The traitors in IL will try again this afternoon to take the guns

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   
I call them traitors because that's what they are. Don't like the constitution? Try to change it the lawful way or move to a country where the constitution suits you more, a country in Europe or wherever.

Illinois House picks up Senate's war on the armed citizenry

The Senate adjourned Thursday, without quite mustering enough votes (but that is due at least in part to the absence of some anti-gun senators), and will apparently wait until Tuesday (when the anti-gunners return) to try again.

The idea is to take a bill that has already passed in the House, gut it with an amendment so that it (for example) instead of making Illinois' nuclear power plants safer, it sends people to prison for owning an 11-round magazine.

Now, the House is trying the reverse method. With rabidly anti-gun Representative Edward Acevedo (Chicago Democrat, of course) gutting SB 2899 with House Amendment #1, banning so-called "assault weapons," "high-capacity" magazines, and .50 caliber firearms and ammunition.

The House Judiciary 1 Committee will hold a hearing at 2 PM (Central Time) Sunday, to decide on whether or not the amendment goes on to be voted on by the entire House.


Using tactics only viruses use... take a bill, invade it, gut it out, replace it with your crap. This is what viruses... and now IL democrats do.
edit on 6-1-2013 by lolita64 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by lolita64
 


This is a move to place safety and security from the individual to the state or authority.

I consider it an act of cowardice because they are afraid of the responsibilities that come with the freedoms as described by our founding documents.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Only States (referring to country's too) who want complete control or they don't trust their population is where they disarm the citizens.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by lolita64
Try to change it the lawful way
edit on 6-1-2013 by lolita64 because: (no reason given)


That's exactly the lawful way. To propose bills in the state House and Senate.

Do you know of another lawmaking body recognized by the State?



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 




That's exactly the lawful way. To propose bills in the state House and Senate.

It's not lawful.

Read the second amendment again.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Meaning : Don't touch it! AT ALL.

Any ``gun control law`` is an infringment, therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL therefore, NOT LAWFUL.

The only lawful way is to amend the constitution to remove the second amendment. Anything else is unlawful and unconstitutional.

And don't tell me... but but but... back in the founders day, people had CANNONS and armed ships, all legal and in private hands.
edit on 6-1-2013 by lolita64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by lolita64
 



I call them traitors because that's what they are. Don't like the constitution? Try to change it the lawful way or move to a country where the constitution suits you more, a country in Europe or wherever.


Goodbye democracy.

The moment the constitution is set in stone......is the same moment that the United States becomes a dictatorship.


There is no middle ground.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by lolita64
reply to post by DaTroof
 




That's exactly the lawful way. To propose bills in the state House and Senate.

It's not lawful.

Read the second amendment again.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Meaning : Don't touch it! AT ALL.

Any ``gun control law`` is an infringment, therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL therefore, NOT LAWFUL.

The only lawful way is to amend the constitution to remove the second amendment. Anything else is unlawful and unconstitutional.

And don't tell me... but but but... back in the founders day, people had CANNONS and armed ships, all legal and in private hands.
edit on 6-1-2013 by lolita64 because: (no reason given)


Living documents are susceptible to change, and if the Legislative branch wants to change it, the Supreme Court has a say, as does the President/Governor. The Constitution was written for land-owning white men. That population no longer reflects the average American, and is a shrinking minority.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by lolita64
 


Peoples right to own nukes and bioweapons.
How bout 1st amendment then? Let's just legalize everything that is free speech. Like I don't know, illicit pictures of children? I mean it's the peoples right after all.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 


You are quite correct in that the US Constitution can be changed.

Slavery, women's voting rights, presidential term limits are just a few examples of how a maturing country adapts and grows.

The 2nd Amendment is no exception.

Like many issues, however, it'll become very polarized. One side will want freedom, the other side will embrace cowardice and hide behind the coat-tails of the government.

That issue will polarize the nation.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by DaTroof
 


You are quite correct in that the US Constitution can be changed.

Slavery, women's voting rights, presidential term limits are just a few examples of how a maturing country adapts and grows.

The 2nd Amendment is no exception.

Like many issues, however, it'll become very polarized. One side will want freedom, the other side will embrace cowardice and hide behind the coat-tails of the government.

That issue will polarize the nation.


I just wanted to point out that your last statement about "hiding behind the coat-tails of the government" can easily be used to describe those on both sides of the issue.

You're right though, it's become a polarizing debate.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Nothing new for anyone who lives in Illinois, and the People's Republic of Chicago. It is the most corrupt state in the Union, and always has been. A state where the dead get up and vote, people vote more than once, cash filled envelopes get things done, dynasties are created in local government, and so on and so forth. People ought to travel to one of Chicago's inner cities and see how magnificient the existing gun control policies are working out for them. Chicago has one of the most draconian gun bans in the country. Five-hundred men, women, and children murdered just last year.

What is their answer to that? Nothing! Just as long as the violence is segregated to the impoverished areas and does not infringe on Downtown or the other well to do areas. This is just another attempt by the crooks to get more power. What makes anyone think that politicians can protect you, your property, or families better than you? Day late and dollar short on everything, and cannot even keep a state financially solvent. Pension chaos, unfunded liabilities, decrepit roads and infrastructure, services that leave more to be desired, rampant corruption, and so on so forth. Illinois is a state in paralysis, and they are more concerned with oddball crap like this among a myriad of other useless legislation. No use crying about it, because these crooks get everything they want.
edit on 6-1-2013 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
oh go buy some shotguns and sleep with them if it will make you feel better

if you think you need a bushmaster with a high capacity clip to survive wehatever paranoid fantasy you have, you need help



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Bill Summary & Status
113th Congress (2013 - 2014)
H.R.34


Bobby Rush is a convicted felon, how did he get elected?

edit on 6/1/13 by JAK because: Link format



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 




Living documents are susceptible to change, and if the Legislative branch wants to change it, the Supreme Court has a say, as does the President/Governor. The Constitution was written for land-owning white men. That population no longer reflects the average American, and is a shrinking minority.

Well that may be the case but take the legal way to change the constitution as it was done before... throught constitutional amendment and that's it.

I'm not saying you can't change it, I'm saying use the legal way to do it otherwise, move to another country or go to prison for treason.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
www.factcheck.org...

OH! you can hold office but you can't
work at McDonald's,
fricken awesome.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by lolita64
 


LOL, fair enough.


Should I choose the party isle of Ibiza, or perhaps a vineyard in Chile? Maybe both....


EDIT: Oh, and you're welcome to visit, just leave the firearms safely locked up at home.

edit on 6-1-2013 by DaTroof because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

One side will want freedom, the other side will embrace cowardice and hide behind the coat-tails of the government.



Hiding behind a big gun can be seen as cowardice too.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 

Mother shoots home intruder five times in face and neck after he cornered her in attic with her twins, 9

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...



We only have guns for hunting, and in all my years I have never met a person that hides behind a gun.
Not that they don't exist, but I don't know any.

edit on 103131p://bSunday2013 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer

One side will want freedom, the other side will embrace cowardice and hide behind the coat-tails of the government.



Hiding behind a big gun can be seen as cowardice too.


I suppose.

Some may choose to have the oppourtunity to hide behind their own weapon.

or

Some may choose to hide behind the security and safety of government's arsenal after weapons have been banned.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 




Hiding behind a big gun can be seen as cowardice too.

Who might the coward be?

When the person that wishes the rest of the population to be disarmed... relies on the jack-booted thugs of the government to do the disarming of those people?

Those thugs will still be carrying the same 'assault weapons' that some want to have disappear. In reality, they will carrying actual assault weapons, because they will be carrying weapons that have selective fire capability.

Stop being a coward. Push a gun ban that will have you unarmed sheep collecting the weapons. Or can't you see the folly in asking the population to give up their guns, in order to remain law-abiding?





new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join