Colorado Was First to Legalize Weed, Now They Might Add This Extremely Controversial Gun Law to the Books

February 25th, 2015 | by Guest
Colorado Was First to Legalize Weed, Now They Might Add This Extremely Controversial Gun Law to the Books
2nd Amendment
371

Screen Shot 2015-02-25 at 10.14.17 AMWhen you think of Colorado, there’s a good chance you think of two things: the Rocky Mountains and marijuana.

You might also remember they now have some of the more restrictive gun laws in the nation. But that might change here pretty soon…

In an email to supporters Gun Owners of America writes:

Good news!

A “constitutional carry” bill (SB 15-032) that would allow all law-abiding citizens in the state to carry concealed — without having to submit to any obnoxious background checks or waiting periods — has passed out of the Senate!

The bill now goes to the House.

The concept of “constitutional carry” is simple: An individual’s ability to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights shouldn’t depend on a “permit” from the government.

You don’t need a government license to write a book. So why should you have to get the government’s okay in order to carry a firearm to protect yourself and your family?

Currently, Americans in Vermont, Alaska, Wyoming, Arizona, Arkansas, and most of Montana can carry a firearm without a government license. Lest anyone fail to notice, these are not exactly high-crime areas as a result of their diligence for the constitutional rights of their citizens. In fact, these are some of the safest places in America.

Senate Bill 15-032 would add Colorado to that illustrious list of Constitution-loving states.

Make no mistake about it. Under SB 15-032, if a criminal carried a gun in connection with a crime, he has committed a crime and is going to prison.

But that’s just the point: If law enforcement is allowed to focus on the “bad guys,” rather than the enforcement of silly counter-productive, unconstitutional nitpicking, crime will go down.

Crime will also go down if criminals have to consider the possibility that their victims could be armed and could shoot back. It’s no surprise that the “dog that didn’t bark” — the mass murders that were planned but never occurred — happened in places like the Appalachian School of Law or Pearl High School in Mississippi. In these places, citizens with guns stopped horrific crimes.

Colorado could soon join the list of states where people are allowed to exercise their constitutional rights to protect themselves without asking “May I?” from the government

You can be sure when the writers of the bill of rights sat down to write the second amendment they weren’t thinking about writing it so years later a bunch of red tape would keep guns out of people’s hands.

But that’s what’s happened.

Liberal law makers have taken the constitution and tortured it. In the process they’ve taken something that was crystal clear and turned it into dirt.

It’s inspiring to see states like Colorado take issue with the federal government’s statutes on concealed carry.

With an influx of criminals moving into the state because of legal marijuana, they need more protection. And if the state doesn’t provide it to them by nullifying federal law, it could spell serious trouble.

Do you think this bill has a chance of passing? Let us know in the comments below.

  • b4k9zp

    Such laws should be the law nationwide. The second amendment clearly prohibits any requirements for government “permission” to exercise the right to carry the same weapons that are in common use by the military and police of the time, and always has. No right can be a right if “government” first has to “give permission” to exercise that right.

    And having to pay a fine, penalty or tax for the ability to exercise any right was prohibited by the ratification of the twenty fourth amendment in 1964.

    • rcdwltd

      While I agree there should be a nationwide law to prohibit forcing honest, non-criminals to obtain or pay for a permit to carry a weapon, the 24th amendment dealt, as far as I can tell, with the right to vote of all citizens without a poll tax! Growing up in Texas, I can remember people having to pay a poll tax in order to vote. I do support the requirement that all voters provide ID/proof of citizenship in order to vote! I am tired of illegals voting in our elections and those who vote multiple times. One woman in Mississippi was finally convicted and sentenced for illegal voting and more need to go to jail for the practice!

      • b4k9zp

        Agree with you. The “Poll Tax” requirement was required of all persons who wanted to vote, and it was not a large tax (IIRC, my mom and dad paid about $1.50 each for the poll tax in the 1960 election here in Texas), but it became illegal when the 24th amendment was ratified in 1964. Payment of any similar tax, fine or penalty for exercising any constitutionally protected birthright or civil right is equally unconstitutional as having to pay a poll tax in order to vote.

        Funny thing about the Constitution and the “right to vote”. It never specifically says there is any right to vote. The fifteenth amendment says only that the states cannot prohibit anyone from voting because of their race, color or previous condition of servitude. The nineteenth amendment says only that the states cannot prohibit anyone from voting because of their sex. The twenty-fourth amendment says only that the states cannot prohibit anyone from voting if they have not paid a poll tax. And the twenty sixth amendment says only that the states cannot prohibit anyone who is eighteen years of age or older from voting. The states can set standards for who can vote, and most (not all) have said that only citizens of the USA can vote in any US election, and only if they are eighteen years old or older at the time of the election, and are a legal resident of the state, county and voting precinct in which they plan to vote for at least half of each year. They also have the power to require that a person be able to prove that he or she meets the requirements for being able to vote, whether by a photographic identification method or other method.

        • WishIWuzACropDuster

          How do they get by with not allowing felons to vote, if no one can be denied the right based on previous conditions of servitude?

          • b4k9zp

            Methinks that conviction for a felony offense strips a person of all civil rights because of their action in committing the felony offense.

            IIRC, in some states, (but not all), a convicted felon can petition the governor of the state for restoration of some of his civil rights when he has completed the full term of his original sentence on good behavior. But even in those states, the right to keep and bear arms is often not restored.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            Do me a favor, b4…show me in the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS where it says any criminal conviction strips you of your rights…not what was added many years later, but the original documents as penned by our founding fathers.

          • crab apples

            2nd Amendment is the GUIDE for STATUTE as decided by Congress MORON. Do you know what Constitutional Law might be MORON boy? What is your point?

            WELL regulated militia is stated quite plainly , but is NOW totally ignored by SCOTUS in favor of gun manufacturer endorsed payoffs to say that JUST the second Clause of the 2nd Am is important. Huuuhhh?

            So that is how politics works these dayaszzzz MORON TEA TARDS boy? Wow, I never could have figured that one out on my own . Got about 9th grade education Texas MORON boy? Or did you make it into high school and then go into the military IDIOT? You are stereotypically GUN TARD And TEA Time and you have NO reason to live asshole, eh?

            Do you want to the MMPI personality disorder test and I will bet that you will FAIL. The mental illness disqualifies you from having any firearms. Do you want to take me up on that bet pal? It will just cost you about $1,000 to see if you are sane or INSANE which is more likely idiot MORON boy. Got education pal? Or just retreaded military intell that circulates as FACT, even though it’s fictional and paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy jazz like what TEA drums up for National CRISES, like immigration , or BORDER security against ISIL that international DEMON threat. They will soon be streaming right across the Rio Grande River in all of their stolen Bradlee APD Humvees with the Soviet rockjet launchers mounted to target Texas “unregulated militia sorts” of MORONs out hunting for illegals, eh man? Sure pal, just keep to yourself , hate the government and trust no ONE else but like minded GUN Tards just like your TARDED IQ 85 self pal….Good plan buddy boy.

            GOT GUNS pal? GOT enough? Probably not and you will never have enough, will you psycho boy? MORON. . . . . . .

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            First Crab Apples, I made a valid point. Second, I did not call anyone a name or act disrespectfully, You, on the other hand have acted like a total horse’s rear. People like you and your hateful, smart-alek ilk are the disease that plagues this country. The only one you make look like a MORON is yourself. Thanks for saving me the effort. 🙂

          • James Richard Holt

            I for one graduated from high school in Texas class of 1969. I then attended college (student Union major) and flunked out. Dodged the draft by enlisting in the Air Force (one of my better moves) served for four years as a medic specialized in Optometry and Ophthalmology (at the time that was a brand new career field and I was in the first class of twelve) Graduated third in my class .06% of a point behind the fellow who graduated 1st in the class. I was always proud of that accomplishment survived a hell of a lot of calculus and geometric optics and that sort of thing. Our instructors were Doctors one an optometrist who held both an OD and PhD in physics and one who was an MD PhD board certified as an Ophthalmologist. Dummies could not have survived that course. You seem to denigrate those who served in the military but you cannot get into the military without a high school diploma nowadays a GED will not cut the mustard. Most enlisted personnel in the Air Force have 60 credit hours of college work now before enlisting. I was only member of my class in Optometry Ophthalmology back in 1971 who did not have at least 60 credit hours and two of our class members held Masters Degrees and other was within a few hours of having his Masters Degree. While on duty I personally knew of two enlisted men in the environmental health department in the medical squadron who held PhD. One in microbiology and the other in Environmental Engineering. Both were tech sergeants one retired as a Chief Master Sargent and took a Civil Service position in the Department of Energy as a Senior Scientist GS 15. The poor guy who was their department commanding officer held a BA English Literature. He had not the foggiest idea of what they were doing 98% of the time. One the fellow with the PhD in microbiology was also a professor on his off duty hours when he was stationed at Kelly AFB in San Antonio which by the way is in TX. After completing my tour of duty in the Air Force I returned to College and received my degree in Chemistry. I hold a number Engineering Certificates and all that from a schlub who graduated from High School in Texas and then after flunking out of college enlisted to serve my country in the Air Force thank you. I am now a Certified Peer Support Specialist. I work with among others patients who are recovering from severe mental health issues and you are incorrect quite a number of my client/patients do hold and bare fire Arms legally. I have clinical depression and own several myself. Maybe you need to back off a little and drop the personal attacks and while you are at it get your “facts” straightened out.

          • Jacky

            Stated quite plainly liberal dem bloodsucker, .
            The militia did not furnish weapons dweeb, if you joined the militia you were required to report with a weapon and enough powder and ball for 3 days fighting as well as 3 days food and a blanket roll.
            Please take your ignorant nasty little face on down the road.

          • b4k9zp

            Typical nonsense from old crabbie, who prerfers, and is obviously only capable of calling others names like “”moron”, “tea tards”, “idiot”, “gun tard”, “a$$hole”, “insane”, “paranoid”, “schizophrenic”, “tarded” “IQ85”, “psycho”, and so on. All of which continue to prove, always, that nothing crabby has to say has any validity, or any conceivable form of factual evidence, logic, reasoning ability or thinking ability in support of his idiotic, fear-induced, hate-filled, irrational, hoplophobic, anti-gun and pro-slavery opinions.

            Since the founding fathers, ignorant one, said that the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is the important clause, and not subordinated to the “a well regulated militia” clause, because the words “well regulated” don’t mean that government can restrict a right that “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

            There is nothing in the Second Amendment that requires any “mental instability testing, despite your lies, and any such requirement is an infringement on the unalienable, constitutionally protected birthright and civil right of all citizens to possess and carry the same weapons that are in common use by the “standing army” (police and military) of the time.

            Since you lie about “gun manufacters” making payoffs either to legislators or the Supreme Court, your comments are slanderous and libelous.

            It’s quite doubtful, crabbie, that you have even a first grade eduction, for your preference for calling others names and lying shows that your intellect is on a par with a very slow two year old.

          • kem63

            Are you sure you want to know??
            “show me in the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS where it says any criminal conviction strips you of your rights.”

            All of your Constitutional rights can be taken away. This is made possible by the FIFTH AMENDMENT The part about nobody can be deprived of life, liberty or property without DUE PROCESS.
            That is where it says any criminal conviction can strip you of your rights..

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            5th Amendment. The same one that protects against compelled self-incrimination. To me that says a man cannot have his property (land, money etc.), or his freedom taken (incarceration) without due process of law. Now I repeat. Show me in the constitution where gun ownership is specifically itemized as a RIGHT to be forfeited upon conviction of a crime.

          • kem63

            “To me that says a man cannot have his property (land, money etc.), or his freedom taken (incarceration) without due process of law” VERY Close

            “Life” No death sentence without due process of law.

            “liberty” is your freedoms you can’t lose your right to vote, to bare arms, the right to protect yourself, freedom from physical restraint (incarceration). without due process of law.

            “Property” land, money, cars, Guns. you can not lose these without due process of law., and a warrant 🙂

            You need to go to court be found guilty before losing any of them.

            “Show me in the constitution where gun ownership is specifically itemized as a RIGHT to be forfeited upon conviction of a crime.”
            That is the fifth amendment. “property and liberty”

            Sorry but those three words life, liberty, & property
            the Constitution covered it all in in just those 3 words..

            and I do mean everything.

            If the founders listed every single thing just in their time frame the constitution would be Way to long for anyone to even bother reading it, much less follow it.

          • b4k9zp

            Do you even know what “due process of law” entails? Doesn’t sound like it. Due process does not empower courts to take “rights”, because “rights” by definition cannot be granted or taken from a person by any government, or by any scrap of paper. If a government can take something from a citizen, then what that person has is a privilege or an immunity (as when a state law states something is an “affirmative defense” to prosecution under state law). Driver’s licenses are privileges, and so are licenses to practice law, medicine (whether for human beings or veterinary medicine) or any engineering discipline. They usually involve paying a fee that is stated by law. And being stripped of that license requires indictment by a grand jury, and trial in court with a judge and jury subject to the provisions of the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh amendments.

            Courts don’t have “rights” despite your lies, kem. Federal courts have only those powers that “WE THE PEOPLE” delegate to them through the Constitution. State courts and local courts have only the powers that “WE THE PEOPLE” delegate to them through the state constitutions and city, county charters under the authority of the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution. The jurisdiction of any court can be changed by the legislative branch.

          • kem63

            Again you, and others who take the same position, are largely dodging the issue of Punishment.

            “Courts don’t have “rights” despite your lies”
            Oh so I’m a liar because I’m stating layman’s terms and I’m not going into details on legal legalities. OK

            I can go into legal legalities but most people don’t understand technical legal legalities.
            And people that gets convicted of a crime don’t see legalities, They face the COURTS who is granted the ability to take rights away according to LAWS the courts MUST follow.
            If you do not understand that then you’re an idiot and even layman’s terms couldn’t help you. I hope you’re not an idiot.

            “If a government can take something from a citizen, then what that person has is a privilege or an immunity”
            LOL That explains the courts that convected criminals in prison to keep their RIGHT to bear arms and go on a shooting spree in prison (Sarcasm)
            OH wait are you saying the RIGHT to bear arms is a privilege or an immunity?? LOL
            Again you’re largely dodging the issue of Punishment.

            So far NO ONE has given a reason why they Think voting is a privilege without it contradicting against the Right to bear arms.

          • b4k9zp

            Privileges are things that can be taken from a person. NO RIGHT CAN BE TAKEN FROM ANYONE.

            And no fee or background check can be required for anyone who wishes to exercise any right.

          • kem63

            “Driver’s licenses are privileges,and so are licenses to practice law, medicine (whether for human beings or veterinary medicine) or any engineering discipline.”
            ALL of which takes passing some sort of test/s to gain those privileges:)
            Do you need to take a test before filling out your voters card or to own a gun? NOOOO.

            Sorry your example was a really poor example.

            And being stripped of that license requires indictment
            by a grand jury, and trial in court with a judge and jury subject to the provisions of the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh amendments.”
            FINALLY you get it..I believe that is what I have been saying in layman’s terms.
            Being stripped of a persons Rights or privileges requires indictment by a court of law.
            COURT does mean with a judge and jury Seriously where the heck else could a Trial be but in a Court of law. Who would be in a COURT? a judge and jury. That’s all common sense. Well at least I thought it was LOL

          • b4k9zp

            I’m agreeing with you, cropduster. Nothing in the constitution or bill of rights states that any of the rights, privileges or immunities of a citizen are subject to the person’s “good behavior”.

          • James Richard Holt

            No you are wrong convicted felons still retain their constitutional rights albeit somewhat modified during their incarceration. Once they have served their time or are paroled their civil rights are exactly the same as those of anyone else. The right to keep and bare arms has been forever barred by their felony conviction. There are some states that allow former convicts to petition for their voting privileges and some classes of felons can also petition for the right to keep and bare arms too I suppose but I don’t know that for a fact.

          • b4k9zp

            The word in the Second Amendment is “bear” arms, which means “to carry about on one’s person”. “Bare arms” means that the arms are not clothed.

            A governor’s pardon or a president’s pardon of any criminal restores their civil rights completely, for it “vacates” and negates the conviction that made them lose their rights. A judicial decision declaring the law under which the person was convicted unconstitutional also destroys any felony sentence.

            Why should the right to keep and bear arms be denied the person forever for a felony conviction? IIRC, here in texas, if you are convicted on a felony charge, and sentenced to, say 10 years in prison, once you complete your ten year sentence, you can still have any guns that you owned before you were convicted, and that is the way it should be.

            The 2nd amendment does not say that one’s right to keep and bear arms is subject to one’s good behavior (whatever that is). It says that the right exists, and that no government can take it away except by due process, and that only for the period of any sentence. except for capital offenses, which deprive the person of life after conviction and execution of the sentence.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            There’s a problem with some sentences. Some sentences draw supervision for LIFE following the FULL TERM OF IMPRISONMENT. That sounds like two sentences for the same crime…a violation of double jeopardy if you ask me. Either you put someone on lifetime parole and it stops there or you sentence them to X number of years in prison and it stops there. There shouldn’t be both.

          • James Richard Holt

            Voting is a privilege. Felons have had their privilege taken away from them. There for voting is not a right.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster
        • dragon6actual

          True, but in practice one doesn’t even have to be LIVING in order to cast a vote. Or multiple votes (Cook County IL comes to mind).

          • b4k9zp

            LOL. Yeah, Duval County Texas also comes to mind. Lyndon Baines Johnson won his first election by 87 votes. Strangely, that was the exact number of votes for him cast by people whose names were found in a local cemetery in Duval County.

        • crab apples

          I KNEW you had to be a TEXAS dimwit pal. Thanks for the confirmation MORON. Did you get past the 6th grade in those really rigorous Texas schoolboy schools. Ot were you “Johnnie Football” of Friday night LIGHTS fame asshole? A ticket to RIDE, but it seems Johnnie boy has some mental illness “behavioral PROBLEMS” that he has to deal with, eh MORON boy?

          It just doesn’t get better in Texas EVER? Does it MORMON IQ of 80 boy? Why are you in Utah now? They must have lower IQ requirements for residency than Texas does eh, IMBECILE boy? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,ha,hak, hacak , hacking cough , ha, ah, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha, ah, ha. . . . .

          . . . YOU are so FUCKING STUPID it is just incredible BeezelBUBS can’t use a FACT po save your life ASSHOLE>>>>>>> . . . . . .INSANITY dude and you are from the epicenter of it in TEXAS dude. GUNS and paranoia is ALL that Texas has now.

          OIL business is GONE because the Saudis played their hand and now Texas is out of cards inf the BIG Texas NO LIMIT HOLD’ em game aren’t they MORON? Ha, ha, ha, ha,ha,ha,ha …Neanderthals will go extinct pal and you are destined to go with them MENTAL MIDGET boy. IMBECILE. . . . . You just make all of my assertions stronger with every new word that you write ASSHOLE. Good work BROWNIE, “You’re doin’ a heckuva job BROWNIE” . .

          QUOTES just for you MORN. Learn something NOW or you perish IDIOT of Texas boy.

          “In his first term, President Barack Obama played a cautious manager navigating the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression and cleaning up the messes left by President George W. Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan”. Kevin O’Leary

          “I worked for George Bush. I’m proud to have worked for him. I think that a lot of the most controversial things we did, that people didn’t like and – and criticized us for, things like the terror surveillance program or the enhanced interrogation techniques, were things that allowed us to save lives”. From THE GREAT DEVIL MAN himslef . . . . . Dick Cheney

          ” I’m not comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler – because George Bush, for one thing, is not as smart as Adolf Hitler”. David Clennon

          “President Bush is supporting Arnold but a lot of Republicans are not, because he is actually quite liberal. Karl Rove said if his father wasn’t a Nazi, he wouldn’t have any credibility with conservatives at all” Bill Maher

          Maher on Arnold Schwarzenegger since you won’t understand much of this one , right IQ of 80 BeezelBUBS boy? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ah good laughs at YOUR Expense IDIOT…..

          FROM A FOX noise BOY, the token black folk that FOX used to employ. I haven’t watched FOX noise lately pal. Just the really good clips of the MORONIC things that are said there like ” Ray Rice’s finacee…”she should have takenthe stairs man” . . .FUN TIME comment by the FOX Friends MORONS zzz that you listen to every morning probably , eh ASSHOLE. . . .

          HA,ha, ha, ha,…Good RACIST joke if there ever was one pal. AND it seems that the RACIST e-mail Ferguson PD guys that thought they were comedians have resigned after U.S. Justice Dept kind of lowered the curtain of KKK KLUBBB of Ferguson, The Police Department FOOL. YOU folks just keep getting better day by day ASSHOLE.

          I don’t think the RACIST COPS were liberal DO YOU pal? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ah and that brings up this important research done on Racism and low IQ pal. That which you possess IDIOT boy… Ha, ha, ha, ha,ha,ha. STUPID longer than the day is YOU Beezus J. BUBBLE FUCK boy…….

          http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

          While we are on the subject of corruption, let’s just add in Mitch McConnell vaunted TEA Party figurehead that calls himself a “leader”. That is comical don’t you think MORON boy? Ha, ha, ha, aha,ha,ah,ah,aha, ha aha ha, ha, ha, ah . . . . YOUR kind, destined for extinction , Neanderthal genetic remnants that defied science BUT have now met ultimate evolutionary selection in the Charles Darwin classical sense IDIOT boy.

          http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt/entry/mitch-mcconnell

          • cardmaster1

            Didn’t take your meds today?? The nurses forgot you??

          • crab apples

            Cleverly stated man. See my 3,000 disquis comments and see how many other TARDS have used that really original put down pal….Hmmmm, IQ Of 85 doesn’t really make much difference to you , eh? Just crawl back under the rock where you came from to get sun and warmth reptile boy… Got an issue to discuss or just compliments for me today ASSHOLE?

          • b4k9zp

            You love to prove that you are far less intelligent than anyone with whom you discuss any issue by preferring to do nothing but call them names like “dimwit”, “moron”, “a$$hole”, “imbecile”, “f***ing stupid”, “insane”, “paranoid”, “mental midge”, “racist”, “idiot”, “Stupid”, “neanderthal”, and constant use of obscenities,

            You invalidate every single post you make by constant use of such obscenities and name calling, two year old (and a very slow one at that).

            BTW, WTH is “Kevin O’leary?” Some ignorant person like yourself? Oh, okay. Just looked him up. A canuck who has no stake in the USA and knows nothing about anything, and another hater of freedom and lover of slavery like yourself.

            Your assumption that anyone with whom you disagree is automatically less intelligent than yourself shows only that you aren’t that intelligent, for everyone who responds to you has an IQ higher than yourself.

        • crab apples

          Sorry the Juan Williams quote got lost but is best when you look at how the MOST Incompetent President in U.S. history got elected MR. Constitutional RIGHTS Boy & TOTAL MORON . . . . .

          “In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush, but still lost the election. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Florida gave Bush that pivotal state, and doomed Gore to lose the Electoral College. That odd scenario – where the candidate with the most votes loses – has happened three times in U.S. history”.

          Juan Williams

          Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/search_results.html#5Mv4uop4mQsjaqwd.99

          • glorybe2

            The 2,000 election was an exercise in corruption and the republican party should have been banned and shut down for that act. Keep in mind that Bush’s brother was the governor of Florida when the ballots were lost and altered. In essence the right wing revolted and turned to crime to gain power and them bankrupted the US.

          • crab apples

            Agreed,and just one more reason why Jeb, best qualifications of any TEA TImer cannot be elected President in 2016? Hopefully I am right on this. Keep the Faith and TEA Time will go the way of the dinosaurs soon.

          • b4k9zp

            Jeb Bush would be a far better candidate than any corrupt democrat, and all of them are worse than the incompetent and ineligible obama.

          • b4k9zp

            Wrong again, glorybe. For the only “corruption” in the 2000 election was that of the Democratic party and Al Gore. They tried to re-write florida’s election laws that required a recount of all votes in every precinct statewide if any party asked for a recount. Their DEMOCRATIC PARTY appointed and confirmed Florida State Supreme Court justices voted 7-0 (unanimously) to require a vote ONLY in three precincts that were not so coincidentally heavily democratic) Even after the US Supreme Court ordered the Florida Court, by a 7-2 decision, to require a statewide recount of all ballots, as Florida’s election law required, the Florida State Court justices refused and ordered a recount only in those three heavily democratic party precincts by a 4-3 margin. The case rightly went back to the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court ordered the Florida Secretary of State to certify the vote as it stood after the initial count was tallied in that first week after election day 2000 (November 6, 2000).

            BTW, the three largest newspapers in Florida (all liberally oriented) conducted a STATEWIDE recount of all ballots (including the thousands of absentee ballots from military personnel) in 2001, using rules for determining the validity of any ballot, and for whom valid ballots were cast that heavily favored Al Gore, and Bush’s margin of victory increased from about 350 votes to more than 15,000 votes.

            Quite a lie when you say that “ballots were lost and altered”, for that only occurred in the Democratic party controlled precincts.

            Nothing you claim about the 2000 election has any validity.

          • James Richard Holt

            If you don’t like the current constitutional process of indirectly electing our presidents you can try to change the process by amending the Constitution. You are welcome to try but before you do that think about how doing so would negatively impact on the populations of small states. The loss of that small amount of leverage would mean the candidates would simply ignore the smaller in population districts even more than they do now. Why do you think states like West Virginia for instance (where I live by the way) get any attention at all from the candidates? Its because we are Electoral College filler. We have only five votes but in close elections we become swing states and our five measly votes become crucial it they can be grabbed off with a little attention. Eliminate the Electoral College and the big population states grab off disproportionately far more power than they have under the current system.

          • b4k9zp

            Typical of your hate speech and personal attacks, preferring to call others “moron” at all times, nothing you state has any validity.

            Obviously you never read anything about the actual case history of the 2000 election.

            The 2000 election came down to the wire. ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and NPR, as well as CNN and HLN had projected that Al Gore had won the 2000 election in Florida as early as about 4 PM Eastern Time on election day. But the polls in the Western part of the state of Florida did not close until 7 pm Central Time (8 PM Eastern Time), and the news media were forced to retract their prediction until after the polls in western Florida actually closed.

            When the polls closed in Western Florida that day, the votes were tallied fairly quickly, and it was announced the day after the election that G.W. Bush, who BTW, was and is the best president of the 21st century, despite your lies, had won Florida’s electoral votes by about 350 votes statewide. Because that was less than 0.5% of the total vote, the state law at the time allowed a challenge and call for recount of all votes throughout the state, and ONLY a recount of all votes throughout the state in every precinct.

            Al Gore’s campaign managers and lawyers sued in state court to require a recount in ONLY THREE (heavily democratic) precincts, instead of statewide as the Florida Election laws required. That deprived the voters who had voted in the Western part of the state their equal protection under the law, for the three precincts in which the Gorre camp wanted to recount the votes were in the eastern part of the state. And the seven democratic party appointed and confirmed State Supreme Court justices unanimously (7-0) rewrote the state’s election law and said that such a biased recount could proceed.

            The Bush camp counter-sued under the 14th amendment, the Voting Rights Act law, and other civil rights laws, and the case went to the Supreme Court of the USA. The US Supreme Court voted by a 7-2 count to send the case back to the Florida Court and told that lower court in no uncertain terms that if a recount were to be called under Florida’s election laws, then it HAD to be a state wide recount, not just a recount in three precincts.

            The Florida Supreme Court justices then voted by a 4-3 margin, again requiring a recount ONLY in those same three precincts. The case went back to the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court justices, because the date by which all states had to certify their popular votes for the electoral college was within two days of the time the case came back to the US Supreme Court, voted 5-4 to order the Secretary of State of the State of Florida to validate the vote as it stood on the day after election day, after the votes had been originally counted.

            Had Gore won the popular vote in either Tennessee,his home state (11 electoral votes in 2000), or in Arkansas (Bill Clinton’s home state) (6 electoral votes in 2000) in 2000, he would have had more than 270 electoral votes, and the issue in Florida would have been irrelevant. But Gore had lost in both Tennessee and Arkansas, which made the electoral vote count, without Florida’s 25 electoral votes, 246 votes for Bush and 266 votes for Gore. When Florida’s electoral votes went for George W. Bush, Bush won the election by an electoral college vote of 271-266.

            Again, despite your lies, George W. Bush remains, by far, the best president of the 21st century (Clinton served until January 20, 2001, Bush from January 20, 2001 through January 20, 2009, and the fraudulent, incompetent obama from January 20, 2009 to present, though even the Democratic National Committee has always admitted that they knew obama was ineligible to be either president or vice president. )

        • kem63

          Did you even bother to read The fifteenth amendment section ONE.???

          “Funny thing about the Constitution and the “right to vote”. It never specifically says there is any right to vote.”

          You really should read the bill of rights of the constitution in it’s
          entirety. Because Funny thing about the Constitution it DOES say there is a right to vote.:)

          “AMENDMENT 15 Section 1.
          The RIGHT of CITIZENS of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States”

          The constitution also clarifies in part, what a citizen is. and that is NOT illegal immigrants.

          “AMENDMENT XIV Section 1.
          All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
          the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

          Now if you don’t know what “subject to the jurisdiction” means.
          That means Not owing allegiance to anybody else. Our founders was NOT stupid.

          • glorybe2

            Our founders were not stupid instead of was not stupid would help your reply. And subject to jurisdiction means within our borders or within the borders of a nation willing to deport criminals back into the US for trial. If strictly interpreted that means that in incidents in which we have invaded foreign nations and retrieved people in order to jail them in the US is illegal but I have never heard the law used that way. For example we invaded Panama and arrested their president who was clearly not within US jurisdiction.

          • kem63

            “And subject to jurisdiction means within our borders or within the borders of a nation willing to deport criminals back into the US for trial” OK

            “And subject to the jurisdiction” So they repeated themselves??
            “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the borders of United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” ummm

            I stand corrected. The founders WAS stupid, according to you.

            A law professor believes the founders meant
            “and subject to the jurisdiction” means
            And subject allegiance to the jurisdiction (United States). which sounds more probable then them repeating themselves.

            And “within the borders of a nation willing to deport criminals back into the US for trial”
            Are citizens of the United States. Really?? LOL OK

            So you’re saying bordering authorities like Canada and Mexico that’s willing to deport criminals back into the US for trial is US citizen’s WOW LMAO.

            “Our founders were not stupid instead of was not stupid would help your reply”. Compared to you. I’m thankful of my mistakes LOL

          • Rick01234

            Your right about the arrest of Panama’s dictator Manuel Noreiaga (sp?), but the excuse for doing so was his cocaine trafficking, but the real reason was he had too much Dirt on the Bush family, and they simply had to shut him up as fast as possible.

          • b4k9zp

            Making stuff up again? Noriega was a criminal, pure and simple.

          • Rick01234

            If you had a better education on the Bush Family Dynasty, you might get a better understanding of the history of how this family became so powerful.

            You could get an online copy of a book that traces the family history of the beginnings of how the Bush family got started up politically and financially.

            Look up this title: The unauthorized biography of George Herbert Bush.

            In it you will find the history of a man who was named Prescott Bush, and how he was caught up in a Bank that who literally was aiding the Germans during the era prior to the break out of the Germans going into the full blown out break of world war 2, by the time this bank was shut down nation wide, the damage was already done. Then there is the matter of Saddam Hussein and our support of him for MANY years in Iraq. Bush1 had even been photographed shaking hands with Saddam, and so did Donald Rumsfeld. Then there is a media story some where on the web that showed the George Herbert Walker Bush, aka Bush 1, who was at a period in his life was the head of the CIA, and that pointed out that Noriega was a high level friend of the USA, this Bush/Noriega connection has serious roots over the years and the CIA connection for Cocaine trafficking was just really getting going strong with the crack cocaine epidemic broke out. You really didn’t bring much to the table here, so I advise you read an online copy of the book written by Kitty Kelly who wrote up that book I mentioned, and then tell me why this book was tried to be suppressed from being published in the first place? And then once you have read it you can come back a better view of the real history of the Bush Family.

            Then you’ll have a better understanding of how Noriega became such a criminal to begin with, and this book will tie up some lose ends for you on how this all fits together.

          • b4k9zp

            I know all I need to know about the Bush Family, none of whom were or are criminals, despite your lies. The only criminals are those who buy or indulge in harmful drugs like pot, cocaine, heroin and opium.

            Both G.W. Bush and his father made their millions in the oil business, which is quite common. So did people like the guy who brought in the first gusher in the Beaumont Texas area–the Spindletop #1. Nothing illegal about it at all.

            “Unauthorized Biography” says it all. A pack of lies made up by someone who like you has an unreasoning hatred for good people whom you despise politically.

            Noriega was a criminal who became premier of the Republic of Panama, without the help of anyone exiept possibly Fidel Castro.

            Kitty Kelly? Really? Another liar like yourself?

          • glorybe2

            The problem is that he was not committing crimes within US jurisdiction.

          • glorybe2

            Are you suggesting that because something is a crime in the US we can reach across the world and arrest people who obey the laws of their nation? We have an issue today with individuals being accused of spying who only acted outside the US borders. If sitting in Florida I manage to somehow “spy” on France should I be subjected to the laws of France? Maybe I conspire with others who actually go to France and spy. But I do not spy myself. Am I a criminal?

          • b4k9zp

            Noriega was not even obeying the laws of his own nation, ignorant one.

          • glorybe2

            Well dead head just what concern is it for the US if a Panamanian breaks the law in Panama? The US is properly concerned when someone breaks a law within the US and not anywhere else.

          • b4k9zp

            When Noriega’s crimes included killing Americans by drug overdoses, it became the responsibility of the US.

          • James Richard Holt

            Voting is not a right its privilege. Rights can not be taken away but privileges can be taken away. Voting is only one way to voice ones opinion in fact its only the final way of expressing ones opinion. By far the largest most powerful way to voice ones opinion is to speak out boldly loudly clearly speak out say what is on your mind say it with a sense of sensitive propriety but say what is on your mind. Write what you want to say and try to get it published. Drag out your soap box and practiced your elocution in the park like they do in London exercise your right to freedom of speech but don’t confuse free speech with voting as a right because voting isn’t a right despite acts by congress named the voting right act their poor use diction only confuses people. But then that’s what politicians do a lot of confuse the electorate and make us resort to voting for labels even when the labels don’t mean all that much anymore.

          • kem63

            Really.. In the constitution where does it state voting is a privilege???”
            It states in the constitution AMENDMENT 15 Section 1.
            The RIGHT of CITIZENS of the United States to vote

          • b4k9zp

            Voting is a privilege that can be taken away from a citizen, as you
            yourself admit when you state that a convicted felon cannot vote. So
            you just painted yourself into a corner, kem.

          • kem63

            LMFAO You just painted yourself into a corner, b4k9zp by saying things I NEVER once admitted too.

            you say “Voting is a privilege that can be taken away from a citizen, as you yourself admit when you state that a convicted felon cannot vote.”

            The MAGIC words are “convicted felon”
            The Right to vote can ONLY be taken away IF convected of a felony crime by a court of law. the same as the Right to bear arms.
            The same thing happens with a privilege.A privilege can ONLY be taken away in a court of law.

          • b4k9zp

            Obviously you haven’t the ability to understand logic or reasoning. For if a convicted felon (or,now a person convicted for ANY crime for which the penalty is 12 months or more in jail) can be denied a right, then that right is not a right but a privilege. that includes the so called “right” to vote.

            The requirement for re-testing by the state authority that issues driver’s licenses if you don’t pass a driving test is in accordance with due process of law, yes. But that still means that a driver’s license is a privilege, not a right.

            What is a conviction for a crime but the whim of “government”?

          • glorybe2

            You may feel that your rights exist as granted by God or nature but God nor nature can define or support or balance those rights. The government defines, protects and balances those rights and they are the only force involved. Essentially your rights are what the government says they are.

          • b4k9zp

            I keep telling you, governments don’t create rights. No human agency can create rights. We are BORN with our rights and governments were created among men for one of two purposes–to protect those rights or to crush them and enslave the people.

            Our Constitutional Republic was created to protect the rights with which we are born, but it has fallen a long, long, long way from that ideal. The first erosion of the people’s rights was in the totally unconstitutional undeclared War Between the States which the tyrant Abraham Lincoln started in April 1861 by sending US warships into Charleston harbor to reinforce the garrison of Fort Sumter, which the garrison’s commander had agreed to surrender to General Beauregard of the South Carolina Militia. In so doing, Lincoln violated the principle outlined in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just principles from the consent of those they govern.

            You should read and try to understand the Declaration of Independence sometime. You might learn something. Our rights exist no matter what government says. If government gets involved, rights become privileges, which are generally denied to individuals who don’t pay enough of a bribe to a government official.

          • glorybe2

            b4k9zip has never minded being an idiot before and it probably won’t bother him now. He needs a few years in a decent college after being taught how to read.

          • glorybe2

            That privilege notion is malformed. For example there are areas in which it is illegal to walk or bicycle from a community as the community empties on to a highway. There may also be no bus or taxi service into those communities at all. In essence it is drive or die. One might try to walk through the undeveloped woods and swamps but that is trespass. So if an individual lives in such a place can he really be ordered not to drive? You will see such isolated properties along I-95 in Florida. There really are times when the law needs to bend to fit the actual situation.

          • b4k9zp

            Au Contraire, the states cannot deprive any citizen of their ability to vote because of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

            But states can decide WHO is eligible to vote, and require them to be able to prove that they are eligible to vote.

          • kem63

            The constitution was created for the people’s rights so the government
            would not be able to take over. the constitution is a set of Laws for the government NOT us. We are a republic. Therefore, the
            people rule. If voting was a privilege today then we would still be
            fighting for civil rights now wouldn’t we

            “But states can decide WHO is eligible to vote, and require them to be able to prove that they are eligible to vote.”
            So if I’m wrong the Eligibility to vote is What????
            What make voting a privilege???

            So far The RIGHT of CITIZENS of the United States to Vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United State
            because of age, race, color, sex, failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. and previous condition of servitude.

            Humm What does that leave?????? If you’re a felon and if you’re not a citizen.
            But you, and others who take
            the same position, are largely dodging the issue of Punishment.
            If convected by the court as a felon you lose your rights. If you can’t prove you’re a citizen you do not have that right.

          • b4k9zp

            Where does it say that being a “felon” automatically deprives one of any rights? None of the Bill of Rights Amendments say that any of the rights they protect are dependent on the “good behavior” of the person.

            Voting is a privilege that can be taken away from a citizen, as you yourself admit when you state that a convicted felon cannot vote. So you just painted yourself into a corner, kem.

            Once one has served his entire sentence for any crime, he should have all civil rights restored to him., assuming he has not committed any new crimes while serving the sentence for a previous crime.

          • kem63

            “Where does it say that being a “felon” automatically deprives one of any rights?”
            AGAIN It doesn’t say it. The 5th amendment gives the courts the ability to take felons and ANYONE’S rights away if you’re found guilty of a crime…
            “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, WITHOUT due process of law”

            “Voting is a privilege that can be taken away from a citizen, as you yourself admit when you state that a convicted felon cannot vote.”
            No I did NOT say that.
            The RIGHT to vote is the same as The RIGHT to bear arms. Convicted felons can’t bear arms either..The 5th amendment allows the courts to take those rights away.

          • b4k9zp

            The fifth amendment does not allow the courts or anyone else to take any rights away from any person, except for limited periods of time, unless the person is indicted, convicted and sentenced to die for a capital crime, and the death sentence is duly executed upon the criminal.

            The deprivation of rights for any felony criminal conviction which does not result in a death penalty sentence that is finally executed, is only valid for the time the person is sentenced to be incarcerated in the prison system of the USA.

          • glorybe2

            This is a complex issue. First we have prison systems that do not rehabilitate due to social ignorance as well as the high cost of repairing broken people. So we know that people being released are very likely to have criminal intentions. In my area many people are denied housing simply because they have a misdemeanor conviction in their past from way back. And when times are hard employers also refuse anyone with even the slightest conviction. Frankly as human labor is replaced by machines I expect more and more harsh judgments to be applied to anyone who is not socially “perfect”.

          • b4k9zp

            When a person serves his entire sentence, without getting in any further trouble, nothing should prohibit FULL restoration of all his civil rights, including firearms ownership. Of course, if he commits any new crimes while serving time for an original conviction, he should be tried for that crime, and, if convicted, be sentenced to die, since he has proven that he is incapable of abiding by the rules established by the society iin which he lives.

          • glorybe2

            One reason for the constitution is to protect the government from the will of the people. It is a two way street.

          • kem63

            “One reason for the constitution is to protect the government from the will of the people”
            OK so what can the people do to hurt the government??

          • glorybe2

            Without that protection the constitution would fail as the people could simply pass laws by pressuring congress to pass laws that in effect destroyed the constitution. That is why the Supreme Court strikes down many laws as being unconstitutional. Keep in mind that one law by itself might not undermine the constitution but the combined effect of laws passed separately can in effect destroy it. For example if we define black people as non human and as property we can then deny them all liberties. This actually happened in US history. Women were also denied basic human rights under the guise of being mentally incapable of things like voting and owning property.

          • b4k9zp

            How does the constitution protect the government from the will of the people? Such a comment makes no sense whatever, for the government HAS to be responsive to the will of the people at all times, or it becomes a tyranny. Getting any act of congress through congress and validated by a president requires far more than just fiat rule by the government.

          • glorybe2

            The constitution is a contract between the people and the government. In order to insure the freedom to live and have certain rights the public agrees that the government is the authority in their lives and that the government must continue to govern. Accordingly the government has an inherent responsibility of taking actions to insure that it continues to govern. Your money, your property and your life all depend upon the existence of your government. Certain actions such as using illegal drugs actually do threaten the existence of government as you can end up with so many useless citizens that the economy collapses carrying that dead weight. Think about it. Even your marriage is dependent upon government. The government licensed your wedding and is the only authority that can break your union.

          • b4k9zp

            Governments exist at the will of the people. No government that does not have the support of the people will last for long, for someone will come along and overthrow it if they oppress the people for too long.

            We have the right to life, liberty and property, and every other right no matter what “government” and YOU slavery lovers say. Nothing you state has any validity, as usual, because of your support of slavery.

          • glorybe2

            First being in prison is not a matter of punishment. The public assumes that it is but it is not. No state has a “Department of Punishment”. What we do have is a Department of Corrections”. And punishment simply does not correct people. Education, medical and mental health care and job training and recreational activity can turn a person into a normal citizen. When a person is released and off of probation or parole the process of correction has been completed. It is the negligence of an ignorant society that allows our jails and prisons to be as they are. The consequences include wasted money, wasted lives and the release of angry inmates more certain to commit crimes than ever before.

          • glorybe2

            American Samoa makes every person born in Samoa an American citizen. But they are not allowed to vote. They need no passports to enter the continental US but they still can not vote. some have served 30 years in the US military but they still can not vote. Puerto Rico is similar in situation.

          • glorybe2

            Not exactly! The deep south required some absurd literacy tests while making it illegal to teach a black person to read or write. That ended in Mississippi in 1938 but the literacy tests continued and could be made impossible to pass.

          • b4k9zp

            read what I stated. The states have the power under the Constitution to require that any citizen desiring to vote for public officials has to meet minimum qualifications. First is that they must be a citizen of the US, either by birth or by naturalization, and be able to prove it. Second is that they must be able to prove that they are at least eighteen years of age. And third, they must be able to prove that they actually are a legal resident of the voting precinct, county and state (by living at that location for at least 6 months in any year) in which they want to vote on any local, county or state elections and that they are eligible to vote in federal elections.

            For example, Texas’ voter ID law requires that a person have a valid form of photographic identification when they vote. That “photo ID” can be a state driver’s license, or state issued photo ID card issued for other purposes, a state issued concealed handgun license, or a US Passport with current photograph and current residence address in the state, county and precinct, or a veteran’s card which has the same information, and an identifiable photograph of the person. Any person who doesn’t already have such an ID card can get one free of charge by applying at the local department of public safety office nearest their home. All they have to do is supply the same documentation that they would have to supply to the county registrar when registering to vote–a birth certificate (which one has to have for many purposes other than voting, like getting a job, and so forth) and proof of residence within the county and precinct in the state (utility bill with street address).

            from VoteTexas dot org:

            n 2011, the Texas Legislature passed Senate
            Bill 14 (SB 14) creating a new requirement for voters to show photo identification when voting in person. While pending review within the judicial system, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively ended all pending litigation. As a result, voters are now required to present an approved form of photo identification in order to vote in all Texas Elections.

            This requirement is effective immediately.

            Here is a list of the acceptable forms of photo ID:
            Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
            Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
            Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
            Texas concealed handgun license issued by DPS
            United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
            United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
            United States passport containing the person’s photograph and local residence address

          • glorybe2

            The states have a very limited power to qualify voters. For example a state may not decide that women or people of color can not vote nor can they apply a literacy test or require voters to be land owners. As in all other things federal laws always trump local laws, rules and regulations. Whether a state could demand a greater age to be allowed to vote I do not know. Nor do i know for certain that a state could allow 14 year olds to vote but reason tells me that the Supreme Court would over rule it simply because a balance of power could be tilted by allowing every state to pic an age to vote different from other states. Real world example of such issues would include me having a valid drivers license at the age of 14 which in fact I did. Other states were less liberal at that time. I have no clue whether other states would have honored my drivers license back then. On motorcycles it was good day or night. In cars it was good days but at night required a person over 21 to be with me while driving.

          • b4k9zp

            You refuse to learn, don’t you? The states can state minimum qualifications for the ability to vote. And they can require that any potential voter must prove that they are eligible to vote in the precinct, county and state in which they vote.

            BTW, I got my first operator’s permit when I was not yet 15. Could drive a car in Texas without a person over the age of 21 in the front seat.

            The Supreme Court has already stated that Voter ID laws like those of the State of Texas are constitutional, and Texas can require a photographic identification of any person wanting to vote. We had to do that in the 2014 election.

          • glorybe2

            It is obvious that you are a troll and do not even read or understand posts.

          • b4k9zp

            Obviously, you are the only person who is incapable of reading or understanding the English language.

          • glorybe2

            Take look at who has been denied the right to vote in the past. Obviously numerous Supreme courts disagree with you. :::: Women! People who do not own land! those considered educationally deprived! The mentally retarded! Patients held in mental hospitals! prisoners! those who can not pass a trumped up literacy test. Any race other than white! American citizens residing in Samoa this very day! Those who can not afford a stiff poll tax! Now seeing that these numerous classes of people have been forbidden from voting and some still are forbidden what has changed in the constitution that would disallow some new class of citizens from being banned from voting? Right now we have people already altered with brain implants that keep them from having convulsions or help maintain moods or enable them to restore vision or hearing. Soon we will have brain implants that allow far more abilities within the human mind. Will some group insist that these folks are no longer human and therefore can not vote. My aortic valve is from a cow and both of my knees are completely synthetic. Soon my hips will also be mechanical. Can bionic people maintain the right to vote?

          • b4k9zp

            You love to make up straw men and false flags, don’t you? The 19th amendment states that the states cannot deny persons the ability to vote because of their sex. So that issue is closed.

            Perhaps land ownership should be a requirement for voting on some things, like whether property taxes on the land are to be raised to finance some pipe dream of some so-called “educator”, or to pay for luxurious football stadiums, basketball arenas, and/or baseball stadiums for public schools.

            The ideal for the voter in the 18th and 19th century was that they voter would be educated enough to know what the issues in any election were, and understand what arguments each candidate for a public office had for addressing those issues. Perhaps there should still be such a requirement, for allowing illegal aliens to vote and those who only want their “freebies” to vote to continue those “freebies” has resulted in an enormous public debt of, officially, over 18 trillion dollars., nearly all of it spent on items that were never authorized by any part of the US Constituition. Your arguments are a case in point.

            “Trumped up literacy test”? You don’t believe that a voter should be able to read and understand what is written or being discussed in public forums, before he or she is allowed tovote. BTW, the poll tax was never very “stiff”. In 1960, it was only about $1.50 per voter.

            What persons are still prohibited from voting? Those under the age of 18? Those who are not citizens of the United States? Those who have not established residency for local voting requirements in the local precinct and county where they want to vote?

          • glorybe2

            You missed the point. We had states in the 1950s that gave an impossible test to black folks and a sane test to white folks. It was like the Inquisition with questions like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The right wing constantly came up with new excuses to stop some people from voting. In the last bush election Florida cops drove people away from some polling places deliberately. In other spots in Florida election officials made certain that standing in line in the sun all day was the only way some people could vote. And currently we have a laundry list of things now called felonies that keep many people from voting. There are concepts such as a felony in the fifth degree which can make it a felony to fall asleep on a beach that can lock people away from voting for life.

          • b4k9zp

            As usual, nothing you state has any validity whatever, for such things don’t happen, and you know it. There is nothing factual to your rant that police drove people away from some polling places, and other non-factual statements about the vote in Florida.

            The left wing , like you, likes to lie about what the right wing does, to justify their constant dependence on multiple voting by individuals in different people, illegally registering non-citizens to vote, and changing the voting machines to record only votes for Democratic party candidates, in order to try to retain power. It’s the only way they can keep getting re-elected.

          • glorybe2

            Since the news all over the nation reported the corruption in the last Bush administrations election you are clearly in denial. The excuse that the election had to be finalized quickly was a thin excuse indeed. Al Gore deserved that election and clearly won the race. Yet Bush’s brother was governor of Florida and all of a sudden every wrong thing in the world happened to the votes in Florida. There is no way we should allow relatives of presidential candidates to govern states and lord over the voting process. That in itself is a corrupt practice. In reality the right to vote in that election was stolen from the entire American public.

          • b4k9zp

            What “corruption”? ROFLMAO! No corruption was ever found, for there was none.

            When the three largest newspapers in Florida counted ALL the votes from the 2000 election in Florida in 2001, as Florida’s election laws required in 2000, even using the most blatantly “pro-Gore” rules for determining whether any ballot was valid and for whom the valid ballots were cast, they found that Bush’s margin of victory increased from the official 350 votes or so to more than 15,000 votes.

            Your hatred of the Bush family, which is called “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, blinds you to the truth.

            Nothing “wrong” happened to the votes in Florida, despite your lies. Except in the heavily democratic precincts, where democrats voted multiple times as they always do for their candidates, no vote fraud occurred.

            The right to vote was not stolen from anyone. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the rule of law, and prevented the theft of the election by the Democratic party. The Democratic Party appointed and confirmed Florida State Supreme Court justices, even after being told in no uncertain terms by the US Supreme Court that if they were to order a recount of the votes in Florida in 2000, then EVERY vote in all the voting precincts in Florida had to be recounted under Florida’s existing election laws, went ahead and ordered a recount of the votes ONLY in three, heavily Democratic, precincts, in complete violation of Florida’s election laws.

          • billybob

            Not only does the Constititution not Grant a right to vote, the Supreme Court has affirmed this as Fact.Where granted by the states, the right to vote cannot be denied due to sex or race, but the states get to decide who can vote and no one votes for President. We vote to tell our electors who to vote for in the Electoral College! And they are not bound by our recommendation unless their state law says so. Some don’t! Our forefathers were smart they knew a democracy was a rabble, three foxes and a hen voting on what’s for dinner! We are a Representative Republic, or were ’til the Senate was decided by popular vote and not the governors!

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            Since a voting can’t be taken by the government at its whim, voting is a RIGHT that shall not be denied or abridged. I ask again..how do they get away with permanently disenfranchising felons? Nothing in Amendment 15 Section I says anything about conviction for any crime being grounds to terminate one’s suffrage. It says The RIGHT of CITIZENS of the U.S. to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States.

            If one argues that a felon is no longer a citizen, then he or she should never have to pay another cent in local, state, or federal taxes period. It’s taxation without representation, exactly what this nation revolted against England for in part. If felons have to pay taxes, then they should vote. No vote, no taxes. Only fair. Can’t be a citizen for extortion under color of law and not a citizen when it comes to the RIGHT to vote.

          • b4k9zp

            The states can temporarily deny a citizen the ability to vote by
            conviction for a felony offense, or not meeting any of the
            qualifications for voting (being a citizen of the USA, of at least
            eighteen years of age, and a legal resident of the state, county (or
            parish or hundred) and voting precinct (for at least one half of any
            year in which an election falls) in which the person wants to vote (at least for local, county and state elections)
            voting is a privilege, not a right. A person usually has to be a resident of the state, voting precinct and county in which he wants to vote for a minimum period of time before a primary or general election before he can vote in that state, county or voting precinct. A citizen can vote in any federal election immediately after moving into a new state, but most people still vote in their home states absentee and don’t register in their new state of residence, if they are honest. (of course that lets out any democrat, IMO).

          • James Richard Holt

            No they are citizens who have lost their privilege to vote. Privileges of citizenship are never to withdrawn on a whim I cannot understand your allegation that they are. If a privilege is withdraw it must be withdrawn for a good reason not merely a whim.

          • glorybe2

            Being an American is a bit like being a Catholic. One must be a bit of a hypocrit to belong.

          • glorybe2

            Some undocumented workers actually pay taxes and Social Security fees as well yet they are not eligible for any benefits what so ever. They can not vote nor can they get food stamps in an emergency nor will they get a Social Security check even after working all their lives in the US. That is taxation without any representation at all and it is the official policy of the US government. Usually the payment of those taxes is an attempt to get some sort of resident documents or a green card enabling them to work.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            They’re still here illegally. Sorry. “undocumented” is a nicer sounding word for “illegal alien”. Only those BORN in America to American citizen parents have rights under the Constitution.

          • b4k9zp

            Actually, the Constitution does not “grant” any rights, billybob. For rights are something with which one is born, not something that can be given or taken from a person by any government or any piece of paper. A government can grant or deny privileges, usually for payment of a fee–like getting a driver’s license, but it cannot grant or deny any rights, or they are not rights at all, Since the states can temporarily deny a citizen the ability to vote by conviction for a felony offense, or not meeting any of the qualifications for voting (being a citizen of the USA, of at least eighteen years of age, and a legal resident of the state, county (or parish or hundred) and voting precinct (for at least one half of any year in which an election falls) in which the person wants to vote, voting is a privilege, not a right.

            Actually, United States Senators from each state were originally appointed to their posts by the state legislatures of the states (Article I, section three, paragraph one, which reads: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote” ).

          • James Richard Holt

            Yes the change in the way one becomes a senator really reduces the upper house to an upper house composed of some sort of super congressmen or congresswomen. In doing so Senators cannot hold themselves above the mob politics of the day but must get down in the political mud and roll around like a common congressman or congresswoman. Their office is thus just a politicized as the intentionally more parochial office of congressman or congresswomen.

          • Bonnie MacPherson

            Okay, according to information printed by kem63, AMENDMENT 15 Section 1 states: “The RIGHT of CITIZENS of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States”. How is that not granting the right to vote?

          • glorybe2

            And we assume that applies to voting in state affairs as well as federal affairs but we do stretch a bit in that assumption.

          • kem63

            Okay, according to information printed by kem63
            That is in the constitution. I just copied and pasted. Yeah I cheat from typing when ever I can LOL

          • glorybe2

            The catch is that the US was not the one banning voters. It was the individual states. The issue of states rights vs US citizens rights is not as heated as it was in years gone by but it still exists. Federal law prohibits pot whereas some states permit pot. In modern theory the feds can come in and over ride state laws. It is the same issue that kept slavery alive until the civil war. Our courts tend to rule that rights of individuals are the same in every state but not always.

          • James Richard Holt

            Well said, but the 15th amendment which was to prevent states from denying the vote to recently freed slaves does say voting and the “right” to shall not be denied to….. regardless of former condition of servitude. This is clearly intended to apply to former slaves. The use of the term “right to vote” is I submit poor diction. No where else that I know of off hand is voting referred to as a right in the constitution. I may be wrong about that but if so this would represent a dangerous shift in the use of terms. Voting is a privilege of citizenship if not the “right to vote” could not be denied to anyone wishing to vote and that’s a blood can of worms.

          • James Richard Holt

            I stand corrected to the point that the 15th constitutional amendment does say “right to vote”. That is to my knowledge the first point in the constitution in which privilege to vote is referred to as a “right”. This is I believe very poor diction as voting is not a right it is a privilege if it was a right how could it only be conferred upon adults argued to its extreme rights apply to everyone regardless of age. Or even voting if its a human right would apply to anyone resident in a given district even illegal aliens! Accepting voting to be God granted human right opens up all kinds of cans of worms. Like driving voting is a privilege not a right and as a privilege of citizenship voting can be denied to person who have felony criminal convictions if the state in which a given felon resides decides that is what is in the best interest of its residents.

          • kem63

            “if it was a right how could it only be conferred upon adults argued to its extreme rights apply to everyone regardless of age.

            Ask yourself that question with the right to bear arms:)
            Not all people including illegal immigrants have the right to bear arms.
            It states clearly in the constitution The RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms as it does with The RIGHT of CITIZENS of the United States to Vote

            “would apply to anyone resident in a given district even illegal aliens!”
            The RIGHT of CITIZENS of the United States does Not include illegal immigrants because their not citizens of the United States.

            The constitution needs to be ratified and add.
            The RIGHT of CITIZENS of the United States to Vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United State” Duo to Citizenship. For illegal immigrant to be allowed to vote.

          • glorybe2

            I must inject that in many places the ability to drive is essential to many lives. Depriving a person of the right to drive may be far worse than depriving them of the right to drive.

        • James Richard Holt

          Poll taxes – noun
          1. A tax levied per head of adult population.

          2. Sometimes called, a capitation tax, the payment of which is sometimes a prerequisite to exercise the right of suffrage. Also called a head tax.
          Some southern states imposed what amounts to a voting tax which for lack of a better word was called a poll tax in an effort to keep blacks from voting, but the correct use of the term Poll Tax is in regards to taxation based on the head count of a jurisdiction.
          There were other attempts at reducing the black vote such as a literacy test or a test nominally called a history test to test whether or not the blacks knew enough to be voting in the first place. For the most part blacks were the only ones in the United States to whom these tests were applied before they could in most cases register to vote but sometimes even if they were registered the test or another more or less similar test was administered at the polling place before they vote. The tests were not fair correct answers depended on who was giving the test and varied from one test taker to the next.
          As odious as all that was and it was odious. I support the idea that ALL individuals registering to vote be required to pass the same exam we give to foreign nationals who wish to become US citizens and that all Citizens be required to answer 80% of the questions correctly before they be registered to vote. Once registered each voter will receive a registration card with a digitized photo and thumb print of both hands on it. Anyone attempting to vote without a digital voter registration will be denied the privilege of voting until they obtain the proper registration. Upon presentment of their voters registration the prospective voter will be asked to present two more ids one of which must be governmentally issued with the individuals picture on it and another id or proof of residency/citizenship. This standard would be applied to all voters not just some 100% compliance would preclude a very large portion of the voter fraud that takes place in virtually all elections. Individuals presenting digitized ids in more than one voting precinct would immediately be identified and arrested, charged and tried at the earliest possible time. The same would hold true for individuals attempting to vote with forged documents. The penalties for voting fraud would be severe to say the least. You want fair elections my recommendation I think will go a very long way towards ensuring our elections are not tampered with nor rigged in any way. Perfect????? Most assuredly not!

          • b4k9zp

            My parents and I are white. They had to pay the state of Texas’ poll tax in 1960.

            Texas did not actually ratify the 24th amendment until 2009, but it didn’t have a poll tax from 1964 onward.

          • Bonnie MacPherson

            James, please explain to me how a person can have 3 government – issued ID’s, (voter card and 2 others). I only have one, my DL.

          • James Richard Holt

            I have a drivers license I also have a Veterans Administration ID card but there are others that are available. I think I said one of the IDs needed to be a picture ID the drivers license fills that requirement. My Veterans ID is a second on and I have my Air Force Retired ID which is a third Governmentally issued ID. I also carry my dog tags but that just lists my name blood type and serial number and my faith. Still it helps to substantiate that I am who I say I am. Another document is a birth certificate which I have as well. Being a veteran and a member of USAA which is a card that only veterans can get can also be a supporting ID. I also have a passport with my picture in it so well there you have it there are lots of sources of ID that should help substantiate a person is who they say they are in addition to my voters registration. When I started teaching in Ohio I had to supply several of the above plus my college transcript and my degree as proof of who I am and what I say I am. In order to get my son signed up to play little league baseball he had to provide his birth certificate and we had to provide as his parents two utility bills with our address displayed and that was just to play a kids game.

      • crab apples

        Hey pal, what is wrong with just sticking to the 2nd Amendment as written moron? If you believe that “a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of this free state” what do we need ANY Other Amendment to bolster the nonsense that gun ownership should be unlimited. As I said we cannot keep guns away from mentally ill that do ALL of the mass shootings , UP 300% in the past 7 year over the previous 7 years according to the FBI, NOT th NRA Buster Brown shoes boy?

        If militia that is a codified U.S. statute were followed then why do we need the 24 th and what is in the 24th Amendment. Never HEARD OF IT and how does it apply to owning a gun and being sane which NO ONE has to prove to buy a stupid implement, a firearm. You are really reaching for pseudo justifications when you have to go outside of TWO clause written to state EXACTLY where firearms should be treated for individual Americans. Maybe you can tell me thay owning a gun is a “God GIVEN” right of mankind pal? Do you want to go there idiot? If you do, I have a very simple refutation that tells you that you are DUMB as a ROCK , just as your “24th Amendment” can be used for anything that you want idea. MORON . . . . . .

        The 2nd Amendment FIRST clause is preparatory and indeed must be satisfied to get to ” right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed”. Felons and mentally ill are many of the owner of the over 300 million guns in America. Tell me how MORE guns makes anyone safer in America dude. YOU cannot do that as I can refute any STUPID notion that guns are necessary for personal security in 21st century America.

        In the 18th and 19th century here , that made sense. Hunt for food, keep peril away from a person. NOW, guns ADD more peril to everyone in America, NOT just the BAD guys because the gun owners are incompetent BOOBS like yourself for the most part. If you want to take the MMPI (Google it MORON) and then comply with simple gun safety tests that the NRA could devise a standard gun safety and proper handling minimum knowledge test (the WELL regulated clause of 2nd) then you might have a leg to stand on.

        As of NOW you have NO legs to stand on because you are moronic and STUPID and Texan in all likelihood. Tell me where I am wrong about any of this MORON boy. If you talk to bezzubs not Jezzus boy, then you are a true IQ 85 guy because he is at just about IQ of 80. I’ve exchanged about 50 comments with that idiotic boob and he’s said the same thing in ALL of them. Now that is a brilliant mind, except for what Einstein said about INSANITY MORON…………

        Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

        Albert Einstein

        TARDS Are MORONs and have limited rational reasoning abilities. Your “24th is a good Amendment plan” show how STUPID that YOU are pal. Keep up the good work BROWNIE bonehead boy, OK pal? Imbecile…..

        • b4k9zp

          Te Well regulated militia” clause was never intended as anything but a simple statement of ONE reason why the right of the individual (the people) to possess and carry “arms” (the same weapons that were in common use by the standing army of the day, if better ones weren’t available). That reason is that the militia, which cannot exist unless every citizen over the age of 17 who is capable of bearing arms has his own personal weapon with which he is expected to be reasonably proficient, due to constant practice with it, is necessary for the security of a free state (and for maintenance of freedom itself).

          Mass shootings, despite your lies are NOT “up 300 % in the past 7 years” despite your lies.

          Your ignorance really shows in your rant about the 24th amendment, which was ratified to abolish the “Jim Crow” poll tax, payment of which was required to be allowed to vote in many states (not just in the south, either.). that you never heard of the 24th amendment shows how ignorant you are.

          Since all men are born with certain unalienable rights given them by their CREATOR, where else do rights come from, ignorant one? Never heard of the Declaration of Independence, either have you.

          All your ignorant, idiotic statements are summed up in your constant preference for calling others names. You are the epitome of some one who is insane, for you keep doing the same thing, calling others every name in the book, over and over and over again, proving only that you are not as intelligent as you thing.

          Your ignorance about “guns not being needed for personal security” is also evidence of your being unable to think in any rational, logical or critical manner.

          • crab apples

            Where do I start BEEZEL -[ Google you do not believe in MORON boy. Inalienable is the term my man. If firearms are an implement that is devised and indeed manufactured by men, then HOW is right to bear ARMS “A GOD Given right” asshole? You lose first point MORON.

            Next, you say the first clause is not descriptive for the ALL important second clause. Now why would you thinktthat? Maybe because the past few SCOTUS decisions said that first clause is not a qualifying statement.

            IT IS a qualifying statement because WELL regulated militia WAS and IS necessary to THIS Free state MORON. WE have Law, STATUTE That defines militia. If it wasn’t important then why codify it in LAW ASSHOLE? You lose point #2…..

            24th Amendment pertains to “The right to bear arms” exactly HOW? Since you will have just blather of GUN TARD dumbville retreaded staements of illogic you LOSE point #3. And how many other statements of idiocy did you make up there in all of that drivel again pal? I have NO time for a MORON that just says the same thing over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over again IDIOT. So either make a point that counts for something or just give it up as a LOST LOSER mentality that you have MORON . . . .

            As for Poll Tax it was found to be an infringement of one man , one vote rights declared eh? So NOW TEA Tiem ahs institute mandatory voter ID requirements in ALL RED states me boy. If a qualified voter cannot pay for the cost of ID purchase , then is that infringement of voting rights? It is and it may make it’s way to SCOTUS soon idiot. Thanks for making yet another progressive idea that YOU REGRESSIVES think is the CAt’s ASS for NO good reasons.

            As for gun purchases, ANY merchandise product in America can be taxed at any RATE as is deemed necessary. Guns are commercial products, RIGHT MORON boy? Think of the slave product of tobacco and what does that attract for taxation now MORON? GUNS could be similarly TAXED very much Constitutionally properly you IDIOT! ! ! ! !

            If you think that your grade school education makes you a Constitutional scholar, then you are dumber than I have been telling you ALL along imbecile. Good luck in whatever it is that you have to try to do in life pal. You are severely inept and just LAME and do indeed qualify as TEA IQ of 85 pal . Get the fuck lost dipshit. You know not even shit. You are an uneducated boor…..

            boor

            bo͝or/

            noun

            an unrefined, ill-mannered person.

            “at last the big obnoxious boor had been dealt a stunning blow for his uncouth and belligerent manner”

            synonyms:lout, oaf, ruffian, thug, yahoo, barbarian, Neanderthal, brute, beast, lubber
            .

          • b4k9zp

            Despite your hate speech and blatant lying, crabbie, I lose NOTHING to someone who has no ability to write on any issue without calling those with whom he disagrees “moron”, or any other pejorative term. You render everything you state utterly worthless by calling others names like moron, “asshole”, “dip***8”, “boor”, “Lame”, “idiot”, or any other name. You are the one who is calling names, and is unmannerly, not “refined” and without any merit.

            Obviously I have a higher education than yourself for your constant use of name calling and obscenities shows that you are not as intelligent as anyone with whom you disagree.

            You are so ignorant that you don’t even know that guns and all other sporting goods are already taxed (Pitman-Robertson Act) to support the Fish and Game departments and the National Park Service.

            And you are so ignorant that you ignore the fact that every state that has a photographic ID requirement has provisions in their laws that make any one of several forms of photographic identifications acceptable for voter identification purposes, and those are required for many things other than voting, like driver’s licesnse, state issued ID cards for those who don’t have cars, but need to have Identification for their work or cashing checks, etcs., And in any case, if the person does not have one of the valid forms of ID, the state pays for a free photographic identification card, but the person has to apply in person for it and provide the same identification that he or she would have to provide for registering to vote at the county cleark’s office. birth certificate (proof of citizenship), proof of residence in the community, and so on.

            No product can be taxed excessively, for that ruins the purpose of taxation- to generate revenue. If a tax is raised too high, no one buys the product and no revenue is generated. See, you cannot even think logically or rationally. Which is obvious by your own lack of even a first grade education.

            Your ignorance is so profound that you don’t even know that payment of any kind of fee or tax or penalty in order to exercise any right with which one is born is flatly unconstitutional. You don’t have to pay a fee or fine or tax to write a letter to the editor, or a letter to your congressman, senator or the president (or the equivalent state officials). Nor do you have to pay a fee for the specific purpose of petitioning government for redress of grievances. Or to exercise one’s religion (or not to exercise any religion at all if that is your religion) You also don’t have to get permission from government to go to the church of your choice or not to go to any church if that is your religion.

            IOW, crabbie, you know nothing about anything and prove it with every one of your hate filled diatribes.

            SInce you have never provided any facts whatever, nor said anythinig that was factual, crabbie, you have never “won” any discussion but have only lost every discussion in which you participate, despite your hate speech and lies.

          • crab apples

            BEEZEUS J. Jeezums pal, I put you in your evolutionary scale place by the intelligence that you cannot display. This latest laundry list of insignificant gun “issues” has NOTHING to do with 2nd Amendment do they? So if you want to debate what I have already explained to you about 10 times,THE SAME Each time then GO for it. YOU are the on the LOSING side every single time. God GIVEN right for guns that are designed and manufactured as man made implements of death? Hmmmmm, Freedom , Liberty and equality are “GOD given rights” that are intrinsic human values as the Declaration of Independence stated . THAT document is NOT statute MORON. So take what you can get and just give up the farm pal. I have IQ 140 and you can’t break 90 , just like every other TARD That thinks they have something important to say.

            You DON’T have anything important to say pal. You drivel and go blah, blah , blah that guns are important for EVERY American . I disagree AND I tell you why you are WRONG pal. because you are WRONG every single interchange of comments. You have been wrong over 50 times now.

            AS for voter ID stuff I know the drill pal. I had a non driver ID and know that it costs money.

            What else do you know that I wouldn’t? NOTHING is the correct answer BEEZ-o-BUBLE Brain boy. You are a MORON and I am NOT pal, OK? BECAUSE Y’all are morons as I say in every message to each and every one of you dimwits. If you are able to discuss an issue intelligently, then I treat you as somewhat equal in understanding or COMPREHENSION level dude.

            You are NOT on a comparable IQ level , and as for education you have NONE comparatively. I have I have 18 years of education and 28 years of continuous learning at the best Medical Institution in the DAMN WORLD MORON. What have you done to get any life experience in the REAL WORLD ? Bueller, Bueller? Is anyone OUT there BEEZUS

            J. Jezebel boy?

            You are ignorant and then present specious and stupid justifications for MORE guns in America. We need need LESS guns in America pal. Every single thing that I post is a FACT or my opinion of the first clause of the 2nd Amendment. If we have Law defining militia, is it important then MORON?

            Of course it is because there are just TWO clauses of the 2nd Amendment and both carry equal weight. YOU only believe what you do because that is what you want, that the second clause states ALL of “rights” that were 18th century driven. The concept is still valid IF we have FULL REGULATION of mentally ill that are in possession of thousands of weapons as I write this. YOU want NO part of MMPI testing to assure government a LAW is fulfilled and ALL citizens armed or NOT that one is indeed competent to possess a firearm. THAT IS “WELL regulated militia” moron.

            That is why felons and psychotic people are disqualified BY LAW – CURRENT LAW to possess weapons. Gee, it seems that current regulation is insufficient to guarantee MY RIGHT to NOT have a weapon and that I choose to do in this INSECURE “free state” of POLICE dfmisbehavior in America. How many cops are progressive thinking people pal? Not too many and that IS A real PROBLEM TOO.

            So if you want to get into issues that matter , and not the dimwittery of the Pitman-RobertsonAct, then speak your mind. I don ‘t care and if you say something STUPID , then I tell you that you are WRONG and stupid for saying it. What else do you want me to tell a dumb fucker like yourself ASSHOLE?

            I DON’T care about manners on TEA Time chat boards. I am one of VERY few that just tell you straight up you are mentally deficient sorts of people. I have not lost a discussion point to a TARD of TEA in ALL of my over 3,000 disquis comments and YOU will not make the grade to do that either IDIOT. Get a clue. You are ignorant misinformed and yet you persist in STUPID comments that you think will change my mind about something. YOU can’t do that and you WON’T do that pal. Capeche, get the bit yet? Do you understand la langua of English pal?

            Now you said that the 300 % increase in mass shootings in the past 7 years that I was LYING dude. I post this link YET AGAIN moron so that you will see the FBI statistics. NRA doesn’t WANT This stuff to get media coverage because it makes you MORONS look STUPID pal. Gee, where have you heard that before IDIOT? Get a damn clue and just get LOST IDIOT…..

            http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-nn-na-mass-shootings-fbi-20140924-story.html

      • James Richard Holt

        You need to look up the definition of a poll tax it has nothing to do with voting. As for proof of residence to vote if we don’t have to show proof of eligibility to vote why bother registering to vote? In addition to illegals voting I am tired of citizens casting multiple votes which does happen a lot more frequently than many people seem to know. I am tired of politicians cruising grave yards to round out votes and yes that happens a lot too. there are hundreds even thousands of votes cast in Cook County Illinois in their elections by people who have been dead for decades and even centuries. ALL voters should be required to show at least two forms of id to vote and at least one must have a picture and at least one should be a government issued picture id. I recall seeing a video so take that for what you

    • otoman

      The 24th Amendment brought notice to the poll tax and then the poll tax was deemed unconstitutional in 1966; the Supreme Court had deemed that it was in direct violation of the protection clause passed in the 14th Amendment. In other words, a tax cannot be laid upon an inalienable right. As you said, “No right can be a right if “government” first has to “give permission””, and historically anything that is not an inalienable right (God given right), which are clarified in the Constitution, are considered govt. privileges which are generally taxed in order to receive, then they promote to the unwary that they should be happy that the govt. gave them such a “right”! Though many, many things, that truly are rights, have recently been redefined by govt. as privileges, and therefore taxable. With the mega corruption within the courts today, or because of the laziness of the people, many of our rights are being removed and Congress is knowingly turning their back and allowing the courts to get away with murdering our rights. Both Ron and Rand Paul have made big efforts to wake up the American people, but the liberal media mocks them to the point where they are ineffective. So sad.

    • WishIWuzACropDuster

      The 2nd Amendment makes no exceptions to who can own a gun. It doesn’t say only citizens in good standing. It says the right of the people. No right is a right if anyone has to ask permission from the gov’t to exercise that right. Wise your comment is, my young padawan.

    • Oingo Boingo

      On some topics and in most exchanges with you, I believe you to be totally out of your mind in a drooling manner.
      However, I must admit that I am in total agreement with you on the instant subject and 2A corollaries.
      Nobody is all bad.

      • b4k9zp

        When you make personal insults and call others names, as you prefer to do at all times, you invalidate everything you state.

        • Oingo Boingo

          a-hem…
          No, I don’t.
          You’re wrong, again.
          You really ought to try to stop doing that.

          • b4k9zp

            You always do, despite your lies to the contrary.

          • Oingo Boingo

            Shoo, fly.

          • b4k9zp

            Can’t stand the truth, can you oingo.

          • Oingo Boingo

            I can’t stand you, you whiney bitch.
            I have no problem with the Truth. Since I awakened to what’s really what and to who’s really who, the truth is my friend, guardian and shield,
            you jabbering assmonkey.

          • b4k9zp

            You wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped you in the face, for you prefer telling lies and spouting obscenities at all times. What you think is “truth” are the lies of the devil to whom you have enslaved yourself and so worship.

    • john

      Hello, B4, LTNS. Once again, we are in agreement.

  • freedomcreator

    Interesting – they are seeing the consequences of their actions in Colorado that they may need to protect themselves.

    • LARRY JOHNSON

      Very true-the Obama Democrat’s legalize drugs & the crime rate sky rockets- A Muslim Obama impeachment is desperately needed

      • James

        Hate to bust your bubble but crime rates actually went down in Colorado after legalization especially in Denver. To say the two are related is at best a stretch but the good news is the pot smokers didn’t flip out and rape & pillage.

        • Bonnie Warner

          Thank you James for stating some facts rather than bluffing and huffing about owning guns and wiping everyone out.

          • bill

            james and bonnie the crime rate went down BECAUSE they made pot legal. all the other crimes have in creased but not enough to offset the non prosecution of pot laws.

          • b4k9zp

            What facts? Where?

            Who is “bluffing and huffing about owning guns and wiping everyone out”? Other than ignorant hoplophobes like yourself?

      • SickofPC

        If he is impeached all of his crap stands. Remove him from office because he was never eligible to be president and everything he signed is null and void.

      • Rick01234

        Larry, tobacco is a drug which is far more dangerous then any illegal drug, tobacco like alcohol, is age restricted and therefore that makes it a controlled substance, this theft was over a drug, and Michael Brown was seen stealing the cigars that for some reason he decided to steal those cigars, so since he committed a crime by stealing those cigars that would make that a drug related crime, so what I ‘m asking is, if this crime is drug related, and it most definitely was, does this mean that tobacco should be illegal? No, and neither should Cannabis. Some things such as bad laws that violate any ones rights should be nullified and that’s what all of Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Washington D.C. did when they legalized Cannabis, and nothing more. Nullification is a States Rights issue, and if we let the Fed’s negate States rights, when and where do we draw the line? That line was drawn in the 9th, and in particular the 10th amendment of the Original Constitution of the United States. It is and always was our right to nullify bad laws, including restrictions on the second amendment. I assume you support the right to carry, I do too, and I think open carry makes for a safer America, and when used to make a statement that assaulting or robbing an armed citizen a sure fire way to repel such notions from passing through a anyones minds, unless they have a death wish.

        • b4k9zp

          Rick medical evidence shows that the smoke from the cannabis plant (marijuana) has more than four times the concentrations of the carcinogenic substances that are present in tobacco smoke. So persons smoking, using marijuana are subjecting themselves and others to carcinogens in exactly the same manner as cigar, cigarette and pipe smokers do.

          • Rick01234

            Then by what your claiming, why is tobacco still legal and routinely kills well over 465,000 thousand Americans in an average year? Now there have been thousands of years for Cannabis to show it’s true colors as a cancer causing substance, and no one has to smoke Cannabis at all, it can be eaten, and it will have the same effects, if your SO concerned about Cannabis smoke, then don’t smoke it, and if you don’t like the smell of it, then leave the area where it is being smoked, it isn’t legal to smoke cannabis in public, so I would be forced to conclude your hanging out in a private home, if your a guest, then leave.

            Millions of Hard working Americans have never contracted cancer from it, and after I’d venture at least a 100 million of tax dollars, or more have been spent on studies to prove the harmful effects, and these studies have failed time and again to produce the results the Federal Government has been seeking even before it was made illegal, watch the classic paranoid movie Reefer Madness, and you will see how fear resulted through propaganda deliberately mislead Millions of Americans to falsely conclude Cannabis would make one insane and homicidal, and even commit rape and other crimes. Well now if you are so knowledgable about the cancer causing chemicals in Marijuana, then feel free to post that information here, and then prove how these chemicals can cause cancer while ingesting them orally in brownies cookies and even cakes, or even in several brands of pop nowadays. And what State do you live in? if you don’t like the State allowing Cannabis to be used for medical uses, or recreational uses, then why are you still living there? You have the right to leave any time you want to, so use your freedom to change your residency to another State if you don’t like second hand smoke from Cannabis being near you, and don’t hang out with people who choose to smoke Cannabis. And lastly if you enjoy paying to put people in Jail for their choice to smoke or ingest Cannabis, then by all means move to a State where you can enjoy that right as soon as possible. But you might run out of States to live in soon enough, so my advice is to get over it, because this world doesn’t have to please everybody does it? Please list the chemicals that are present in Cannabis and the typical amounts found in Cannabis that are thought to cause cancer in humans. I really want to know…

          • b4k9zp

            I doubt that “millions of hardworking americans” have consumed pot.

            AS to the carcinogens in pot smoke, that’s from Centers for Disease Control studies over the last 20 years or so.

          • Rick01234

            Who said anything about smoking it, I didn’t. And I am asking you again to give me the name of every single carcinogen in Cannabis since you feature your self so well educated by the CDC and the FDA, or did you get your information from the DEA? Because where you get such information is VERY important..please site the chemicals by their full and accurately spelled names and in what amount they are present in your average high quality cannabis, and it has been estimated by the Government that up to 68 million Americans have tried it at least once, or more…Cannabis is better ingested and longer lasting in it’s effects when eaten in brownies, cookies, and other favorite food items. And yes it will give you the munchies no matter how it’s ingested. I prefer eating baked goods infused with about 2 grams fried in butter to activate the ingredients in brownies. And when I do so, I won’t drive either.

      • Bill Blackstone

        It is very tiring reading every were to impeach this Marxist president. Impeachment is just a vote of
        incompetence. It does not remove him from office.

      • Bonnie Warner

        Larry Johnson – Kindly tell me what drugs Obama democrats have legalized across this country or is this just another one of the patriots stupid statements

      • Wayne Green

        Larry Johnson where is the study to back up your claim that crime rates skyrocket? Because in the states with legalize recreational marijuana. Crime is down. Do your homework. Then you won’t look like a fool

        • b4k9zp

          The only reason “crime is down” is because the state government illegally (for it is still a FEDERAL crime to possess marijuana) declared that possession and use of pot is not a crime. If you declare something is no longer a crime, then of course “crime numbers and rapes” will go down. That’s just like claiming that if a law resulted in the decriminalization of forcible rape of women, then the crime rates reporting forcible rapes would go down. Women would still be being raped, but it would then no longer be a crime to do so.

          • Wayne Green

            The legalization of marijuana in Colorado or any other state was not done illegally. The states can govern themselves. The federal government is doing the right thing by showing them that respect. If the people vote yes for marijuana to be legal. How is that illegal? Like it or not at some point the federal government will have to take a look at legalizing it. At what point will it be legal? How many more states have to legalize marijuana before the Feds will? Also for you to compare marijuana use as the reason for rape. Is just absurd. That is something out of the movie reefer madness. Anti drug propaganda. The crime data from Denver Colorado shows violent crime is down. That is murders,rapes and burglaries.

          • b4k9zp

            Federal law still states that possession of marijuana is a federal crime. So the state laws (including California’s that say it can be prescribed by medical doctors) are in violation of Federal law.

            Marijuana should remain illegal, for it is still a lethal drug when taken with alcohol–even NORML admits that up to a third of “drunk driving” fatalities also involve the use of pot by persons who may have only had one legal drink of an alcoholic beverage [6 fl oz wine, 1.5 fl oz hard liquor, or 12 ounces of beer]

      • Brady Harness

        I would like to clarify some thing; it’s DUMBOCRATS which is those Blindly follow President Bambam and his Socialist BullShi*!!!(Not Democrats)

      • Rick01234

        So with your vast amount of crime statistics related to the use of that killer weed with roots in hell, Larry, I’m all ears as to which drugs did the Obama Democrats legalized? Because I am a registered Republican, and I voted yes to legalize Cannabis, and I want avoid the unpleasant aspects of being around such bleeding heart liberals who might be Muslims so as to avoid contact with such undesirables and all those other “drugs” you fear so much, I don’t fear the reefer however, just the ignorance that seems to be the back bone of the democratic party and quite a few Republicans too. Cannabis was used to make the sails and rope for rigging our navy for many, many years, and was used to make the paper that the Constitution was written on…and the flag Betsy Ross sewed up was made out of hemp…so maybe your version of American history is missing a few pages…If Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew hemp and they were patriots, what does that make you?

        • b4k9zp

          Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew hemp to make ropes, and some forms of sail cloth for the sailing ships of the day. Hemp wasn’t used for “recreational” use at all.

    • Rick01234

      From what, I’d like to know?

  • the kev

    Fact is. More law abiding guns,
    Less crime.

  • Our second ammendment rights should not be tamperd with.

    • maxx

      Right you are. And every single state law banning the ownership and use of a gun, open or concealed, by a law abiding citizen not considered a criminal is unconstitutional. The Constitution never gave a state the authority to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment, EVER.

      • Bonnie Warner

        Wrong, the Constitution was stating the federal government could not restrict a person from having a gun for a militia to protect themselves – read the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings after that. The states have the power.

        • b4k9zp

          We have read the Constitution.

          Article IV, section two paragraph one clearly states that no state can deny to any citizen of the US living in its jurisdiction the same rights, privileges and immunities that are enjoyed by citizens in every other state.

          Second Amendment clearly states: “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.” (which means that no local or state government law, and no federal law can infringe on the individual’s right to possess and carry any of the arms in common use by the military and police of the time)

          And the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, section one, clearly states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
          jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This means that no state or local government can deny any citizen living within its boundaries the equal protection of the law (or any of the rights guaranteed by the first nine ratified amendments to the Constitution, including the right to keep and bear arms. That’s a restatement of the clause in Article IV, section two paragraph one that says the same thing.

          The second amendment never stated that membership in a militia was a requirement for the individual to have the right to possess and carry any weapon in common use by the military and police of the time.

          Stephen P. Halbrook, in “That Every Man Be Armed” (1984) stated: “In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the “collective” right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion
          in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated
          and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the
          eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis. ”

          Leonard W. Levy, “Origins of the BIll of Rights” (1999 ed., paperback), Chapter 6, pages 134 through 135: “Believing that the amendment does not
          authorize an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is wrong. The right to
          bear arms is an individual right. The military connotation of bearing arms does
          not necessarily determine the meaning of a right to bear arms. If all it meant
          was the right to be a soldier or serve in the military, whether in the militia
          or the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights…The very language of the amendment is evidence that the right is a personal one, for it is not subordinated to the militia clause. Rather the right is an independent one, altogether separate from the maintenance of a militia. Militias were possible only because the people were armed and possessed the right to be armed. The right does not depend on whether militias exist.”

          In the majority opinion in the 1939 U.S. V. Miller case (307 U.S. 174) stated: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” (Note: Miller, the defendant, was not represented by counsel during oral arguments before the court, or the court would have been made aware that the US Army and Marines had used short-barreled shotguns (as defined in the case) in the Philippine Insurrection (1899-1901), the Haitian Incursion in 1915, World War I (1917-1918) and in Nicaragua (1925-1927).) And of course the 1939 Miller court could not have known that the Army and Marines would again use short-barreled shotguns in World War Two (1941-1945), Korea (1950-1954), Vietnam (1962-1973) and other skirmishes and “wars” throughout the world.

          Also, the Miller court majority was not informed of the fact that the only previous court case that the prosecution in the case could cite as stare decisis for the claim that the possession by individuals only those weapons that were of “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” was protected by the phraseology of the 2nd amendment was an 1841 Tennessee state supreme court decision entitled Aymette V. State (2 Humphries 154) that was later overturned by the Tennessee State Supreme Court as being “too restrictive of the right to keep and bear arms”

          Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

          The court held in dicta, that historical sources explained the meaning of “militia” as set down by the authors of the Constitution: “The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

          • Rick01234

            What do you mean “We have read the Constitution”, do you have worms?

          • b4k9zp

            Total Non sequitur.

            Was responding to “Bonnie Warner” who stated that anyone who disagrees with her should “read the Constitution”. IMHO, those who support the second amendment have read the Constitution and case law concerning that right far more thoroughly than anyone who claims that the right is not an absolute right which cannot be violated by any government, whether it is local, state or federal, and an absolute civil right that cannot be violated by any other person or group of persons, like the Ku Klux Klan, the Democratic party, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, the Annenberg Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, Michael Bloomberg and his “Mayors Against Guns” and “Moms Demand Action” groups and other haters of freedom and lovers of slavery.

          • Rick01234

            Case law is an attempt to distract from an answer, because there is no such thing as case law, just rullings in a case that supported Statutory law, case law is in fact a term used so commonly nowadays, case law is a legal fiction, because Judges lack the authority to create law from the bench, which supersedes the legislative process which is unconstitutional in the first place. Rulings are just that, and are not laws at all, please be accurate with your use of such terms.

          • b4k9zp

            Case law consists of the facts of the case, and all appeals court and final supreme court decisions and rulings on how the law applies in any trial or court proceeding.

      • Thank you.

  • Curtis2121

    Do it in all states. Vermont has this law and has the lowest crime rate of any state in the U.S.

  • darylj46

    Now they need to abolish the stupid bills that the dems passed a couple years back

  • Joe

    Let’s look at this in a little different perspective. Remember Michael Brown the minority thug who assaulted a store clerk then stole items from the store. Next he attached a police officer and was shot an then all the BS started.
    If I owned that convenience store all my clerks would be armed and trained to defend themselves. He would have been shot at the scene of his 1st crime that night—period. What people must realize is that this country is getting more dangerous and it’s not because of honest working Americans. Our problem is the malcontent hood rats and their so called parents. When I use the term hood rat it applies to all races and covers all these idiots young adults that are out of control. If we defend ourselves these cowards will either become good citizens or will be eliminated by their actions and the consequences of those actions.
    I’m in favor of three laws that must be enforced. One—-carry a weapon knife or gun while doing a crime—10 years with no good time! Two—use the weapon at the crime scene (show or threaten with it)—25 to life in jail period. Stab or shoot someone in a crime spree—life only.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA and DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Greg137

      attached????? No offense Joe,but maybe you meant attacked? Just saying ya know?
      God bless you! for your comment..

    • Mabel Annette Graham

      Shot or stab someone to death ,deathshould be the penalty, no need to fill up our prisons with murderers. If you kill some one you die. No need to keep them in prison for life for us to support and pay medical bills for. We have veterans and seniors who need that care.

      • Bill Blackstone

        It takes more money to put somebody to death than life imprisonment. So. Kill the bastards at/during the crime.

        • John Helton

          B ill, I agree with your last sentence, however you are sadly mis-informed about the cost to end a scumbags life. It cost’s 50K per year to keep someone behind bars yet the cost to put them in the grave is under 10K

          • Bill Blackstone

            Nope not true. With all the appeals and “Due process” just under 12 million before the switch is pulled.That does not include the 50 K it takes per year. So the Math puts it. 8 years from guilty to chair. So actually at 12 mill. From 50 k is 20 years. Then the 8 years at 50 k. The run would be 38 years to break even.

          • Mark

            That was not stated, nor should appeals be counted in the cost of execution. These turds All tie the courts up with appeals, not just those sentenced to death.

          • Bill Blackstone

            Cost is cost. No matter how you look at it or want to spin it. 100% agree. Bullets to the face is the best answer. My original point. To go along with the article. If we the citizens carry hand guns. We can just kill the perpetrator Right then And there. No police. No courts. No cost. Just a cardboard box and a hole. Just to let you all know. I’m done peeing now. The contest is over. I’m on to other disturbing news. Like that rat bastard running our constitution in to the dirt.

          • Mark

            Thanks

          • Mark

            And could be a hell of a lot cheaper with a bullet to the back of the head.

          • CommonSense4America

            With the cost of ammo today, and Obama might ban the ammo, maybe the Guillotine is the answer. All we would have to spend money on would be to sharpen the blade. Nah,,,forget the sharpening.

        • Wayne Green

          To: Bill Blackstone
          So no due process. The trial and jurry are the cops. I think that is one of the reasons we had to fight a revolution. That’s why it is in the bill of rights. I also think that You should read the bill of rights, it is part of the constitution. They are called amendments. Amendment number 5 is a very important one. It keeps the power to the people. There is only a few times that civilians get to flex there mussel. That is threw protest, voting and the one that in my opinion is the one with the most importants is the jury. The jury has more power in the courtroom then the Judge and prosecutor. It keeps the government in check. The money issue comes from to many bullshit laws and people in prison for victimless crimes. I do agree that it is your right to protect yourself. After all the police are just responders. What I should be calling them is military police. Cause that is what it is. But that is for another subject. So Mr Blackstone enjoy this read on the 5th amendment.

          Amendment V
          No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

          • Bill Blackstone

            I did not and have not mentioned the police. If we the citizens are armed. We can protect ourselves. Thank you for promoting my point. You Libs always quote the constitution to make a point then trample all over it every chance you get. Kill the predators before Due process. Before the police. Cut out the middle man. Dead on the scene, right to the grave. If my family is in danger. Trust me there will not be a need for the police. Just the Meat wagon.So in missing my point you have made mine. This article is about carrying a concealed weapon. Not the 5th or any other amendment.

          • Wayne Green

            You said in your comment. ” It takes more money to put somebody to death than life imprisonment. So. Kill the bastards at/during the crime.”

            Mr Blackstone you are correct you did not say police. It’s the way it is written. In the first part of your statement it sounds like you are talking about our judicial/ police. So if you are saying that handling the situation before the police get to the crime. That it cost a lot of money. It does not cost a lot of money to “kill the bastards” the last time I checked. A box of fifty .45 cal 200 grain hollow point was 31.95. So let’s just say 35 dollars. For the purpose of geographic locations in the cost-of-living. That comes to 0.70 cents a round. That is cheap. Now for me talking about the Constitution. I feel is is very smart on my part or everyones part to educate people that may not know. Your comment maid it seem like you did not. If it comes to protecting your family or yourself then by all means do it. If you pull up to a crime that is either just finished or halfway threw its act. Then that is when the 5th amendment comes into play. Cause you may just be shooting the person the was exercising there 2nd amendment right. So there I go being a libertarian again commenting on the Constitution. So I am glad you did clarify yourself. But by no means am I walking on the Constitution that I love and will defend. I think we have one to many walking on it now. He lives on Pennsylvania Avenue in a big White House.

          • bill

            the constitution enumerates what the government can do. it does not “give” the right to endless appeals for nebulous findings. one appeal and done. “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” covers the problem of appeals.

          • Wayne Green

            What I was trying to say is that people just can’t be vigilantes. They do deserve there day in court. I think we are all on the same page here it’s just that we have different ways of saying it. I agree it is a wast of money to hold them in prison. But it is also a waste of money to hold people in prison for victimless crimes. If you do not pick the pocket or break the arm. There is no crime. As I said in my comment above. I feel you do not need a permit to carry a concealed gun. It does not matter how you carry it. I do not understand how some people feel safer by me simply covering a gun with a piece of cloth. It is still there. Whether it be in the open or concealed

          • garanduser

            A few vigilantes could have stopped the Furgeson madness faster than Eric Holder.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” does NOT cover appeals. It means if the jury or judge (for bench trials) finds you not guilty of a crime, you can never be tried on that charge ever again because jeopardy is attached.

          • b4k9zp

            Yes, but the facts of the case can be reviewed by appeals courts. They cannot be overturned, because “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
            jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States,
            than according to the rules of the common law.” (Seventh Amendment).

          • Greyguy

            In interviews with criminals, the thing they fear most is running into an armed potential victim; because they know the results will not be in their favor.

            There are several communities in PA, VA , and several other states that have passed local ordinances that state each household is required to own a firearm, which of course is unenforceable , but they do post signs at the township limits stating the ordinance and it seems to lower crime significantly.

          • b4k9zp

            Kennesaw Georgia was one of the first communities to require heads of households in their community to own a firearm and ammunition for it, unless they (1) had a religious or moral objection to ownership of a firearm, or (2) were not eligible under unconstitutional local, state or federal laws to own a firearm because of a conviction for a crime bearing a sentence of 12 months or more in prison, or being found by a court sanity hearing to be mentally incompetent. They adopted that ordinance shortly after Morton Grove, Illinois banned the sale and possession of handguns in that suburb of Chicago in 1982.

        • John Helton

          Wasn’t talking about the Appeals or due process, a rope,180 grains, or the easy way of lethal injection cuts down on the costs. Once you have been found guilty or seen actually committing the crime then nothing more needs to be said!

          • garanduser

            Taking your child to witness a public hanging would send a clear message about actions and consequences.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            Sure would!! So would spanking their bratty little butts when they act like little heathens.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            Be sure they are found guilty honestly, ethically, based on LEGITIMATE evidence.
            If caught red-handed, ’nuff said.

        • b4k9zp

          The only reason that is true is because of the endless delays before the sentence is finally executed, so that the convicted criminal can “appeal” everything about the trial indefinitely. There should be a single court of final appeal, nationwide, in which that court considers all the evidence for any capital murder conviction, and must render a final decision as to the guilt or innocence of the convicted person, within say a maximum of three years (36 months) after the original sentence is handed down, after which the death sentence is automatically executed.

          Here in texas, the average time between sentencing for a capital crime and the execution of the death penalty has been about 17 years (except for babies accused of being an inconvenience and are executed without trial within 9 months), meaning that the death penalty costs the taxpayers for the incarceration, legal and medical expenses of the convicted criminal during that time.

          BTW, if person is sentenced to life without parole, he still gets endless appeals on the sentence, and the taxpayers have to pay for his legal expenses, and his medical expenses, in addition to the cost of feeding and housing him for up to forty or fifty years, instead of 17 years. So the claim that it is less expensive to sentence a person to life without parole in the prison system than it is to execute a person is blatantly false.

          • garanduser

            Yes and thanks to the courts we can no longer make them grow their own food or produce their shoes and cloths. I have seen inside The Walls at TDC and saw the buildings where these things were produced so I know it can be done.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            If they grew their own produce, dairy, poultry, and beef they could eat like kings, which would beat the ever-living HELL out of the garbage companies like Marriott or Canteen Correctional Food Services provides!! it would be much healthier for them and it would teach them skills to make a living on the outside.

          • garanduser

            Heaven forbid they should come out wit job skills other than advanced degrees in criminal behavior.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            True that!

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            Greetings again, my young padawan. Disagree with a single appeal I must. Many there are that were truly innocent. Many there were that took appealing their case above the state level to get justice. When wrong a prosecutor is proven, fight to the last breath he will to prevent the conviction from being overturned. Psychologically tortured some are into making false confessions. Much coverage on Dateline & 20/20 has there been on this very subject. Too many times tunnel vision do the police and prosecutors get. Unwilling they are to consider any other suspect.

            If overwhelming the LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE of guilt is then executed promptly they should be.

          • b4k9zp

            Did you read what I stated? A single appeal will consider all the evidence, and there can be no further appeal from that, federal court if necessary, but there should not be endless delays while the “meaning of the word “is” is debated.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            But what if that judge is “in cahoots” with those who would want to knowingly execute an innocent person just to save face and a hefty lawsuit?

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            Appeals to delay the inevitable when guilt has been honestly and ethically proven beyond reasonable doubt should be disallowed and the sentence carried out.

            The problem is that legal representation in court is NOT even-handed. No one can tell me and make me believe that public defenders do anything more than provide just enough of a service so that the defendant can’t claim lack of legal counsel.

          • Concerned Jo

            Just by following the thread sounds like someone wants to just be God. You know kill them all we will sort it out later type of attitude. So really what makes you any better than the alleged killer that you are so ready to kill without his due process? You know the Lord said vengeance is mine. So what’s wrong with that? Yeah I do understand what you are saying about clogging up the courts but hey what if the shoe was on the other foot you would want every single chance you could get. Don’t you understand when it’s over it’s over and that is it. Now if you are being attacked then by all means do what you have to do but to deny someone that right or to wish death on them makes you no better than what you are accusing them of.

          • b4k9zp

            quite a liar, aren’t you? Nothing I stated can even remotely be construed as “wanting to be god”, despite your lies.

            Under state and federal law, any person who has been indicted by a grand jury, tried and convicted for any capital crime (one for which the penalty is death), can be sentenced to die. But on sentencing, most states allow almost endless appeals for the most frivolous reasons, and so the average time between conviction for a capital crime and execution of the death sentence for that crime has been in the range of from 12 years to 24 years in most states. That’s ridiculous. That is why haters of the death penalty lie and say that sentencing a person to die costs more than incarcerating the person for life without parole. A person sentenced for life without parole can live up to fifty years behind bars, at the same cost of incarceration per year, including the costs of all appeals to higher courts,for every year of that life sentence, where most persons who have been sentenced to die for a capital crime are executed within at most 24 years. It costs more to keep a prisoner incarcerated for life without parole than it does for a person to be sentenced to die and executing that person.

            With forensics technology in its current state, once the evidence shows conclusively that a person actually committed the heinous crime for which they are sentenced to die should be executed without delay.

          • Concerned Jo

            As far as lying about anything I really think that you need to reread what I wrote on the matter. Frankly I think that you sir are wanting to take the chances out of a persons life that faces such a demise. Do I disagree with the death penalty? Not at all but if the person has the right to play the courts for appeals then sure let them have that right. Now if you want to get upset for the prison system being abused for the taxes that we pay then go after the mandatory minimum sentences that put non-violent people in prison for years for us to pay to take care of. Have you ever visited a prison? If so then you know that it’s full of people that should have gotten some probation or fines or something. Now as far as my first comment goes a lair? Come on now you know that doesn’t even make sense how can what I think be a lie? If you readily want to kill then you are no better than the one that wants to exhaust every avenue before it’s time to check out. Unless you or your family are being attacked then you or no single person has the right to condemn a person to death.

          • b4k9zp

            Quote from your post in response to mine “a day ago”: “Just by following the thread sounds like someone wants to just be God.
            You know kill them all we will sort it out later type of attitude. So
            really what makes you any better than the alleged killer that you are so
            ready to kill without his due process?”

            I never stated “kill them all and sort them out later”, or even implied anything of the sort. So your claims are lies. When a person has been indicted by a grand jury, has been informed of the nature of the charges against him, and has access to legal counsel, and compulsory means of gathering evidence
            and witnesses on his behalf, and is allowed to confront the witnesses
            against him, and is tried by a judge and jury in a speedy trial in the same jurisdiction in which the alleged offense occurs, and found guilty of a capital crime, and sentenced to die, he has had legal due process. And I never stated despite your lies, that he would be denied due process after his conviction, but I did say that the appeals process should be shortened to a reasonable period of time, such as, at most, 5 years (60 months) or less after the date of the original conviction, in which all the facts (evidence) in the case is thoroughly reviewed in accordance with the law. And if no reasonable doubt can be injected into the proceedings, then the lawful sentence of the original court should be carried out. A 12 to 24 year delay is unconscionable (and extremely expensive),

          • Concerned Jo

            Just by following the thread sounds like someone wants to just be God.
            You know kill them all we will sort it out later type of attitude. So
            really what makes you any better than the alleged killer that you are so
            ready to kill without his due process?” Well sir did it say I said that you said you were God no I simply said it sounds like someone wants to be God. Now I can’t help if that’s the impression that I got from your thread. That’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it. Now if it’s not the impression that you were trying to make well sorry. That’s how it hit me and that’s just how it is. As far as being a lair I guess that’s what you call others when you don’t like their opinion. Think that’s something else though. I guess we do have the right to disagree but I really think that a lair is someone who does not tell the truth and sir Im being honest as anyone can be. Sorry if it ruffles your feathers. If that’s not how you feel then hay I got the wrong impression. I can’t change that and sir if it was you that were facing the death penalty then I believe that you would exhaust any and all avenues to try and live. Regardless of how long it took. At least I believe so. Again if I offended you by my comments I guess we are probably even.

          • b4k9zp

            You like to “assume” a lot about what others say, instead of reading what they say and trying to understand it.

            Would be nice if you’d learn how to spell, too. (a “lair” is where an animal resides. a liar is someone who lies. Your opinion is wrong. And nothing you state is truthful as a result.

            Yes, if I knew I had in fact not committed any crime, I would move to have a mistrial declared, and I would demand that the jury be re-empaneled. Too bad if you were offended by my truthful statements.

          • Concerned Jo

            You just prove what I was saying sorry master no one is entitled to an opinion unless it is the same as yours. Thus strengthening my thoughts about you having a God complex and that you are the only perfect one. Good day.

        • Mark

          Where did you get that ridiculous notion?

      • TAM44

        Right on the spot, why punish the American tax payers who have to foot the bill to keep these murdering SOB alive. Even the death penalty is to good for these a holes, put the killers in a room and the first one out lives another day until he too is defeated, no holes bared.

        • WishIWuzACropDuster

          You mean no holds barred. 🙂 The Bible says if a life is taken, the murderer’s blood shall be required.

          Rom 13:1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God.
          Rom 13:2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment.
          Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same:
          Rom 13:4 for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.

          • glorybe2

            Yes and Christians should not follow the old testament. Christ taught love and forgiveness. “Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord” leaps to mind.

          • WishIWuzACropDuster

            Romans is in the New Testament. Notice…”He beareth not the sword in vain…” in verse 4. God ordained civil law. The sword is for killing.

          • b4k9zp

            Christ himself stated: “For verily I say unto you, ‘Till heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.’ ” (Matthew chapter five, verse eighteen) For those who do not accept Christ as savior and Lord, they are responsible for fulfilling every commandment given by God in order to be held to be righteous before God. That means that if a person sheds another person’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God created He man” (Genesis 9, verse 6), which is a principle that underlies everything in the Mosaic Laws.

        • CommonSense4America

          Heck, put them in the Coliseum and charge admission. We could pay off our national debt.

      • Brady Harness

        You got that Right, unfortunately President Bambam and the DUMBOCRATS(Not Democrats) would go Balistic over that act!!!

      • glorybe2

        As far as the money goes it is far cheaper to house a convict for life than to execute him. And then there is the awful truth that many innocent people are convicted of serious crimes including murder.

        • b4k9zp

          Wrong again, for the person sentenced to jail for life may live up to two or three times as long as the person sentenced to die for a crime, and he will be costing the taxpayers the same amount of money each and every year of his incarceration, because no convicted criminal is ever guilty of committing any crime (HEAVY SARCASM OFF). He will be conducting appeals every year to be exonerated and freed for his crime just as would someone sentenced to die. And then when the person gets to be over 50 or so, he has all the added medical expenses, for which the taxpayer has to pay, in addition to his legal expenses.

    • SickofPC

      One minor correction: death penalty for all 3 of your laws. There will not be any repeat offenders.

    • Joseph

      Agreed GOD BLESS AMERICA.

    • Joseph Koziar

      Texas has some restrictive gun laws by the way. So you think if we all carried guns crime would go away? In my neck of the woods a few days ago some thugs tried to commit a robbery. Two cops got involved. Now we arm our police in this state. So a shootout ensued . One of the cops unfortunately was killed. Only one of the thugs was wounded and it was not fatal. So if two armed policemen didn’t deter this crime why would armed citizens have an effect?

      • hollygreen9

        Just MAYBE an armed citizen might be quite proficient with firearms!! A lot of cops couldn’t hit a bull in the ass with a scoop shovel.

        • Joseph Koziar

          I’m sure that in a country of 300+ million people, there are a few armed citizens who might have done better. But I suspect most armed citizens would have done much worse. Zimmerman for example would be dead if the kid he was following had had a gun. And most cops are actually very good shots when their targets are young, unarmed black men. Its only when the targets start shooting back that cops have problems. And this is only one of a number of examples that come to mind.

      • dbrennan

        if we all carried guns crime would not go away because some people have no regard for human life or liberty. there will always be bad guys. but every person should have the right to defend himself with the same tools that the criminals use and will always use no matter what stupid gun laws are in place. there are a lot of criminals who would not risk committing a crime against someone knowing they could be armed. lets think about this. if all citizens openly carried a firearm and everyone could see that they were armed. I would bet crime would drop extremely. your just not going to try and rape a woman who is carrying a pistol on her side. or steal an old ladies purse knowing she is going to be shooting at you while your running away. so the answer to your question no crime is never going away and yes armed citizens will have an overwhelming effect.

        • Joseph Koziar

          Get real. First of all, if there were no gun laws, not every one would be carrying a gun anyway. Secondly, the armed perp committing the crime always has the advantage. A few years ago some ass hole gunned down 4 well armed police officers in a coffee shop. I said 4! If you can get an advantage over 4 cops, how effective is the average citizen going to be. Oh, and a couple of months ago, 2 cops in the same car in NY were murdered, just to emphasize my point. The nature of crimes might change if we all had guns but the crime rate would not go down significantly.

      • Brady Harness

        Right now the “OUT LAWS” depend on the state to make sure most Law abiding citizens don’t have Guns to Protect themselves!!! That keeps the odds on their side so they can Hurt and Kill people that won’t give them what they are after!!!

        • Joseph Koziar

          I doubt that any states prohibit law abiding citizens from having guns in their homes. So you are free to protect yourself from outside intruders. If you do busines in bad areas of the community and carry cash which might invite a robbery, you can usually get a concealed carry permit. A friend of mine was delivering medication to patients in high crime neighborhoods and was able to get a permit for conceal carry. This was in Philly, the only place in PA where open carry is strictly forbidden. So stay out of bad neighbor hoods and you won’t need a gun!

      • b4k9zp

        Yes, Texas has unconstitutional “JIm Crow” laws that restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And Texas gun owners are working to eliminate those laws through the legislature–of course members of Texas trial juries can nullify any of those laws by finding any person who is accused of breaking a”Jim Crow” law that restricts the right to keep and bear arms not guilty no matter what the evidence says, if they believe the law is unfair, unjust, or unconstitutional, or is being unfairly or unjustly enforced by an over-zealous prosecutor

        Police officers even in Texas are not required to provide police protection to any individual, according to many court cases, unless they actually have the person in police custody. Your claim that the police officers shootout with some criminals invalidates the concept that having armed citizens is invalid itself, for the armed citizens do stop armed assaults, robberies, burglaries and attempted forcible rapes and homicides in Texas as in every other states. The armed citizens are present everywhere. The cops cannot be, and they don’t show up at a crime scene until the criminal has committed his crime and either fled the scene or been stopped by an armed citizen.

        You support those Jim Crow laws that keep minorities from having guns for their own defense, don’t you Joseph. That makes you a racist.

        • Joseph Koziar

          You need to stop reading things into other peoples comments. I didn’t say I supported the law. I was merely pointing out the irony that a Republican state run by people who champiom 2nd ammendment rights would have such a law. Since the Republicans could overturn that law any time they wanted and haven’t done so, it is unlikely to go away any time soon. As for armed citizens stopping crime, when Whitman starting shooting people from the tower all those Texans got their guns from their gunracks in their pickups and started shooting back. I think they fired hundreds of rounds and couldn’t hit him. That’s how effective armed citizens are at stopping crime. Also ironic that it happened in Texas.

      • leadfoot320

        SO THE COPS SHOULD HAVE WAITED TILL THE ROBBERS LEFT ?
        If armed citizens had been present, may be a policeman would be alive today.
        ALSO MORE RANGE TIME FOR THE OFFICERS !

    • Buck O’Fama

      Joe, have you written to your state legislator about getting TX on the Constitutional Carry list? (:-)

      • b4k9zp

        Our legislature recently became overwhelmingly conservative (about 60% of each house is conservative, pro-gun people). And our lieutenant governor and governor have both stated they will support any constitutional carry laws that come before them.

    • bill

      several years back here in the peoples republic of Kalifornia they tried “use a gun go to prison”. when the libtards running this Nazi state found out that a vast majority of crimes committed with guns were done by liberals’ favorite protected class of people(minorities btw) they stopped prosecuting for gun use and let it become a bargaining plea to allow a criminal to plead to a lessor crime and drop the gun charge.

    • dragon6actual

      Agreed, with stiffer penalties. Shooting or stabbing someone in the commission of a crime should be a capital offense, and if a guilty verdict is rendered in the face of irrefutable evidence, the sentence must be carried out within six months.

      God bless Texas.

  • jim scofield

    What the legislators in Colorado will have to do is be certain
    that the Bill is Veto proof by Hickenlooper. And by that I mean
    enough to over ride and then shove it down his throat.

    • LeSellers

      I’d be among the last to defend the Hick, but he has said that the violations of the II were a mistake. I don’t know whether he’d willingly sign a constitutional carry law or not, but he’s not quite so ungun happy as he was two years ago. Losing the state senate was a serious blow to his power.

      That said, I’m really puzzled as to why he still in the executive chair at the capitol. It was a close race, but he won, and that’s a problem, nut just because he is, at his heart, anti gun rights, but anti individual rights and responsibilities altogether.

      Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

      • jim scofield

        Lets not forget the Obola/Chicago rule how many
        dead people voted for him.

  • LARRY JOHNSON

    The bill should be passed so citizens can protect themselves & kids from obama- holder criminal illegals & terrorists which are coming across the border to kill & rape kids-women-under the Obama open border plan

    • LeSellers

      Holder’s probably out of the picture in a week or so, so it’s now the O’bama/Holder/Lynch cabal of evil. She’s no better than Holder, and quite possibly worse. The GOP will not block her appointment even though they have the power to do so, and a host of good reasons for it.

      Mr. Magoo O’bama, will there ever be any Jobs?

  • Texas Senior

    I wouold love to see this happen for law abiding citizes of Texas as well.

  • arron Grottolo

    I love the law. I am a 2nd Amendment supporter to the max. I believe that if we lose that right then we lose them all and may as well learn to live like North Koreans which is what Barry Sotero wants. What concerns me though is that weed tokers will be carrying guns. They are more likely to use poor judgement than non-tokers.

    • Rick01234

      I would say that people who smoke tobacco make poor decisions like Michael Brown did by stealing those cigars, if that wasn’t a drug related crime, then I’m lost on that one. Tobacco smokers are drug addicts, and some people make bad decisions that ultimately kill them, like smoking tobacco in the first place. Cannabis causes a sense of relaxation, and so does tobacco for those who are addicted to it. I have seen grown up women literally cry and get very shaky physically when they can’t have a cigarette, so if smoking tobacco kills people, shouldn’t it be illegal? Hell no, we would run out of jail and prison space long before we could get around locking up elected and appointed criminals who violate their oaths to the Constitution on a daily basis. FEMA camps for CONgress sounds good to me.

  • Barry Smith

    Sure it’s got a chance. Everything has a chance, you just need the right people in place to GIT ER DONE.

  • James Harris

    What good is concealed carry if all ammo is banned? Open your eyes AMERICA that is exactly what OBAMA is trying to do

    • Chained

      If all ammo were to be banned then we are one sorry excuse for Americans for letting it happen just like we let a mooslime commie dictator wannabe run America into the ground and become weakened militarily, spiritually and financially.

    • trollhunterforlife45

      Maybe you, but Not mot of us.Te ban will not fly you watch ! 223 56 is still fro sale, If the threat were real then No sales this is not China or Russia or an emergency Dude ! Only Congress writes and sunsets law not the F idiots under Obama !

  • Frank W Brown

    I agree that the 2nd Amendment is ALL the permit needed for a citizen to arm themselves!

  • e111w

    As long as it sticks to CC. It makes no sense whatsoever to stick OC in the faces of the anti bunch. The article says nothing about any “conditions”/ “requirements”. The presence or lack thereof could matter depending upon the make up of the House and/or the governor. We know that citizen recalls of anti-gun legislative zealot and pro support from a large contingent of sheriff’s and citizens at large have been in the news. The House should pass the measure – but will the legis have the votes to override a possible veto?? Leave it to Coloradans to insist it passes.
    Go Buffs!

    .

  • spacegasp

    “the right of the people to own and carry lethal weapons will not be encroached upon”

    • Rick01234

      That quote is not a quote of the second amendment,go back and get it right would you? Or you could leave it that way and be wrong.

      • spacegasp

        In what way is that translation wrong?

        • conservative since 1962

          Spacegasp;
          In my opinion your paraphrase is accurate. I would have used the “shall” of the original wording instead of “will”, but that is only a matter of personal preference.

        • Rick01234

          Your translation is only a quote to your self, stick to the original, it works doesn’t it?

    • maxx

      Words don’t mean squat unless the citizens have the courage to put them into action. Voting Republican has gotten us nowhere in 50 years. Voting Conservative is the only solution left and the time frame is shrinking every day..

  • Ralph Midgetman

    Good for the freedom loving people of Colorado, criminals and thugs love gun laws that disarm their victims while the criminal class stay armed because being the criminal class they don’t obey laws, gun laws included.

    All gun bans and restrictive gun laws do is restrict the honest law abiding citizens from being able to protect their family and themselves from the criminal class.

    So why is it that the Democrat Party is so hell bent to destroy the honest law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms?

    Can anyone answer that?

    • Jerry

      Sure, as long as we are armed they can’t take the rest of our rights away without a fight, think NWO, not a lot of people will just kick back and let the government run our lives, think martial law

    • maxx

      Because the law abiding people are the easiest to control and that is what democrats (aka socialists) are all about. Obama is the last phase of the movement to turn the US into a Fascist State.

    • Bonnie Warner

      The democratic party as a whole does not care if you want to own guns. We just want to make sure you don’t have a mental illness or a criminal background when you go to get your guns. We know the bad guys are going to get guns. But maybe we can keep some bad guys from getting guns.

      You are all against any controls, do you have to have car insurance when you own a car? Yep. If you don’t and you are pulled over and can’t show proof of insurance you are fined and you lose your license until you get insurance. That is in every state. Do you pay taxes on every car you own to the state you live, yep. Do you pay homeowners insurance for your home, yep. Do you have to put a plate on your car/truck or whatever else you drive, yep. Government bodies control your live. Do you have a drivers license in your state, yep. I bet a lot of you even have federal passports. You have to submit to the controls for the identity of you and your property. So what is the big difference with a gun? There is none. It is the same thing.

      The NRA keeps feeding you and keeping you in this state of rage. So afraid of someone taking away a right. When, oh sure some people would like the guns gone, but most people agree that is ridiculous. I hate guns and I don’t expect anyone to give up their guns. I just want them registered just like their cars and houses. Not much just a little bit.

      • Ralph Midgetman

        Bonnie Warner, please learn some history about what happens when guns are ‘registered’ and the government knows who has them.

        In the 20th Century alone well over 100 million people, men women and children were murdered in cold blood by their own fascist or socialist governments, NOT in war but cold blood and in many cases right after guns were outlawed by the evil governments.

        What you are calling for Bonnie Warner is in fact the destruction of the 2ed Amendment, what part of ‘shell not be infringed’ do you not understand?

        Bonnie Warner look at it this way, when the Territory of Arizona applied to become a State one requirement was Arizona had to pass a Constitution that is in compliance with the Federal Constitution.

        To be in compliance with the 2ed Amendment the Arizona Constitution Article 2 Section 26.
        The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
        defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
        section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to
        organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

        The Arizona Constitution was ratified and Arizona become a State , Arizona Constitution Article 2 Section 26 makes it clear that owning guns is The right of the individual citizen and not a ‘rule’ that can require a permit or be removed to disarm law abiding citizens.

        Further more Bonnie Warner your asinine assertion about the NRA is almost as asinine as your assertion that the Democrats are not trying to take away our gun rights and our guns. The same Democrats who want to disarm honest law abiding citizens have no plan at all on how to disarm the gangs and criminal class who are the ones doing the crimes.

      • Rick01234

        Another Obama shill, Not much just a whole bunch. I think you should pay a carbon tax for inhaling, Obama sure did as a teenagers are want to do in Hawaii. All kidding aside the Unaffordable care act did absolutely nothing in the way of regulation of the costs of healthcare, because it was designed as a sales tool law for the insurance companies and it has driven up the costs of healthcare, but it is of no matter, the health care costs will destroy his Unaffordable Care Act all by it’s self, do the math before you fail to recognize the obvious math flaws in this act. But you sure sound like you want the Government to own you, and that’s fine, as long as you sign off a release that your are surrendering all of rights willingly, and that would mean all of your rights, and not just a little bit. Have a nice time being a slave!

      • sportshooter

        I hate to burst your bubble, but none of the things you just ranted about are guaranteed to you in the Constitution. That being said, there is a big difference between a gun and all of your above rantings. If we follow the argument you are trying to create, you would have to give up all the things you say gov’t forces you to do to have control over you.

        You really should do your homework before you post. Tell us all where the Gov’t says you have to have homeowners insurance? The only homeowners insurance the gov’t mandates is flood insurance and that is only if you live in a flood plain. You have obviously been indoctrinated by the liberal/ progressives. I am willing to bet you agree with Hillary when she stated ” that private corporations don’t create jobs”, thus showing everyone that you enjoy being controlled. If you enjoy being controlled that much you really should find yourself a master and wear his collar.

        You have the right to free speech, just like everyone else, just like NRA members have the right to join the organization so that they have their voices heard. Unless you are willing to give up your right to free speech, you really should not whine about a group of people having their voices heard as one because they don’t conform to your views.

        Here is a scientific fact that if you can refute, I will gladly give up my guns. Show me a gun that gets out of its holster, case, or safe and loads itself and then goes out and shoots someone and returns to its previous place, unloaded.

        P.S. One fact you failed to mention in your rant is that cars killed more people in this country last year than the firearms you hate so much. How is all the regulation you stated above working for you? Look up the stats on the FBI and NTSB websites and suicides don’t count as gun violence since many would have found other ways to kill themselves.

      • b4k9zp

        Bonnie, the Democratic party’s national party platform and all fifty of its state party platforms have had as a major platform plank the call for stricter gun control laws (by which they mean gun registration laws, gun banning laws and gun confiscation laws) since 1968. THey support the Jim Crow laws that keep blacks and other minorities from having guns, because they don’t trust blacks or any other minorities, and believe that they are morally and ethically incapable of governing themselves.

        Criminal background checks and mental illness checks are an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, for they unconstitutionally restrict who may own guns.and are a pre-supposition that everyone who wants to buy a gun is either mentally imbalanced or of criminal intent, and must prove to “government” that such is NOT the case, which is a violation of the principle in US law that every accused person is innocent of any crime unless and until he or she indicted for a crime, and tried for that crime in a trial in which they are entitled to legal counsel and mandatory means for obtaining witnesses and evidence in their favor, and to know what evidence the prosecution has against them, in the jurisdiction in which the crime was allegedly committed. If they are then found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then they lose their right to freedom and can even lose their right to life.

        But you and your like want to deprive everyone of their rights without any legal proceedings because you don’t like their skin color, or their freedom of speech, or because you believe, falsely, that everyone who wants to buy a gun is insane or crazy or wants to kill someone.

        The NRA does not create any state of rage. The rage exists because of actions by people like you, who hate freedom and love slavery.

        • Bonnie Warner

          And exactly what you say is why the why their is a fight about guns. We do not want to restrict guns to NORMAL people. We don’t care if you have guns. We don’t see the need for you to have assault weapons but you do. So be it. The rumors fly around that there is a push to take away the guns – There is not. we want to have the background check to make sure mental ill patients and criminals can not own guns. Why do you think that it is okay for them to legally own guns?

  • ed

    I hope every state lets you carry if you are a CITIZEN

  • maxx

    Oh wow Colorado’s Senate passed SB 15-032!! Woopie cayea!! Basically what the h#ll does that have to do with the other 49 states? NOTHING! The states never had the authority to subvert the Second Amendment in the first place. This means nothing to anyone but the folks in Colorado. And if history means anything you will see Colorado’s Assembly reject it. This is the very same thing that goes on in the US Congress. We gave the Republicans the majority in both houses. To make believe they are in control the Senate will pass a bill. But every single bill passed by the Senate will be shot down by Boehner in the House. If the House Republicans pass a bill it will be shot down by McConnell. When too many Republicans vote in favor there is always enough democrats to change the vote. This is Congressional Kabuki Theater. Keep watching and you will see that what I describe here has and is going to be the agenda for the next two years. Liberals are still controlling Congress no matter whom you voted for. WAKE UP AND STOP BELIEVING THE REPUBLICAN LIES.

  • dltaylor51

    Good for Colorado,i hope it passes and if not the voters there will know who needs to be removed from office next election.

  • Dave T.

    They will probably screw it up by requiring one to be “High” on weed if they carry. Those that don’t test positive for THC after a shooting will be jailed as they were too “uptight” to carry!

    • Raylan Givens

      Why the antipathy to marijuana as an intoxicant, Dave? Do you drink alcohol?

      • b4k9zp

        Because marijuana consumption is an indication of even less character than over indulgence in alcohol

      • Dave T.

        NO…it is an excuse that people use to justify their evil!!!
        i.e. “Sorry I slept with her honey, I was drunk at the time. or
        Sorry for spendig my paycheck at the bar honey, dont’t worry, the kids will make it another week on Ramen Noodles!”
        You KNOW that this is true!

  • alfred e newman

    our communist government is so used to violating the constitution and running the country in their own bent and twisted insane image that our communist government will take a lot to change

  • Charley C.

    I think it should right in every state to carry canceled with out a permit. I a criminal is arrested with a gun ,then he should go to jail .that’s just common sense. but at the same time good law abiding people should not be denied their given rights under the constitution .

  • Jacky

    Google US Association of Chiefs of Police.
    Every jurisdiction that, has passed Right to Carry laws have seen a drop in violent crime.
    Not one, not some, all.
    Every jurisdiction that has pass SYG laws have seen a further drop in violent crime.
    Not one, not some, all
    I think we all know by now, safety is not whey the liberal garbage do this.
    They are aware they will not be able to take the country socialist and long as the citizenry re armed They know they will not be able to control your life as long as the citizenry are armed.
    They know that they will not be able to continue to take more of your earnings every to fund their handouts, as long as you are armed.
    It’s time to start condiering ways and means with the liberal dem bloodsuckers.

    • Rick01234

      Jacky, Great responce! Your absolutley correct, and Obama is a complete socialist with fascist leanings all over the place. One thing I am concerned with his showing that he might create a false flag operation and declare martial law, and cancel the 2016 elections and then by deceit he could remain until his “national emergency” is over, like maybe never.

      • Jacky

        I read a book, Called counter insurgency during one of my training courses as a marine.
        1st we have roughly 2 million available ground combat forces, between the Army and the Corps.

        Roughly 70% of them are from red states, that work is a little too plebeian for the liberal dem bloodsuckers, it’s unlikely that there have been liberal dem bloodsckers in ground combat troops, since the draft stopped.
        Leaving that aside for the moment, the manual states that defensive force need a numerical ration of 6 or 8 to 1.
        If he actually tried to do this, it likely that resistance would occur almost immediately.
        There are in the neighborhood oh 100 million armed americans.
        if only 5 % of them joined in, the the defending forces would need 6 to 8 million ground combat troops.
        Every thing that they did would require them to be in large groups and heavily armed.. all of the families of all o0f the troops faithful to the government would have to move their families into military bases.
        If thy could find faithful National Guard units, they would have to move all of their families.into military bases.
        There would have to be 2 full armed division guarding the white house.
        i really don’t think that even Obama is that stupid.

  • Greg S

    The second amendment wacko right wing meeting of the simple minds, LOL,LOL. Thanks to people like you, I use to be a PROUD gun owner, now I do not even mention I own one. Keep drinking the cool aid everyone one. ROTFLMAO

    • mac12sam12

      Your comment is garbled. Smoke another bone.

    • b4k9zp

      Typical personal attack by a leftist, who proves that he is a liar, and that he knows he has no factual evidence of any kind, or any conceivable or possible form of logic, thinking ability or reasoning ability to support his idiotic, fear-filled, pro-slavery and anti-gun ranting, as always.

  • David

    The 2nd has no restrictions………Any would be unconstitutional…get over it…..

    • Raylan Givens

      David, are you saying that the second amendment guarantees civilians the right to own bazookas, hand grenades, armor-piercing bullets and other military weapons?

      • b4k9zp

        That is 100% correct. The term “arms” was perfectly defined by Tench Coxe, a delegate from Pennsylvania to the Constitutional Convention of 1787-1788, in a letter he wrote to “The Pennsylvania Gazette” that appeared in its February 20, 1788 edition: “…Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of
        the soldier are the birthright of all Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in
        the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where, I trust in
        God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.”

        Even the 1934 Congress that created the highly racist and completely unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934 that for the first time strictly regulated the weapons available to the public did not actually try to ban their ownership, but just made it extremely expensive and difficult to own such weapons. As the democratic party leadership in both houses stated repeatedly while that unconstitutional law was being “debated”, its purpose was to “keep Italian, Sicilian and “n-word” [they actually used the “n-word” that rhymes with “bigger”] gangsters from having those “weapons” (which included sound suppressors/silencers, that are not weapons themselves).

        The 1934 National Firearms Act required any person who wanted to have a fully-automatic weapon, “silencer/suppressor”, “hand grenade”, “bazookas”, and so on first to have a federal firearms license, for which payment of a fee or “poll tax” was required; and then a “Class III or Destructive Device” license, which required payment of another fee or poll tax, and submission of “mug shots” (identifiable photographs of one’s face from front and side), a full set of fingerprints, and submission to a full background check by the FBI, in addition to obtaining a letter from the “Chief Law Enforcement Officer” of the area in which one resided attesting to one’s good character, in order to get the unconstitutional license for exercising a constitutional right. Then, when one finally received the license, each time the person wanted to buy a weapon restricted under the 1934 National Firearms Act, he had to pay a “transfer tax” (also a form of “poll tax” on the exercise of a constitutionally protected birthright), for each weapon he bought, that even in the 1930s was about $250 or so. That more than doubled the cost of, for example, a Thompson model M1928A1 submachine gun, or an M1918A1 or A2 Browning Automatic Rifle. As Roy Innis, chair of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) stated in 1988, when talking about the banning of “Saturday Night Specials [inexpensive handguns], “to make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you’re putting a money test on getting a gun. It’s racism in its worst form.” But that is typical of the racist anti-gun members of the Democratic party.

        FYI, over 150,000 such destructive device licenses have been issued to individuals throughout the nation since 1934. In those 81 years, only one deliberate shooting by a license holder of another individual with a fully-automatic weapon has occurred, and that was in a shootout between an undercover police officer and a drug lord who was trying to kill him. IIRC, only two other incidents with legally-owned fully automatic weapons have occurred, in which someone was killed accidentally when they or another person could not handle the recoil of the weapon when it was fired in full-automatic mode. Those two incidents were regrettable, but are no reason to ban such weapons.

  • todd freeman

    I’m feeling safer already!!

  • Charlie

    The “drive by media ” would have all believe that guns actually kill just by being a gun . The same media source would have all believe that the second amendment is about hunting , plinking , single shot guns and not about tyranny , self protection .
    The CCW license that states have toted in principal are a form of registration . Registration leads to control . Control leads to restrictions . Restrictions on our second amendment leads to tyranny. Tyranny is the total abuse of absolute government powers . This would end all of our natural (God given ) rights in our Bill of Rights . Exercising our First Amendment Right by typing on the now government controlled internet !!!

    • bill

      What people fail to understand is that the Second Amendment grants the American people absolutely nothing; it merely enumerates that government shall be prohibited from infringing upon the natural rights of free men. this is inherent to all the 1st ten amendments known as the bill of rights.

      • Greyguy

        It restricts the government, whatever that means in this day and age.

  • apzzyk

    My family history in CO goes back to about 1850 and I know that a couple of my ancestors could have been at Sand Creek but we don’t know really if they were or not, and that is not one of the things that makes people of the state proud. Here is my take on the issue – CO is really a purple state, with most of the urban area being Blue and most of the rural area being Red, and it is deeply divided and has been for a long time on these controversial issues – all attempts at ‘person-hood’ on the ballot have failed. In the last legislature, there were 2 recall attempts by gun nuts in the very Conservative CO Springs area, who were up for recall on this issue – one lost and the other resigned before loosing so that a Democrat could be appointed to fill that seat. But CO Springs is different from the northern urban area – the Spgs, has major military instalations including NORAD, the AFA, and Ft. Carson, so this is going to make it to the ballot, but then what?
    As a vet (USMC) there is also a great division in the Legion and VFW – everyone seems to think that having the right is ok, but when it comes to concealed carry, even in these local posts there is some opposition – since both local posts do not allow guns on the premises either officially or unofficially. The Legion Post also has a recreation camping area in the mountains and the rule there is to check your guns with the caretaker and pick them up on the way out. People do get drunk up there and so it is just a matter of what is safe for the people (members of the Post and their families). The large capacity magazine company, to protest the law limiting these, moved out of Erie, CO, and no one seems to have missed it, and there does not seem to be any sort of support in Northern Colorado for arming people in schools – quite the opposite – since it became legal to carry concealed on College campuses a few years ago, the support for that on campuses seems to have decreased, so this may indicate how the state will go – when the majority of people at CSU – the Ag university – do not think concealed carry is necessary or really serves as a deterant, that says something.
    The personhood amendments which usually draw out the Conservatives, may be the best leading indicator. Here, on my property, I do not allow firearms at all, and my little survey of the neighbors seems to indicate that even the gun owners do not want non-family members armed on their properties.

    • b4k9zp

      apzzyk, Doesn’t matter what the fraudulent votes by those who love baby murder have said, All human beings are persons from the time their fertilized egg is successfully implanted in the mother’s womb and begins to develop. And there is no other time for them to become a person other than that moment, for if they are not persons from that time on, then they cannot be a person at any time there after.

      Your name calling (calling others “gun nuts”) proves that you know that you have no facts, or any conceivable form of logic, thinking ability or reasoning ability to support any of your idiotic, hate filled opinions.

      If you don’t allow firearms on your property, you are opening up yourself to civil rights lawsuits for no individual may deny any other person any of their civil rights, and that includes the right to possess and carry firearms.

      • apzzyk

        Good, you agree with a Pope of about 1,000 years ago, who could not have known what he was talking about because more than 500 years ago Michaelangelo was denied permission from the church to disect a human body, so he had no idea how the human reproduction system worked. It was not until the 19th century that it was finally determined that the gestation period for humans was 9 months. The ruling in Roe v Wade focused on the viability of the fetus out of the womb, and based on medical science at the time, determined that it was not viable until, at earliest, the beginning of the 3rd trimester. Now, Congress just passed a law reducing the time of viability, but unfortunately, they have no control over biology. If they could, they could simply outlaw death and make people live forever.
        Abortion, when done by a medical professional is a safe procedure – we know this by the fact that women, acting alone, can do the same in the privacy of their own places, but in doing so they increase the risk – the puncturing of the uterous, and all of its consequences. When this happens, as it does, and the woman makes it to the hospital ER, she may be treated at public expense. The economic fallicy of not using the taxpayers money for the abortion itself, is that when a woman does it herself, and does suffer complications, it costs the taxpayers, many mulitiples of the amount that it would have cost to provide her a a safe and legal abortion.
        I do not advocate abortion as a first line of contraception because of the readily available alternatives, but realize that none of them, just like any medical device or medication, are not perfect. With this continued and continuing effort to restrict the availability of the safe and legal abortions, I have advised wonen who are pregnant to carry the fetus to term, and then take it to the office of a legislator who wants to restrict their right, and leave the baby for the legislator to raise. In CO, there is a legal alternative – a woman can tack an unwanted baby to any fire house or hospital and surrender it within 72 hours of birth, and this is used far more frequently than is reported.
        If you oppose abortion, just hang a sign which is visible from the street that you take unwanted children, and register as a foster person with Social Services, and then live with it. In otherwords, put your ass where your put your ass where your mouth is.
        On guns, the Constitution only applies to Governnents, and to those who deal in interstate commerace or do something that can be considered a ‘hate’ crime, which would involve getting gun owners classified as a ‘protected class’ – which is not going to happen. You have probably seen the signs “No shirt, No shoes, No service” on merchants doors. This setting of a deress code is well within the rights of a property owner or individual since they do no target a protected class. On the other hand, the people who dress this way could become a part of a religious sect which, could have among their beliefs that it was immoral to wear tops (both man and women), and shoes – Christ did not wear shoes – he wore sandals – and become a member of a protected class by religion. Gun nuts could do the same thing, and I would still not allow them on my property.
        Lets face it, your version of ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty’ only considers what you want to do, and fails to consider the rights and liberties of others.
        Since there is no indication that you are writing this from jail, I would take it that when it comes to really asserting what you think is your absolute right to bear arms so far as to really test it and find out if such an absolute right really exists. You are delusional!!!

  • Jack Simpson

    According to one of the Constitutional articles any law that is legal in one state is legal in all states. And that article hasn’t been amended. I’m sure it would be based on majority rule but it’s worth looking into. SSG U.S. Army (RET)

  • glorybe2

    It is not just liberals that have created restrictive gun laws. Many conservatives have dome exactly the same thing.

    • b4k9zp

      Sorry, anti-gun laws are the exclusive province of those who hate freedom and love slavery, for that is their entire purpose. They certainly don’t prevent crimes at any time.

      Those so-called “conservatives” whom you say created restrictive gun laws were all DEMOCRATS and members of the Ku Klux Klan, which is still owned by and still controls the Democratic party. Why else would the Democratic party still call for “Jim Crow” laws that deny black citizens and other minority citizens their civil right and personal birthright to possess and carry the same weapons that are in common use by the military and police of the day?

      • glorybe2

        Friend get back on your meds. The KKK is not at all friendly with the democratic party. The Clan was squashed flat by folks like Bobby Kennedy years ago and is hardly a force at all these days. Further it is the republican party that houses the race haters and goes out of its way to shelter them. Witness the the republican candidate for the last presidential election who owned the “Nigger Head” ranch in Texas.

  • Harry Arms

    This should be the law in ALL STATES

  • palehorse58

    This law does no good for the idiots in Connecticut. This state is ruled by communists . Elected by nitwits with their hands out to receive benefits that they don’t deserve.

  • DERRELLCRAWFORD

    Freedom at it’s most expressive means

  • therain

    Isn’t it about time we make dope 100% illegal? There’s a reason it’s called dope.

    • Raylan Givens

      Which dope are you talking about? Alcohol? Tobacco? Aspirin? Cough syrup? All of these drugs can kill you. Virtually the only popular intoxicant that cannot kill you is cannabis. It is impossible to die from a marijuana overdose – weather smoked or eaten. Plus it not only helps medical conditions such as nausea, hypertension, diabetes, and glaucoma – it also actively fights brain, breast, and lung tumors.

      • b4k9zp

        Marijuana is a carcinogen. It has four times the concentration of carcinogens as tobacco smoke. And claiming that it cannot kill is a blatant lie, because people who use marijuana wind up killing themselves and others by the thousands when they get behind the wheel of a car. Even the National Organization for REform Of Marijuana Laws admits that as many as 1/3rd of the automobile accident deaths attributed to drunk driving are due to people who have used marijuana and had as little as one alcoholic beverage.

  • Buck O’Fama

    I’d love to see that in New Jersey – but won’t be holding my breath . . . (:-)

    Good on ya, Colorado !!!

  • Ralph Midgetman

    Look at it this way, when the Territory of Arizona applied to become a
    State one requirement was Arizona had to pass a Constitution that is in
    compliance with the Federal Constitution.To be in compliance with the 2ed Amendment the Arizona Constitution Article 2 Section 26 was passed.
    The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
    defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
    section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

    The Arizona
    Constitution was ratified and Arizona become a State , Arizona
    Constitution Article 2 Section 26 makes it clear that owning guns is The
    right of the individual citizen and not a ‘rule’ that can require a
    permit or be removed to disarm law abiding citizens.

  • Stanley S. Terry

    Yes to me that’s like poor working class Americans being forced to purchase outrageously high priced liability insurance before they can drive their car they bought and may I add have to pay property tax on every year just to purchase a $15 plate to put on it. Shouldn’t we have the choice if we want to be sued and our belongings taken in a civil court of law instead of letting the insurance companies taking it so-called legally each month for insurance against something that may never happen. If people would band together we could get the government’s hands out of our pockets. Stanley S. Terry

  • Brent Neerings

    I strongly believe that the citizens of Colorado should be able to carry a concealed weapon to defend themselves. I urge all citizens to contact their state representatives to pass this bill(SB15-032) Brent Neerings, Midway ,Utah

  • GERRIT

    we should all pray this happens AMEN

  • Wayne Green

    The whole concealed weapon law is unconstitutional. If you want to carry your gun concealed. Then do so. Remember if it is a unjust law it is your duty to disobey that law. If you are a law abiding citizen then you will give the police aka military police no reason to search your person.The search can be prevented by just knowing your rights and how to deal with with the police anyway. What I’m saying is, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The 2nd amendment does not say go get a permit to carry your gun how you chose. Just carry it how you feel it should be carried. It’s up to you if you want to follow what the government feels is best. I know that I can think for myself. I do what is best for me and my family. So if carrying a gun concealed in my truck and on my person makes me feel safe. I’m doing it. Cause it is my insurance that I make it home. I have guns but I hope I never have to use them to take a life. I feel that either you use the 2nd amendment or lose it. Because they are tring to take it away everyday.

  • Bud Chapman

    Yep, I think it may has a good chance of passing, I mean, that if criminals get the idea that regular citizens can carry, maybe they’ll go back into their rat holes.

  • elmcqueen3

    Beware of Obama and his fellow CommieCRats who want a Universal Criminal Back Ground Check System enacted when we alread have a Federal Criminal Back Grouund Check System know as the NICS whch has been in opeation for the last 50 years and has done a good job of weeding out criminals from buying firearms…Not good enough for Obama as evidence by our own Colorado CommieCRats who have passed legislation requiring all guns being transferred from one person to another (private sales) other than antique firearms must go through a Universal Criminal Back Ground Check System…That includes any firearms you wish to give to your child or children as a gift..Or to your wife…Or to your neighbor or anyone else…This is a nonenforceable frivous gun law passed only for the purpose of harrassing responsible gun owners…It does nothing to prevent persons or criminals from conducting gun violence…Alll mass shooting in this country have been carried out by those who have possessed legally acquire firearms…The majority of these shootings have been carried out on property that has “Gun Free Zone” signs posted…As proof…Almost a year later after our Gov. John Hickenlooper signed Colorado’s infamous new gun laws because a staffer told him it was the right thing to do…An Arapahoe HS student of legal age purchased a shotgun and took it to school…
    Shooting up the place wounding several students killing one female…To this we read our Gov. has stated the new Universal Criminal Back Ground Check System now in place is working…What?…”When will They ever Learn?”…Peter, Paul and Mary.

    • Raylan Givens

      I understand what you’re saying. But why do you feel the need to lower yourself to name-calling insults. I know it feels good – but it doesn’t really facilitate communication, and it undermines your point. Just a thought. Hope you’re having a good day.

      • elmcqueen3

        Perhaps this will enlighten you…Go to:
        commieblaster.com

      • b4k9zp

        Where did he call anyone names? He only stated the truth.

  • Brady Harness

    Hitler and other Dictators such as President Bambam and the DUMBOCRATS that blindly desire to follow him are sure going to Hate this act!!! Japan left mainland America alone because they were Afraid that every American was carrying a Weapon of some type and so it would be a Hard and Difficult if not Hopeless take over!!! That’s why those American Haters I just mentioned are so busy writing legislation to Weapons out of American Patriots hands!!! Sincerely, Brady C. Harness

    Kindly, read this and help us, so Linda can help others and then pass it on to Your Face Book Friends:
    http://www.gofundme.com/LymphaticSchool
    Every Dollar that You can spare, Is Greatly Appreciated !!!
    Linda would Greatly Appreciate help from her Veteran Brothers and Sisters!!!

    • Raylan Givens

      What is your historical, documented evidence that the Japanese didn’t invade the American mainland because US citizens were armed? I’m not doubting you, I’ve just never heard that story before.

      • Brady Harness

        Look online for it; study World War 2 and one will clearly see that as a Fact! Most all of us that had Parents serve in WW2 know that fact it was well talked about during the War and into the 1950s.

        • Raylan Givens

          Interesting. I’ll check it out. My folks were born in the 30s, so most of the World War II era stories I heard are from their youth during the depression. One question I do have as well, is why is it necessary to engage in name calling and insults? Regardless of our political perspective – Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative – it doesn’t really facilitate communication, and it tends to undermine the point we are trying to make – not to mention unnecessarily polarizing things more than they already are. Just a thought.

          • b4k9zp

            Ask your alter ego “crab apples” why he prefers only to call others names , proving that he is less intelligent than those whom he so attacks.

      • b4k9zp

        Just because you never heard it doesn’t mean it didn’t occur. Your ignorance on many subjects is as bad or worse than crabapples.

    • crab apples

      Brady, you have been listening to Texan military tales and have NO KLUE of what the reasons for what or what battles of WW II were about MORON. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they could and America had been restricting their petroleum supplies. MORON.

      Militia had NOTHING to do with Japan’s war strategies MORON. Go back to sixth grade and repeat it DUMB TARD Ohhhh, and the Germans just ran to the east when they saw the D-Day Armada out there in the Atlantic at Normandy, Gold , Sword, Juneau and Omaha Beaches right IDIOT?? and MORON . . . It just took the GERMANS seeing the 10,000 various naval ships and landing craft for them to just NOT fight back because they knew they had lost the minute they saw Allied troops…. Yeah right moron . . . . .

      I think the events at sunrise on 6 June of 1944 pretty much tells you otherwise if you just read or studied some history 3rd grader graduate of Texas MORON. . . . .

      Get the F off of here . YOU are so damn dumb you don’t even know how IQ of 80 that you sound imbecile TARD of TEA Time. Idiot……

      • b4k9zp

        typical hate speech and personal attacks, as always by old crabbie.
        always preferring to call others “tard” or “moron”, “imbecile” and “idiot” showing
        that you know that nothing you have ever said, or ever will say has any
        validity whatever because you know that you have no facts of any kind or
        any conceivable or possible form of logic, reasoning ability or
        thinking ability to support your own ignorant, fear filled, bigoted,
        intolerant hatred of freedom and love of slavery.

        FYI ignorant one, Japan is in the Pacific Ocean, on the other side of the world from Europe. And Japan attacked the United States on December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor in the Territory of Hawaii. You obviously never got into elementary school, and know it because your entire being only consists of calling others names like a little two year old punk. Your hate speech makes you sound even less intelligent than a mop.

  • BommerVet

    Smoking pot is just as harmful as cigarettes. Sucking carcinogens in your lung no matter what the source causes cancer, Legalizing pot just puts one more health hazard on the market not to mention increasing the number of people behind the wheel that are under the influence. Turning the whole country into a drug culture is not what the founding fathers had in mind.

    • Raylan Givens

      Actually, cannabis – including cannabis smoke – is being found to not only not be carcinogenic, but actually fight cancer. New studies are showing the cannabis smoke directly attacks lung cancer cells. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but those are the latest medical and scientific studies.

      • b4k9zp

        wrong again, givens, for the same carcinogens that are present in tobacco smoke are present in marijuana smoke, and in four times the concentration that they are found in tobacco smoke. No “new studies” are valid.

    • crab apples

      TEll me what drinking alcohol does to people and what does it do to some drivers that don’t realize they’ve had too much to drive. FATAL mistakes pal. Everything is relative or didn’t you know that yet TARD boy? GUNS need to be BANNED in America except for Police and the military (CURRENT) ONLY. The rest is senseless and only produces more deaths every year and now every week in increasing more and more mass shooting events or cop killing. GUN KULTURE KLUBBS Have spun out of control thanks to NRA and the TARDS of Texas. Why not have MORONS making the rules about guns? What harm could come from that pal and MORON? Idiot . . . . ..

      • b4k9zp

        More typical hate speech and personal attacks, as always by old crabbie. always preferring to call ohters “tard” or “moron”, and “idiot” showing that you know that nothing you have ever said, or ever will say has any validity whatever because you know that you have no facts of any kind or any conceivable or possible form of logic, reasoning ability or thinking ability to support your own ignorant, fear filled, bigoted, intolerant hatred of freedom and love of slavery.

        • crab apples

          OhhhMY, you are sooo insightful for an IQ of 80 MORON pal.SLAVERY pal? What do you KNOW about slavery MORON? Tell me with a five page term paper ASSHOLE. You are a moron that throws out words willy nilly with NO rationality connected to them . YOU are a GUN TARD and an IQ of 80. What does that say about YOU pal? Let’s talk mental illness for just a few lines here boy! ! ! Something that you care nothing about and KNOW nothing about , right MORON boy bezzubs NOT Jezzus boy?

          At least 15% of any human population has mental illness in some form, be it schizophrenia, bipolar or depression (unipolar is the technical term. GOOGLE ALL of them MORON……) . So if we have a military that has a million persons, then 15% will BE Mentally ill if they are in battle and then HAVE PTSD afterward idiot. This is FACT and YOU have no ability to even understand this most simple population incidence probability, do YOU ASSHOLE boy?

          So if anyone can obtain a weapon in America currently as that IS the current state of dysregulation of firearms, then 15 of every 100 gun owner is susceptible to or HAS FRANK mental illness pal. So what are you going to do about this simply stated KNOWN human existence FACT idiot? Is the 24th Amendment a good solution and tell me WHAT The Hell the 24th Amendment even says about anything nitwit boy?

          YOU are so damn dumb that I have given you endless examples of how mentally ill have firearms and then use them ILLEGALLY to go and murder innocent unrelated individuals like Aurora Colorado. Tell me HOW many jurors are in the selection pool that they have to try to select a jury for that ONE MORON boy?

          I think they took 10,000 people to try to select an “impartial jury” to try an obviously mentally ill bonehead NOT unlike yourself MORON. So when these HIGH Profile incidents keep happening over & over & over & over again, DO YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE A PROBLEM THAT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED MORON?

          If you can’t listen to reason and rational thought , then just turn over your guns to the nearest authority and get yourself checked out by the local shrink pal. YOU are mentally defective, possibly conspiratorially schizophrenic and are TOTALLY unqualified to have a firearm in your possession. THAT IS CURRENT LAW pal.

          Are you in favor OF Laws being enforced or NOT idiot? You tell me. Just answer all of my questions and you have LOST yet again MORON boy. Specious is a term that you must look up because everything that you have stated about “right to bear arms” is specious idiot. Do the homework pal.

          Check out any of the FACTS that I have given to your moronic lame ass LOSER mind to deal with. You can’t deal with facts , so you go to 24th Amendment is a good thing idiot. The 2nd Amendment simply states EVERYTHING That must be satisfied to BEAR ARMS moron. That is why it was written simply and MUST be followed DORK. What else can I say any more simply to a MORON that won’t accept one FACT that doesn’t line up with MORE GUNS For EVERYONE in America ? You are so FUCKING Stupid it is just unfathomable dimwitted Wonder Boy.

        • crab apples

          Let’s just use a very simple example of PTSD in the highest profile propaganda story on the American scene right now moron boy. American Sniper and Chris Kyle. Who had the PTSD in Chris Kyle’s demise idiot? It is documented and indeed the mentally ill shooter guy wastruly insane at the time. BUT murderer guy was found SANE and guilty in Texas. That is Texas justice and I could care less about that.

          Chris Kyle came back with PTSD and it is WELL known so why did he have firearms in his possession idiot? THEN he gives a gun to a know mentally deranged guy because Chris knew better than psychiatrists, right MORON? THEN What happened MORON? Chris and DIMWIT #2 were murdered. Do YOU see a problem with this idiotic situation at ALL MORON?

          LAWS meant nothing to Chris Kyle did they? Is he REALLY the greatest American WAR HERO in all of U.S. history IDIOT? NO , he’s a dimwit like yourself and Eastwood thought giving a “great Patriot” a platform to spew all of YOUR nonsense would be a good idea. IT was for Eastwood as he is just that much richer in monetary terms. HOW bout MORALITY ASSHOLE?

          Eastwood and Charlton Heston are BIG NRA guys right idiot? Heston WAS the voice of God, Moses in the TEN COMMANDMENTS movie. Did you ever see it ? It is on every damn year at Easter time bloody fool. So if the VOICE of GOD, an actor and Eastwood who got his fame as a gun slinger in Good, Bad & Ugly and many other violence infested movies say GUNS are GOOD , then you just go along like sheep right beezelbubs boy? MORON . . . . .

          Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

          Albert Einstein

        • crab apples

          I hope your dimwitted narrow minded sorry LAME ass excuse for a brain can absorb just ONE of my refutational posts about the INSANITY of gun violence and WHY it happens nearly every day now in America MORON. Mental illness and GUNS do NOT mix well , do they? WHY do so mentally ill people HAVE Guns in their possession MORON boy?

          Is is just ONE SIMPLE QUESTION MORON , so ANSWER it God damn it.If you don’t . LOOOOSER boy, yet again eh pal? Imbecile . . . . . .

  • Greg Geitner

    check out the dick act of 1902

  • J. Ernst

    Well put. Sadly, there are people that REQUIRE direction AND written text to go about their lives. Our constitution GIVES a REMINDER and a plan of how a GOOD society might prosper!!!
    Perhaps within 15 years or less, enough school children will grow to understand WHAT the constitution really means as opposed to what lawmakers would have U.S. believe it should mean.

    Regarding some arguments read here on capital punishment…the ELECTRIC CHAIR was a STRONG deterrent….

    • b4k9zp

      So was the hemp rope in the County Square. A person lawfully executed for the commission of a capital crime never committed another crime!

      • Rick01234

        Okay, I’m with you on the hemp rope connection, but hemp is the Cannabis plant that we made the sails and rope for our first navy, if it was good enough for Thomas Jefferson to grow at his Monticello plantation, then it’s good enough for me. And Jefferson didn’t just use it for making sail cloth known as Canvas, Canvas got it’s name from Cannabis, or is real American History just too much for you to take? Must not have been alive back in the 60’s or 70’s or even in the 80’s…Kids today just don’t get enough real American history much any more, with Common Core they will get even less. Obamaeducation into ignorance. Kinda like Obamacare did. His health care plan is: you’ll get none and like it!!

        • b4k9zp

          For many years, the use of hemp to make ropes was the only use to which it was put. Hemp fiber was and is one of the strongest natural fibers, and because it did not lose strength when wet, was ideal for making rope. Canvas is a form of cotton cloth.

          Linen was used for making sails long before cotton canvas was.

          It was not until about the 20th century that the “recreational use” of hemp and marijuana became popular. Too much of the hemp plant was used for making ropes and sails for it to be used for getting stoned.

          • Rick01234

            Wrong about the use of cotton for sail cloth being made out of cotton, not strong enough for marine use in any case, cotton cloth doesn’t hold up when it gets wet from salt water spray from the ocean. Which is chalk full of micro-organisiums which cause it to rot out rather quickly. Especially if the sails are ferruled up wet as they often were. Cotton simply isn’t the fiber for that application. I have a large hemp piece of cloth I’d like to make a flag out of, but haven’t gotten around to having it made up yet. Your knowledge is a bit poor on that topic, then there was the ban by the British for exporting Cannabis seeds to the colonies, but once Cannabis hit our shores in mass from Europe and it’s use for making every thing from oils from the seed which were nutritious and the seed made great poultry feed, and then the fiber for ropes and canvas, and the pharmaceutical properties had been known for thousands of years, and the fact that Cannabis was once listed in the Pharmacopeia of the United States, and that Cannabis containing medicinal use mail order catalogs such as Sears and Roebuck. Again your knowledge really isn’t up to par when it comes to history.

          • b4k9zp

            Canvas (and “duck cloth” has always been made from cotton.

            Doubt that cannabis was ever used for chicken feed. Nor is it good for anything but making tons of money for criminals, like yourself.

          • glorybe2

            Hemp does make very good fabric and large diameter ropes are also often made of hemp. But that hemp does not contain any degree of narcotic and even a bonfire of it would not get one high. It is banned as it is so hard to tell it from drug hemp and keeping it sorted out would require too many inspectors in the fields. But we are losing out on a valuable resource. For example there is a hemp-concrete mix that is very strong, reliable and cheap compared to regular concrete. But we are forced to import our hemp fiber.

          • Rick01234

            Oh, yeah they made rope out of the leaves and buds didn’t they? Man you know nothing about Cannabis do you? Just the Government propaganda they pumped your once working brain full of. Public Schools are harmful to young developing minds nowadays. Your a product of what they wanted you to know and believe, oh well some day you might come out of it, it’s like a light coma, but you’ll come out of it some day.

          • b4k9zp

            Look Ricky, child, you are making a lot of assumptions about others. Cannabis is known to be harmful. It has caused deaths when those who have indulged in it have caused wrecks, just as has alcohol. The buds and leaves were thrown away, for there was no use for them at the time. Even the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws admits that up to one third of all fatalities caused by “drunk drivers” also involve the use of pot. And it would certainly not be good for airliners, chemical plants, nuclear power plants, and oil refineries, or bus drivers and truck drivers to be stoned on marijuana. And since the effects of pot stay in the body for at least 72 hours after consumption, there’s no good reason to allow it. (At least alcohol is burned off in a few hours, not days, after consumption.

          • glorybe2

            One can actually die quickly from pot if used in brownies as it often is. My niece spent a night in an emergency room as she had no clue how powerful the brownies were and ate too much causing her blood pressure to collapse.

  • rcdwltd

    Hope they pass this law! We need more support for our second amendment rights rather than the ludicrous restrictions such as magazine size. Further, as indicated in the article, it is far more productive for police officers pursue criminals than use a law which would make a criminal of an honest, peaceful citizen

  • Raylan Givens

    Why is it that it is fine to have restrictions on the First Amendment – i.e., not screaming fire in a crowded theater – but it’s not okay to have any restrictions on firearm possession? Even in the old West – and I grew up in the Southwest – town marshals were very uncomfortable with people wearing their guns into town, and especially bringing them into saloons. I am by no means anti-gun; but I am curious as to the double standard.

    • b4k9zp

      Screaming “fire” in a crowded theater cannot be restricted, unless there is no fire. Then the person who creates the riot that ensues is personally responsible for any injuries or deaths that occur

      In the old west, despite your lies, the town ordinances that unconstitutionally restricted carrying of guns only did so in certain limited areas, known as “red light districts” where saloons, gambling houses and bordellos were common. In the rest of the towns like Dodge City, Deadwood, and Tombstone, the ordinary residents could and did carry their weapons at all times, and marshals like Bill Hickok, Wyatt Earp and others did not seek to enforce those ordinances outside the red light districts.

      Firearms possession is a long standing constitutionally guaranteed personal and individual birthright and civil right, that does not actually depend upon the existence of the 2nd amendment for its existence, for it existed long before either the Constitution or the 2nd amendment were ratified or even written.

  • thomas

    This sounds correct. The Right to have a weapon should not be limited by need for a permit ?

  • bigbillofwyandotte

    Here in Michigan we who have been through the ringer to obtain a CPL are treated as potential criminals when we do get one. We are told we must lock our handguns in our vehicles while attending a ballgame, visiting our local police department, going to a movie, etc.. Most attacks occure while going to and from our cars, and if our car is stolen, now another firearm in in the hands of a criminal. ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!

  • wcgraybill

    it should pass with no problem if the politician have any balls.

  • Ibcamn

    smart people do exist in the senate(besides gowdy)and seem to have a grasp on reality!kool!..think maybe the pot growers being robbed and their homes broken into on a regular basis had a bit to do with this?maybe?.hmm,i think yes!……………just saying

  • cherokeeman

    People need to remember that until the muslim maggot and anti-American and anti-Constitution communist obama stole his way into our White House, we NEVER had the problems we have seen in the past 6 years plus. We have never had a president who hated America and tried to destroy it as much as obama and his bunch of criminals have done. And if people will remember, obama said he was going to transform America. And he is doing it slowly but surely because people are allowing him to do so.

  • KellyG

    MUST SEE VIDEO, Don’t be a mindless Sheep… Live, learn and pass it along!
    Know the TRUTH about those behind the REAL Money and Power!

    Go to youtube dot com/watch?v=pLlwpZQrQUU
    To view the Video mentioned above…

    EDUCATION IS KNOWLEDGE AND KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!
    Never let anyone deprive you of TRUE knowledge or power!

  • Musicman

    I live in the state of COMMUNISTICUT ( Connecticut ) where the socialist/progressive a-holes rule unfortunately… Will be leaving though…

  • James Phillips

    Yes

  • James Richard Holt

    I am a gun owner. I love to shoot skeet and trap. For health physical reasons its been years, well really decades to be honest since I hunted but if I could hunt without concerns that I might have to be rescued from the woods I’d be an avid hunter now. I support the idea of private carry of firearms but believe that anyone carrying a hand gun concealed or not should be required to demonstrate their understanding of not only how but when to use it in self defense situations. I support the idea that carry permits in one state should be legal all 50 states just exactly the way I can drive in Ohio or Kentucky or any other state using my West Virginia drivers license.

    • b4k9zp

      Where in the Constitution does it require anyone to obtain “government permission” (get a license and pay a fee) for the ability to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed individual birthright and civil right?

      Everything I’ve been able to find says that such practices are absolutely prohibited.

      There is no constitutionally protected birthright to be able to drive a car, pickup or even a horse-drawn buggy or wagon.

      • James Richard Holt

        The commerce clause give the Federal Government to regulate commerce between the several states the Indian tribes and foreign nations. Since the sales of most firearms are interstate that is between the home state of the manufacturer and the buyer the federal government does have the right and even obligation to regulate those transactions. Movement from one state to another of firearms then also falls under the prevail of the federal government since such movement can lead to sales which is interstate commerce. The second amendment does use the word regulated in its first sentence in reference to the state militias and at the time each state had a militia and all able bodied men of military age up to I think fifty nine years of age were required to be members of their respective state militias there for the issue of regulation is at the very least implied in the second amendment.

        • b4k9zp

          The Supreme Court of the United States held that “Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990” [initiated by Joseph BIden,now Vice president] was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century
          that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate inder the Commerce Clause.

          The use of the words “well regulated miltia” in the 2nd amendment do not allow any government to create laws that infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms that the main clause of the sentence (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”) clearly says shall not be limited, regulated, reduced, or violated (all synonyms for “infringed”)

          The courts have never stated that membership in any “state militia” is a prerequisite for the individual to have the right to keep and bear (or possess and carry) the same weapons that are in common use by the police and military of the time, or better ones if they can be found.

  • rothgar

    Except for the whole thing about a well-regulated militia …

    • b4k9zp

      The courts have always held that membership in any organized militia is not necessary for the individual to have the right to possess and carry the same weapons that are in common use by the military and police at the time, despite your blatant lies, rothgar. That’s because under federal law and common sense definition, every US citizen (or person who has declared his intention of becoming a US citizen) who is capable of bearing arms and is over the age of 17 years, is automatically a member of the militia of the USA–which is the whole body of the people.

      Stephen P. Halbrook, in “That Every Man Be Armed” (1984) stated: “In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the “collective” right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis. ”

      Leonard W. Levy, “Origins of the Bill of Rights” (1999 ed., paperback), Chapter 6, pages 134 through 135: “Believing that the amendment does not authorize an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is wrong. The right to bear arms is an individual right. The military connotation of bearing arms does not necessarily determine the meaning of a right to bear arms. If all it meant was the right to be a soldier or serve in the military, whether in the militia or the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights…The very language of the amendment is evidence that the right is a personal one, for it is not subordinated to the militia clause. Rather the right is an independent one, altogether separate from the maintenance of a militia. Militias were possible only because the people were armed and possessed the right to be armed. The right does not depend on whether militias exist.”

      Judge Thomas M. Cooley, author of “General Principles of Constitutional Law Third Edition ” (1898) stated: “The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”

      Thomas Jefferson (in a letter by Jefferson to John Cartwright, dated 5 June 1824. (Monticello dot org, retirement series digital library, Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Memorial Edition,
      Bergh (ed)., volume 16, page 45.) stated “The constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. “

      • rothgar

        First of all the courts have not “always held” what they hold today.

        The precedent that was broken in the Heller decision is:

        “In United States v. Cruikshank
        (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that,

        “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution;

        neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[10][11]

        Mr. Halbrook and Levy conveniently ignore a significant consideration in the drafting of the Second Amendment concerning including an exemption for those people who had a religious objection to armed military service. In fact, James Madison’s
        initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

        The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[107]

        “The framers of the U.S. Constitution even considered including an exemption from military service for conscientious objectors in the Second Amendment. This clause was omitted because they did not envision the need for creating a standing army.”
        http://www.pbs.org/itvs/thegoodwar/american_pacifism.html

        Acknowledging that the order of the original draft is reversed from what was enacted. That the phrases were reversed in the enacted Amendment also contradicts the sentiments of Mr. Halbrook and Levy.

        Additionally, I’m sorry but simple logic dictates that you don’t need to even consider such an exemption if the Second Amendment ONLY confers an individual right.

        An individual right would need no such exemption each individual provides their own…

        QED.

        • b4k9zp

          Typical liberal misrepresentation of the truth. That a “right” exists does not mean that everyone is REQUIRED to exercise that right, just that they have the right and ability to exercise that right if they so wish.

          Neither Professor Levy’s nor Professor Holbrook’s statements are invalidated , but only buttressed by the actual history of the 2nd amendment, for that is what both based their conclusions upon.

          Nothing you state about “the phrases being reversed” negates what Halbrook or Levy (or Judge Cooley) state.

          Yes, the Cruikshank case limited the applicability of the Amendment to the actions only of the federal government, in violation of Article IV, section two paragraph one of the Constitution, which says “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”, and Section one of the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868), which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
          jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
          State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
          shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
          States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
          property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
          jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

          Both Article IV, section two, paragraph one, and section one of the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution state that no state can violate any of the rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and the bill of rights of any citizen living within the boundaries of any state. There was never any real need for “incorporation” of any of the rights in the Bill of Rights into the 14th amendment’s protections against actions by local and state governments, for all were included from the time that the Constituiton was actually ratified in 1789. The founding fathers never intended that any person could be denied their rights by a state government if the federal government could not deny the citizen those rights. Such a contention NEVER made any sense.

  • jtitan241

    Amen for the new Republic of Colorado, lets hope the idiots in SACRAMENTO ARE READING AND TAKING NOTE! MAYBE WE CAN REGAIN OUR STATE FROM THE DEAD BEAT LIBERAL DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICAN RHINO’S. PRAY THAT WE FREE AMERICA AGAIN FOR OUR CHILDREN And grandchildren.

  • crab apples

    Let’s look at this GUN KULTURE KLUBB feats of America just a bit differently TARDSZzzz. Now Chris Kyle was a GREAT American hero, though NOT really right? How did good ole’ Chris meet his MAKER folks? It seems that a psycho PTSD Vet got the gun at the firing range where that SMART GUY Chris took him to “cure” his PTSD! ! ! !! ! . .. .

    Pity that dear old Chris perished and the PTSD guy was judged SANE by Texans. Hmmmmm, now as for 2nd Amendment we don’t need changes at all do WE TARDS? How about enforcement of the millions of guns sold each and every year for security purposes ostensibly? More on that specious justification for more gunszzzz… Self defense events of maybe 1,000 per month which is unrealistically high results in a 0.004% probability of use of any single gun (of the over 300 million firearms) in America for these “MOST necessary situations TARDSzzzz. Does NRA distribute that statistic to MORONSzzz that believe any of their B.S. that they send you IQ 85’ers of TExas MORONSzzzz. . . .? ? ? ?

    All mass shootings (up 300% in the past 7 years over the previous 7 years and NRA Does NOT want you to be quoting that statistic) has been by mentally ill psychotic individuals. It seems that mental illness really ISN’T a disqualification from gun possession as the LAW, statute already states RIGHT
    IDIOTSZzzz? So how do we ensure that these unstable individuals DON’T get the guns in their hands to shoot and execute two NYC Cops or the other TWO cops in the same two week period in Florida and Missouri.

    How about all of the domestic abuse disturbances that end in someone being murdered, cops or unlucky acquaintance of psycho boy with a gun usually. So HOW do WE as a “WELL regulated militia that IS necessary to THIS free state of America in THIS 21st century ” make sure that the unfit do NOT have weapons to kill folks MORONSzzz?

    I have the answer and if you just go to read my 3,000 disquis comments you will see that MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ) test is the answer. Manditorily taken at gun owners expense (probably about $1,000 to get the test and have a qualified psychologist assess the results) . . . . to PROVE that ,ALL gun owners are NOT mentally unfit for gun possession.

    Problems, questions or comments? YOU know it’s about enforcement issues, JUST LIKE IMMIGRATION MORONSZZZZ! ! ! ! !

    What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander as I have always been told, right IQ 85’ers with ALL of the guns and ALL of the paranoid schizophrenic government haters and conspiratorial nut cases of Texas AND AZ. . . . . .

    GOT ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS BESIDES THIS CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPORTANT (non CHANGE) ENFORCEMENT TOOL? moronsZZZZ? Bueller . . . ? Bueller . .? Ben Stein . . . . . .? SCOTT WALKER . . . ? RAND PAUL; . . .? JEB BUSH . . . ? ? ? ARE ANY OF YOU LISTENING TO RATIONALITY ANY MORE tards of Texas and the outer limits of our Solar System? ? ? ? ? . . . .

    . . . .

  • Lawrence S Humphrey

    this should be in Every State

  • Busdriver Bill

    Hoorah, and it’s about time. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is the only “permit” – actually, an un-permit against government interference – that one needs to “pack.”

  • TG80905

    I was on board with the article right up to the second to last paragraph …… “With an influx of criminals moving into the state because of legal marijuana, they need more protection” ….. where did that BS come from?

    FACT: The citizens of Colorado legalized cannabis for medicinal purposes in 1999 by Constitutional Amendment
    FACT: The citizens of Colorado legalized all cannabis by constitutional amendment in 2012
    FACT:Actual crime is down while theoretical crime is up …… the what if crime hasn’t happened …. nor is it likely to
    FACT: The right to carry a fire arm is completely unrelated to the right to consume cannabis …. except that both are rights expressed in the state constitution ….. rights granted by the people not legislature
    FACT: All citizens of Colorado above the age of 21 can open carry a fire arm anywhere, anytime, unless there is clearly posted notice prohibiting the practice …. a courtesy extended to the private sector. Public buildings and public places can only prohibit the practice if notice is posted at all entrances and provisions have been made to safely store and return all fire arms at all entrances (points of ingress/egress). Check out SB-03-024 and SB-03-025 ……. I’m an open carry guy ….. I also fought local bureaucracy on this matter and prevailed.

    What is wrong with you people? I support this right but not that one ….. you don’t get to pick and choose. Rights are granted by virtue of existence ….. not by permission of the government. A fact government (local, state, and federal) needs to accept. ….. but so do the people.

    I look at legalized cannabis and see a testicle descending …… on this issue a majority of Americans are willing to publicly state “government you got it all wrong” ….. and ” you work for us not the other way around”. It’s a beautiful thing ….. and I hope it’s contagious

    Demican …. Republicrat …… two sides of the same coin …… bigger more intrusive and authoritarian government through social engineering or disguised as national security interests …….. Wake up drones …… 320,000,000 and only two opinions …….. if this country is going to survive the myth of two party rule needs to be shattered.

    Laws should be virtually impossible to pass …… they were for the first 150 years of this country. It is not the role of government to make criminals out of law abiding citizens ….. but that’s what has been happening since Woodrow Wilson ….. and you bleating sheep support the power grab.

    We live in the USSA ……. a police state far more oppressive than the USSR ever was ….. camera surveillance everywhere …… drones ……. “need more police” ……. report crime don’t actually get involved in its prevention ……

    Oh and by way of credentials …… elected to public office by majority TWICE…… 420,000 constituents ……. also on the no fly list …… considered a person of concern …… veteran with combat experience

    • b4k9zp

      Two of your so-called “facts” contradict each other. First one says pot was legalized by constitutional amendment in 1999, and the second says it was legalized by constitutional amendment in 2012. Which is it? Or is either factual? But it is still illegal under federal law.

      “Fact, actual crime is down, but theoretical crime is up? ” ROFLMAO! What is the source of such an ignorant and hysterically absurd claim?

      Rights are not granted by people, or legislatures, ignorant one. Rights are something with which one is born. Privileges and immunities are granted by law, but Rights are something no legislature, president, governor or group of people can deny to anyone.

      • TG80905

        Well Ms Condescending Idget unlike you I don’t invent my facts…… In 1999 the citizens approved Amendment 20 which allowed for patients (defined as someone with a qualifying debilitating medical condition) to legally access and consume cannabis when it was referred by a liscenced healthcare professional …… in 2012 the citizens of Colorado approved another amendment to the state constitution (amendment 64) allowing anyone over the age of 21 to legally access and consume cannabis….. this is something any first grader with a computer could verify in about 5 seconds.

        The same amount of effort would also reveal that in Colorado crime rates are down across the board. So prohibitionists like yourself have invented crimes that could happen due to cannabis legalization. The fact that it hasn’t happened doesn’t deter them from referencing these fabrications to bolster their arguments.

        Rights exist by virtue of an individuals existance ….. I believe they are granted by God and affirmed by the citizens…. but that concept offends atheists such as yourself … so I settle for the virtue of existence definition ….. In Colorado the right to access and consume cannabis is a right …. not a revocable privilege granted by the state ….. again you demonstrate your ignorance ….. a voluntary condition you wallow in ….. easily remedied should you choose to do so ….. of course that requires effort and research … two tasks you may lack the skill sets for …. feeble minds are common amongst prohibitionists.

        Crime rates have been declining steadily since statewide open carry legislation went into effect in 2003

  • Finder1009

    Its an awesome idea, but im not sure what the chances of passing are. likely not very good. But we can always hope

  • george

    it is the law. they are breaking the law by making you have to get back grown checks and permints anyway. every one has the right to bear arm the same as the military. and you are right brother, no right can be a right if you first have to get permission to exercise it.

  • george

    even those that have been in trouble with the law still have the right to bear arms. him or her still has the right to protect themselves as well as any other. a lot of times those that have been in trouble need to protect themselves the most, just from having to live in a poor neighbor hood. (they have no right to deny any body the right to protect them selves)

  • JB Wright

    Technically our “esteemed” elected CAN’T pass laws that violate our constitution, the only way they can get away with this crap is if we comply. DO NOT COMPLY! Ammunition manufacturers, DO NOT COMPLY! Don’t let them get away with this crap.

  • cardmaster1

    Oh, how I Hope and Pray it passes and Snowballs into every other state in the Union!! It is the ONLY Correct, Constitutional thing! The RIGHT to exercise a fundamental and Constitutional RIGHT to self defense! May the movement gain Strength, Supporters, and Steamroll over the country!!

  • Hope it passes, however, if it does it will spoil part of the story in Revolution 2016: Take Back America, set in Colorado.

  • James Richard Holt

    I think I shall have to adhere to my position that voting is not a right but rather a privilege granted to all US citizens who have attained the age of 18 years on or before election day and who have not been found guilty of felonious behavior. I am basing this on multiple professors I had when I was in college and studying political science because I had dreams at the time of attending law school. After my miserable performance in college my first run at it I enlisted in the Air Force and volunteered to serve as a medic. For religious reasons I was not certain I could kill another human being and so the enemy I chose to fight if it came to that was death itself. That bit of idealism quickly melted in the sunlight of reality. Medics on battle fields contrary to the Geneva Conventions are frequently prime targets particularly for our oriental brothers and sisters. Some really wacko Nazis also intentionally targeted medics but for the most part the Germans and the Italians in World War II held fire on medics if they were clearly marked. The Japanese Imperial Army specifically targeted medics and chaplains because killing one or the other very negatively impacted on the will of the units they supported will to fight. The same held true for Charlie in the Vietnam War even though intentionally killing non-combatants like medics nurses docs and chaplains was and still is a war crime. Back to my point though the definition in the article you cite it seems to me clearly identifies voting by definition as a privilege but having so identified voting as a privilege the article goes on to argue against the definition it cited. There is no such thing as a right or a privilege that does not impose with its exercise an obligation to first exercise the right or privilege but also an obligation to exercise it wisely in the benefit of all and not for personal aggrandizement. Exercising the privilege of voting was at first in our history granted to white males who owned property as it was then believed that only this group of men would be sufficiently wealthy to generally be well educated and have the wherewithal time wise to acquaint themselves with the political issues and philosophies of self rule. With the onset of Jacksonian Democracy the suffrage was extended to all white males. Subsequently additional groups have been enfranchised as our democracy evolved to be more inclusive of more and more of its citizens by stages. After the Civil War Black men were enfranchised and then Women in several states were enfranchised in Delaware they were re-enfranchised as suffrage privilege was revoked from them upon the adoption of the Constitution of the United States but prior to that in Delaware women had the privilege to vote. Following the First World War several amendments were adopted one of them giving full suffrage to women. I was in college when the vote was extended to 18 year olds by guess who proposed it. Richard Millhouse Nixon. The man hated by liberal democrats and pretty generally shunned by most Republicans but it was also Nixon who created the EPA and OSHA and also the Department of Education. Having been a teacher (science and math for a few years) and seeing what’s been done to our educational system since then I don’t think creating the Department of Education was such a good idea. Having previous to my tenure as a teacher owned a chemical company that I founded and for which I managed to secure venture capital to found and then operated for eighteen years I am not so impressed with the EPA either. Yes they did some truly outstanding things that very much needed to be done but to continue to justify their existence they went well beyond the good things they did and started meddling in things they should not have been doing. That’s pretty much how I feel about OSHA too. Yes they did and in many cases continue to do things that need to be done but for everyone of those issues that needed to addressed there must be at least a dozen where things would have been left undone that they did. I still consider Nixon as a top 15 President though. Again with regard to the 18 year old vote. Even though most do not vote but those who do for the most part it seems to me they tend to vote emotionally idealistically and naively. Many are so uninformed they don’t know the difference between a delegate and a representative and they don’t know the difference between a representative and a senator. They don’t understand the significance of Electoral College and what it is suppose to do. Hell Bells I saw on a Jaywalking on the Leno show a few years ago where Jay was interviewing a group of College Freshman supposedly our nation’s best he asked those kids some questions like who is your congressman(woman) none of them knew. Not a single one of them. They all knew the latest salacious regarding some rocker but not who their representative or senator was. They did not know why representatives serve two years and their senators for six. History wise he asked them who Lewis and Clark were and they didn’t know about the Louis and Clark Expedition. They didn’t know that the first form of government the USA had was a Confederation and that under the confederation we had several presidents during the Revolutionary War before Washington became the first President of United States. They did not know there were 14 years between the founding of the confederation and the founding of the United States. They didn’t know who the Vice President was at the time. They thought that Central America is located in Iowa or maybe Nebraska. They could not list the belligerents in the Second World War nor the First World War. They did not know what country was the arsenal of freedom nor that the First World War was the war to end all wars. They were asked on what day the Declaration of Independence was read. When they were asked if they’d voted in the last presidential elections half said they had and then when they were asked who they’d voted for all of them said Barack Obama when asked why they generally stated because he was the first serious black man to be nominated for President. They actually thought the color of a man’s skin was sufficient to earn that man their vote. They knew nothing zilch nada about any of the issues and yet half of them voted they said. I fear for our nation’s future because I think we may have over democratized our country to the point that the vast majority of voters have not the slightest idea of what is really going on they only seem to vote for who ever buys their vote with promises of more and more goodies for free or very little except for your vote regardless of what its doing to the country. I don’t think its a good idea to restore the privilege of voting to felons as a class. You might be able to justify very adequately restoration to this felon or that one but I don’t think you convince me that doing so for there entire class.

    • WishIWuzACropDuster

      What about taxation without representation? A disenfranchised felon stripped of suffrage rights for life shouldn’t have to pay one penny in income taxes or any taxes for that matter since he or she no longer has any voice in the government. Remember “taxation without representation”?

  • James Richard Holt

    Be that as it may Poll Taxes are head count taxes. It might have been required to show they’d been paid to be allowed to vote but it was not tax to vote. One way to get a look at the receipt proof of payment was to require the receipt be shown before voting. A lot like here in WV we have to show our property tax payments in order to re-register our autos each year. The state is not taxing vehicle registration they are just checking to make certain anyone who needs to get a current vehicle registration tag on their cars license has paid their annual property tax

    • b4k9zp

      The “poll tax” was required in many southern states before ANYONE was allowed to vote.

  • James Richard Holt

    Where does it state in the Constitution of the United States that voting is a right? It doesn’t because voting is a privilege of citizenship for all adults 18 years of age and older on election day and depending on the specific state or states you are talking about limited to non felon citizens. There are a few states that allow some but not all felons to vote once they have fulfilled their debt to society and applied for re-enfranchisement and their application has been approved. Just found the following site check it out. https://www.aclu.org/maps/map-state-criminal-disfranchisement-laws Every now and then the ACLU manages to get something right.

  • billybob

    As we are endowed by our Creator, God I hope so! It would be Good and Just for all States to pass Constitutional carry Laws as these would diminish crime. As is said, “an armed society is a polite society”!

  • James Richard Holt

    At the time the Constitution was written it wasn’t deemed to specifically limit firearm ownership to members of whatever given state militia because the overwhelming number of gun owners would have automatically been members of their most local militia unit because all able bodied males had to belong to a militia. Except those whose religious preference precluded such membership. The founding fathers considered that in the end when push came to shove citizen versus an increasingly intrusive government the militia was in fact all citizens if need be so listing such membership as a prerequisite for owning a fire arm would have been redundant.

  • James Richard Holt

    Again it may have only be incidental to the act of voting as requiring the receipt or other proof of payment before voting was a good way to make certain the tax had been paid and that it was not directly a tax to vote.

  • James Richard Holt

    So what does “well regulated” mean? The first clause and the second clause have equal weight. The only way to make a nationwide law binding is to have the law doing so be a federal law. Wouldn’t that be an infringement on states rights without an amendment to the Constitution? It would take a 2/3 vote in the affirmative in both houses and then a 2/3 vote in the affirmative of the states to affirm such an amendment. In the process the states rights question would be satisfied by their ratification vote so the states would have their say to allow this change to the constitution. The Constitution’s genius is that it can be amended to meet changing conditions but we must adhere to the process to protect the Constitution and in doing so protect our rights.

  • James Richard Holt

    When I said three governmental id I intended to say several ids from the same list of acceptable ids as was used when began teaching in Ohio. My drivers license was one. I have a passport that was the second. As an Air Force Veteran I have my VA ID which is a picture id as well. I also presented my college transcript and my degree. Additionally I had a couple utility company invoices in my name showing my address and lastly I had my voters registration card.

  • disqus_MZe2ymfHQj

    I HOPE THE BILL WILL PASS

  • J. Ernst

    Bush Dynasty/psuedo monarchy NOT criminally engrossed?
    HMMM; Keating Scandal
    Prescott Bush’s ownership of a Foundry in OCCUPIED POLAND until congress froze his assets in ’42
    GH Bush’s job in the cia as a case worker in…..Dallas, ’63
    GH Bush VP at the time of Reagan’s attempted assassination…
    GH Bush’s allowing FALSE testimony from Kuwati’s regarding Iraq invaders “atrocities”…later to be found false
    GW Bush’s allowing U.S. to be roped into the near destruction of Iraq, again on false premises and thereby DESTROYING our economy, then giving U.S. the coup d gras by allowing fraudulent banking activities THROUGH OUT this country…then, signing off on “bail-outs”. Just being a GOOD GOY!
    Am I missing something?
    AND, here we are, socialism running rampant in SEVERAL states via GIVE-AWAYS, subsidies, fraudulent “immigration policies”, Funding of ALL MANNER of Government entities for our PROTECTION and subsequent destruction of civil liberties, AN 18 INCH THICK TAX BILL called; Health Care that SUPPORTS these bureaucracies IN TOTAL so as NOT to RAISE their BUDGETARY ALLOTMENT!!!
    The Demorats have a GREATER UNDERSTANDING of criminal endeavor/behavior as they have more than 60 years greater demonstrations with their history.
    Capone would be PROUD!!!

  • paradoc2

    Should pass unanimously. House members, Senate members, and Governor all took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Seems to be working fine for six other states to boot.