They are going after ammunition....

[glenn kangiser]

I was actually going to bring that up, Frank but didn't want to tell the whole story.  I left it for you.

Yup -- it's like follow the money... to see why something is done by government criminals just look at what is motivating them.  Gun control is wanted by them because they know that the foundations of American freedom were based on the ability of Americans to control their government.

THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE OUT OF CONTROL AND WANT TO REMAIN ALIVE.

We have the destruction of government power controls, the SOLD OUT COMPLICIT CONGRESS who is helping steal the financial system, along with the PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE, and the bought SUPREME COURT who is ignoring the fact (since he won't prove otherwise) that Osbama is a Kenyan citizen and cannot be president.

The gun grab is directly related to the fact that with the obfuscation of the rights of the citizens, these criminals are in fear for their own lives because they know that at some point the people will get their fill of it, snap and remove them from power by force.  I have news for them. 

I think they better take the guns from the military also.  I think there are enough abused patriotic citizens in the military that when they try to turn them against the citizens, as they are by deploying them in the US, there will be a revolt there also. 

Totally against the laws set up by the founding fathers against having a standing army to be used against the citizens, they now walk among us.  I think they will wake up also.  These kids have parents who will not likely be voluntarily dropping their guns and rolling over.  I think these veteran parents will likely have an influence on their child soldiers.

[ScottA]

One of the things that really irks me is that the efforts expended to make me "safer" from gun violence could achieve greater results if drunk drivers could be kept off the roads. I stand a better chance of being killed by a drunk driver every time I head up to the mountains than I do of ever getting shot.

Imagine if the gun owners could shoot the drunk drivers... ok lets not go there. 

Glenn you're dead on. For some reason the government has the idea they own us.

[MikeC]

Just wanted to share some thoughts by others on this matter:

"The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny . The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms." - Dr. Ron Paul

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature ... laws not preventive but fearful of crimes.:" - Beccaria

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government"
George Washington


To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach."
- Jeff Snyder, "A Nation of Cowards"


- "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." - Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U. S. Supreme Court Justice

[glenn kangiser]

Osbama is above even the Supreme Court.  No need to prove he is a citizen of the US.

http://www.borderfirereport.net/sher-zieve/obama-too-important-to-respond-to-us-supreme-court.html

If allowed to be POTUS then he will not need to follow the Constitution or have fear of any laws including the 2nd Amendment.

[Squirl]

The premise of the article is wrong.  The premise is if he was not born in the united states, he can not be POTUS. This has been ruled on and disproved.  The other problem with this is that the woman clearly doesn't understand the basic workings of the U.S. legal system, courts, or the structure of the U.S. government.  This was ruled on in 2000 when John McCain ran for president.  McCain was born at a hospital in Panama, not a on U.S. soil.  The argument ruled on that anyone with parents from the united states is still a natural born U.S. citizen.
Now to the break down of the courts.
Here is the current docket.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm
The case was dismissed originally.
It was picked up by one member of the court and distributed.
For the court to even consider a Writ of Cert. It needs to get by the rule of four.  It is not even close to there yet.  It would be highly unusual and against normal supreme court practice for the person who is not the movant to respond.

Next the original suit was a last minute stay to holding the election on November 4 in NJ.  The court is limited to only the issues put before them. The original issue is whether he could even ask for a stay of the certification of the results in NJ.  Even if they ruled in favor of  Donofrio, they would be limited to the state of NJ and whether it was proper for the lower court do dismiss the case without argument.

This is a publicity stunt to take advantage of people not familiar with the courts.  If the person wanted to actually have done anything he would have filed it in federal court against the Condoleezza Rice.  This would have made it a national argument instead of a state of NJ argument.  Also he would have filed before November 3. The supreme court is now limited to ruling on the proper procedure of the state laws of NJ.  Even if the supreme court granted the stay for the certification state of NJ results. BHO still has enough electoral votes for POTUS.  This person framed the argument to be procedural and not actually accomplish anything or challenge actual merit.

[glenn kangiser]

Sorry to disagree with you, Squirl, but irregardless of the court system and the sold out Criminal Supreme Court, it would not be a problem for Obama to simply produce the required documentation and none of this joke "Legal" posturing would be necessary.

It is now quite obvious that shadow government handlers pushing Obama have groomed him for the job and that no US CONSTITUTION is going to stand in his way.

This will be a treasonous Supreme Court installation just as the installation of Bush was the first time.  It is based on technicalities and the ability to twist the law to no end to stop a legitimate investigation of the facts.

Supreme Court Ruling or lack thereof, as I see it

Obama is not legally eligible to become president.

So what?

Screw your Constitution.

Screw your founding fathers and their controls on big government.

Screw the American People.

Don't feel bad about my view on Obama.  McCain was no better.  Just an allowed choice by the controllers of the world.

Would you mind enlightening us a bit more on your background, Squirl and why this is so important to you, to remove all doubts about Obama?

You almost seem like you are working for the Fed with your opinions. of course.  Right? hmm

[Squirl]

No, but I have prepared a few Writs of Certiorari before.  I am used to the procedure of the courts.  When I see an article like that one that draws conclusions on a false premise it does make me scratch my head.    If you are used to waking up everyday and the sky is blue and then someone wrights an article saying that it proves their point because the sky is not green today, you say to yourself, but the sky wouldn't be green anyway.  Same with the article.  It has been common law in the united states for almost 200 years that if either of your parents are natural born U.S. citizens then when you are a natural born U.S. citizen regardless of where you are born. The other conclusions she draws from the procedure of the courts is the same way.  The courts don't usually have the procedure that she seems to think they are supposed to have. 

I wouldn't mind an actual case on the merits.  But none has been brought.  The one is on procedure.  Then again, no matter what the ruling, people will believe what they want to believe.

[glenn kangiser]

Thanks, Squirl.

It doesn't much matter anyway the way I see it.  They will do whatever they want.

[MountainDon]

I believe we've hashed out this Obama citizenship thing before, and whether or not he qualifies to be POTUS. We also ran through the same thing on McCain. This is getting old. It has been stated before that it does not matter one iota where he was born as his mother was a US Citizen. The Supreme Court doesn't need to get involved.

I never voted for him but to try and blacken his name this way is unjust.

[glenn kangiser]

The only reason I bring it up again is because it is still and issue.  If there is not a problem he should just present the factual piece of paper. 

I am a US citizen and I think it is OK if I want him to present proof that he deems necessary to withhold.  If there really was not a problem he would present the proof and I would not question this issue again.  I would move onto the next one.

This is no different than if Arnold decided he wanted to be president then went ahead and did it without proper proof he was eligible, even though many in the US know he is not.

I don't need to blacken his name as he is doing a great job of it himself by ignoring this issue.  He may be headed for office but that does not mean he has proved he is eligible.

Squirl, could you tell us why he will not just bring out the legitimate proof if there is not an issue?

Honestly, I have no hostility.  I just want to know why he won't present the proof and settle this.

The reason I want this proven is that the gun issues should not be presented by someone who does not respect the Constitution enough to follow the guidelines set by the founding fathers.

Your wanting to just let it slide is just rolling over and letting the elite who installed him do anything they want to to you is not the way this country is supposed to be.  The checks and balances put into the Constitution are being brushed aside for a Fascist, Socialist government.  We  are supposed to be the REPUBLIC for which it stands.  The Republic is supposed to have checks and balances.

[peternap]

Won't work even if it passed.
Taser has been putting tags in their cartridges for years. The only people who DON'T buy on the black market are the cops.

Taser also says you can't buy on the black market. I bought a 12 pack recently of the XP's that are restricted by Taser, to police.
If the fellow I bought them from knows who I am, he's psychic.

[harry51]

"- "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." - Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U. S. Supreme Court Justice"

This is exactly right, and points up very effectively one thing that is exactly wrong today: the intentional blurring of the distinction between a constitutional republic and a democracy. IMO, it is absolutely imperative that
the voters of this country understand clearly what Justice Jackson was talking about, if we are to reestablish our liberty and survive as a free nation.

What do your children's history and civics books have to say on this?

[Squirl]

Squirl, could you tell us why he will not just bring out the legitimate proof if there is not an issue?

Honestly, I have no hostility.  I just want to know why he won't present the proof and settle this.

II was reading the supreme courts website today and found a new docket.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm

Now this was an actual case challenging the merits of the law.  My original point was that he doesn't need to have proof, his mother was American.  This was English common law for over 500 years and interpreted for the constitution in the case of Chester A. Arthur.  His father was an Irish immigrant and he was born in Canada.  He claimed to be born in New York, but had no documentation of that and his family owned a farm in Canada and by all accounts he was raised there in early life.  The supreme court decided 140 years ago that it didn't matter, his mother was an American citizen.  This case challenges that interpretation of the law.  Because the precedent has been standing for over 140 years and we have already had a president with this exact case before, it would be highly unusual for the courts to hear it again.  But then again slavery and segregation was a settled issue of law in the U.S. at one point.

[MikeC]

But then again slavery and segregation was a settled issue of law in the U.S. at one point.

Would you be referring to the scotus decision on Dred Scott?

[Squirl]

Yes, and Plessy v. Fergusson

[peternap]

Deat God!
Its starting to sound like opencarry.org here!

[glenn kangiser]

Thanks Squirl.