Cinga

I've said it in other threads..... Please name me a country that uses the AR-15 for their military? I'll wait......

You right, the Constitution can be changed, and that very document tell you how to go about doing it.... But your quotes are based on ignorance of that document and this Nation. Let me just take this one: The very premise of this assumes wrongly that the United States is a Democracy which we are NOT! It speaks of majorities which the Founder dreaded because so long as there is a rule by majority, it is ALWAYS to the detriment of the minority. I know what you have been taught in school, and I know what politician always say, but they are wrong too. You see, an extreme of a Democracy would be making the minority give all their earnings over to the majority. Or even for the majority to exempt themselves from all laws and even take the voting rights away from the minority to assure you are forever the majority. We are a Constitutional Republic, much different than a Democracy in that it is a limited government whose main responsibility it is to protect the rights of the smallest minority,,, The individual. And if you really think any attempt to infringe on the right to bear is not a precedent for more rights taken away, you are sadly mistaken. Just look at the infringements on rights over the last couple decades. If it were not for the investigations going on now,if Hillary had won, I would have expected her to figure a way to suspend the Constitution, or try to.... We know Obama looked into that possibility

I have idiot.... what country uses the AR-15 for their military?

Name me one country that uses an AR-15 for defense..... This is an ignorant statement because NONE do!

This..... We simply need to harden school entrances period. Key cards for faculty, ID cards for students. NO ONE allowed in during school hours except though a secured office entrance. We do this for literally every state and federal building, isn't it about time we do it for schools? Hell, let's take the guards and metal detectors out of those other building and put them in the schools! Maybe them politicians will take this seriously. Banning guns, or certain guns isn't the answer.... there will still be guns available to criminals and the schools would still be wide open "gun free zones". Harden the schools is THE answer no one is talking about

But the problem is, it is not in fact about just 1 amendment. Just look at all the attacks on speech, religion, assembly, and even press. The First and Second are arguably the most important of all of them, with the second the guarantee of all the rest. Limit or erase it, the first will soon follow along with the rest of the Constitution. We are at the end of generations of government school indoctrination against these very amendments. I went to school in the 70s, and it was not unusual to see guns in the back seat or on racks. Heck, we were going hunting after school. Almost every guy carried a pocket knife (and some gals too). Now we arrest kids for a butter knife or for chewing his pop tart into an L shape cause it resembles a gun. Moral of the story is, progressives are winning the hearts and mind of our kids, and because of this, we WILL eventually lose the Constitution. Just not while I live.......

Your words, emphasis mine:

Can't help but notice you only want your version of "democracy".... Good thing the US is really a Republic huh?

Can open, worms all over the floor

Me think it was intentional

Median household income for Kennesaw is half that of Parkland.

A link to this claim might help.... Manafort was working with Ukraine not Putin, and it was while he was working with the Podesta group....

Dude, your from Georgia I assume, or at least spent time there, so you must also be aware of Kennesaw law that requires all citizens to own firearms. The law is not enforced, but once they passed it the crime rate dropped tremendously. You see, even though it wasn't enforced, a criminal has to wonder.... "Is this one following the law?" Many teachers are already qualified and I suspect more would become. But as long as the school does not publish a list of those that can, and simply post a sign that says, "school personnel may be armed" I suspect it would have a huge affect

And Apparently not. From the indictment:

Uranium One? Edit, no I see now it is for interfering in out elections.

We have to be safe to assume this has to do with corruption right, and not the Mueller investigation?

I like Sullivan... You would be hard pressed to figure what side of the aisle he is on, but man, does he follow the law and Constitution to a T! Also the presiding judge on Judicial Watch law suit against the State Dept for Discovery in the Hillary email scandal.

Well, she mention both the FBI and DOJ, and that she has informed them to keep her in the loop. I think it may have been more of a PC way of telling those agencies that she was not going to be the excuse for not releasing them.

But the point is, where do the concessions end? Did you know in China you have to register your kitchen knives? Is that the line in the sand? But even if we did, there is still that thing called the Second Amendment. Concessions don't mean a damn thing if they are Unconstitutional.

But still, the main problem with gun advocates coming to the table is the increased demands for more infringement on gun rights. That's it... Not that gun control nuts have anything they can offer back. So by what idiocy would we agree to talk, knowing it only leads to demands from the other side? Such one sided "negotiations" his shear lunacy....

This part at least is correct.... THE LAW! Not the Constitution.... This probably won't be popular, but we are supposed to have 3 equal branches of government right? Legislative = makes law Executive = Executes the law Judicial = presides over, and interprets the law Nothing in the Constitution gives any branch oversight of itself, the Constitution. THAT was left to the ones who ratifies it, We the People Marbury vs Madison however tipped the scales when the court took the Constitution to themselves, and claimed to be the arbiter of it. Since then, we have a branch with authority over the other 2 because they can simply over rule them both. This was never the intent of the framers, and certainly isn't an enumerated power under the Constitution.

Have you ever heard of jury nullification? It was never the original intent to have the courts rule on the Constitutionality of a law, THAT is the domain left to the People. The courts were to interpret the law, and to preside over trials. My argument is simple, and if you read any of the Federalist Papers you will see what I mean... We are always told there are 3 branches of government too right? But what are the very first words of the Constitution? If we have 3 branches of government, who presides over them? Well, the ones who established those branches to begin with.... You see, We the People are the 4th branch, and presiding branch of government. While we could exist without the others, they cannot exist without us...

This is exactly correct.... I get what Dude is saying, because we have been told this for years, that is why we need the courts to determine it's hidden meanings... But to Dude, TYTT is correct, in that it was written in simple Laymens terms on purpose, so that anyone could read it and understand it. Remember, the drafters still has to go back to their states and convince the population to ratify this Constitution, so they made sure that all of it was cut and dry, and easy to understand. No hidden meanings, no reason for the courts to have to rule on the understanding of it...

Imagine that.... a party that takes responsibility to investigate one of their own for possible breaking of protocol instead of turning a blind eye.

They give new meaning to the term Marriage of Convenience... But then, they might only have stayed marries because your spouse cannot be forced to testify against you.....