite certain that nObama's security check didn't go as deep as mine. Like Since9 mine was checked not only throughout my HS years but all my hometown neighbors and my local neighbors. And this man has the ability to conduct Global Thermal Nuclear war. No sir, I will not have any more background checks imposed on me.

    If the people that knew that cretin in Arizona like his college professors had done their jobs and alerted the authorities to his instability they may have prevented his buying a gun. I mean,,all you have to do is take one look at the guy and you could see he's deranged.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    In a Sunday op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star, President Barack Obama called for a three-pronged approach: enforcing the laws already on the books, including the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; pushing for greater state-to-state coordination; and expediting background checks and the release of relevant data.

    I don't see anything in that statement I would have a problem with.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    I'm quite certain that nObama's security check didn't go as deep as mine. Like Since9 mine was checked not only throughout my HS years but all my hometown neighbors and my local neighbors. And this man has the ability to conduct Global Thermal Nuclear war. No sir, I will not have any more background checks imposed on me.

    If the people that knew that cretin in Arizona like his college professors had done their jobs and alerted the authorities to his instability they may have prevented his buying a gun. I mean,,all you have to do is take one look at the guy and you could see he's deranged.
    Having a simple background check is fine. And by simple I mean a near instant check that ONLY looks at if you have anything in your record to make you ineligible (such as felonies, mental instability, etc). Depending on how it was done I wouldn't even be against the system tracking gun buys in a 6month timeframe. It shouldn't directly affect your ability to buy weapons and would be used to better help sellers/authorities identify strawman buyers (oh look, you've bought 5 guns per store from 5 different stores over 10 days...yea that doesn't look shady at all). But pretty much anything more than what is required to prevent a reasonible amount of arms from getting into the hands of criminals is too much. At that point it becomes a burden on the citizen for very little net effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    In a Sunday op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star, President Barack Obama called for a three-pronged approach: enforcing the laws already on the books, including the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; pushing for greater state-to-state coordination; and expediting background checks and the release of relevant data.

    I don't see anything in that statement I would have a problem with.
    He also mentioned adding "common sense" laws. Now he didn't specify just what those are, but generally what a lot of people view as "common sense" for gun control is just plain bad. It could just be him pandering to the gun control people, but it doesn't sound good to gun rights people.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Blk97F150 View Post
    Too bad there aren't tighter background checks to become President...
    I agree, we should at least require Presidents to present proof of Citizenship... I mean, look what happens when we don't....

    [/sarcasm]
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    In a Sunday op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star, President Barack Obama called for a three-pronged approach: enforcing the laws already on the books, including the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; pushing for greater state-to-state coordination; and expediting background checks and the release of relevant data.

    I don't see anything in that statement I would have a problem with.
    Really? Wait until his second term. I'd rather you simply vote against him, so we don't have to find out the hard way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Depending on how it was done I wouldn't even be against the system tracking gun buys in a 6month timeframe.
    Why is it recently added members with low post counts are most apt to support violations of our Constitutional rights?

    He also mentioned adding "common sense" laws.
    We already have a "common sense" law which covers the entire gamut: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    We don't need more laws. What we need are politicians, judges, and police departments willing to follow the one we have.

    ...generally what a lot of people view as "common sense" for gun control is just plain bad.
    Now you're talking!

    It could just be him pandering to the gun control people, but it doesn't sound good to gun rights people.
    No, it doesn't. Sounds to me like what someone else said about sticking his toe into the waters.
    Last edited by since9; 03-16-2011 at 12:59 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Why is it recently added members with low post counts are most apt to support violations of our Constitutional rights?
    And just how is having a short term tracking system a violation of your rights? As I said, it wouldn't stop you from being able to make a purchase, but it would allow LE to identify potential strawman purchases. It would in no way infringe on your ability to keep and bear arms. Also just what does my post count have to do with anything?

    We already have a "common sense" law which covers the entire gamut: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    Once again, tracking how many guns were purchased over a short time in no way infringes on your ability to keep and bear arms. It simply makes it easier for LE to identify people performing illegal actions.

    We don't need more laws. What we need are politicians, judges, and police departments willing to follow the one we have.
    Very true.

    Personally I think that people should be able to buy ANY firearm they want (including machine guns and certain destructive devices). But I also think that LE needs the proper tools to be able to help keep weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Now finding that right amount of legislation to help LE w/o jepordizing citizens rights is very tricky because it starts the "slippery slope" of regulation (I could further outline potential ideas if you so cared). I also understand that where I would like our country to be compared to where it's at currently isn't going to happen overnight. Which is why I would be potentially willing to support legislation that "regulates" so long as it helps to return 2A rights.

    An example would be in Oklahoma it's illegal to OC, but there has been legislation suggested to allow people with a CC license to be able to OC. Obviously I would prefer anybody to be able to OC who is legally allowed to have a gun, but I realize that might not be a realistic first step compared to where the state is currently. So allowing CCers to OC will help break down the OC stigma, which will hopefully strengthen a future push for state constitutional carry (assuming Congress doesn't inact constitutional carry first). But it's all about those smaller steps and getting the public back onto our side. Because like it or not, without public support we're likely not going to get back what was taken from us.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Now finding that right amount of legislation to help LE w/o jepordizing citizens rights is very tricky because it starts the "slippery slope" of regulation...
    Yes it does, and rights violations occur even when it's expressly against the law. Here in Colorado, state law expressly prohibits county sheriffs from sharing CHP information with state police. Yet about two-thirds do so anyway.

    When the law actually allows for such things, the slope gets too slippery, and too steep for my taste.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  19. #19
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Having a simple background check is fine. And by simple I mean a near instant check that ONLY looks at if you have anything in your record to make you ineligible (such as felonies, mental instability, etc). Depending on how it was done I wouldn't even be against the system tracking gun buys in a 6month timeframe. It shouldn't directly affect your ability to buy weapons and would be used to better help sellers/authorities identify strawman buyers (oh look, you've bought 5 guns per store from 5 different stores over 10 days...yea that doesn't look shady at all). But pretty much anything more than what is required to prevent a reasonible amount of arms from getting into the hands of criminals is too much. At that point it becomes a burden on the citizen for very little net effect.



    He also mentioned adding "common sense" laws. Now he didn't specify just what those are, but generally what a lot of people view as "common sense" for gun control is just plain bad. It could just be him pandering to the gun control people, but it doesn't sound good to gun rights people.
    I just don't recall having read anything in the Constitution that says one word about background checks. Maybe it's just me but,,,
    Thinkin' it was a wise man (Benjamin Franklin) that said words to the affect ,,,those that give up liberty for security will soon have neither. Sorry,,but I'm too lazy right now to get the direct quote.

    As Since9 stated your low post count makes us that have been on here quite a while look at you with a jaded eye. There have been quite a few lately that come on this forum saying "Oh it's okay if we let the Feds do this lil thing, it won't take away our Liberty" or it's okay if we allow one more minute inconvenience into our Liberty. And that's Progressive. Chip away at Liberty...because of folks like you that say,,oh it's okay... And soon we'll turn around and look,,thru the triple strand concertina of the "reeducation camps" and wonder,,,where did Liberty go? For me sir,,it's give me Liberty,,or give me death. Dang,,now where have I heard that before?
    Last edited by KansasMustang; 03-25-2011 at 07:48 AM. Reason: add ons
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  20. #20
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by ixtow View Post
    I agree, we should at least require Presidents to present proof of Citizenship... I mean, look what happens when we don't....

    [/sarcasm]
    We do require this via a certain document; the Constitution. Unfortunately, as with so many other things, this document has been ignored, perverted, corrupted, interpreted, and disdained by so many over the years that this simple requirement for president has become just so much drivel. And we see the results of ignoring that which was passed on to us. It sits in the white house with contempt for the very documents which founded this nation.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  21. #21
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    I just don't recall having read anything in the Constitution that says one word about background checks. Maybe it's just me but,,,
    Thinkin' it was a wise man (Benjamin Franklin) that said words to the affect ,,,those that give up liberty for security will soon have neither. Sorry,,but I'm too lazy right now to get the direct quote.

    As Since9 stated your low post count makes us that have been on here quite a while look at you with a jaded eye. There have been quite a few lately that come on this forum saying "Oh it's okay if we let the Feds do this lil thing, it won't take away our Liberty" or it's okay if we allow one more minute inconvenience into our Liberty. And that's Progressive. Chip away at Liberty...because of folks like you that say,,oh it's okay... And soon we'll turn around and look,,thru the triple strand concertina of the "reeducation camps" and wonder,,,where did Liberty go? For me sir,,it's give me Liberty,,or give me death. Dang,,now where have I heard that before?
    I am reminded of a little piece of prose from WWII written by Pastor Martin Niemoller:

    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.


    Never forget that governments are inherently evil. They know but one thing and that is to grow. And left to their own devises they will grow until they are powerful enough to swallow those whom they govern. History suffers no fools with this most basic lesson of universal truth. And those who chose to ignore this fact are doomed to become another history lesson. Rights which become privileges have no other place to go but to have those privileges banned in favor of the "good of all". In the entire history of man, there is no worse path than a government that is bent upon becoming benevolent. Just remember this. When a government tries to tell you it is here to help, you must ask yourself this.

    What is it going to cost?
    What am I going to lose?

    The only thing that stands in the way of liberty and tyranny is an armed and informed people. Our Founders knew this. One has to wonder why those who sit in the halls of government chose to forget it.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The full and correct Franklin quotation with both the off-omitted words in their places:

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    And yet I'm still trying to figure out just what liberty you would be giving up. A simple tracking of the sales that is then destroyed after a short amount of time doesn't prevent you from buying the guns. Likewise instant background checks don't impede your ability to purchase the gun that day (not saying that I'm for or against it, simply that it doesn't restrict your ability). It is the government's job to enforce the laws; which means also using new technology to combat crime and changing criminals. But likewise it is the job of the citizens to stop the government from over-stepping it's bounds.

    Once again I see the slipperly slope, but just as how requiring people to get permits when they assemble (see the whole Westboro "Church" protests) doesn't violate the 1A, I don't see a simple tracking system as us giving up any liberties. Now the fear of the government mishandling that data could be another concern, but that's a different issue.

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The full and correct Franklin quotation with both the off-omitted words in their places:

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    And I would go one further and say all liberty is essential and all safety temporary.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by kimbercarrier View Post
    I'll second that!
    I will 5th,6th,7th that
    I truly Love my Country, But the government scares the he!! out of me.

    DEMAND IT
    Congress SHALL NOT receive A salary greater than any service member and will be given EQUIVELANT insurance as any service member

    I came into this world kicking and screaming covered in someone else's blood. And if necessary to protect the Constitution of The United States of AMERICA. I will go out the same way

    All hail the Domain of Neptunus Rex

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •