Sad - Page 8

So how many billions are his 'business reasons' worth? I'd bet my pocket change it would hurt GB more than him....he doesn't need you for revenue.

OK it might not hurt his pocket, but that ego, maybe.

'that ego' hurt? A man doesn't attain the wealth he has without pissing people off or by having a tender ego.
Its not a permant ban hes advocating, but until more affective vetting is worked out. The senate passed a ban on visa waver from EU the other day to try to prevent would be terrorists from getting in the us the way the female terrorist in SB was able to slip by without being vetted by using the guise of being a fiance of american citizen.....her true motive was to murder Americans, the marriage to the home grown was a cover.

He didnt say anything all that provocative. He knew if he said it that way he would be a media typhoon. He is really smart and owns most people being able to control their emotion simply by choosing which way to express a point. This person in the video below basically says the same thing no ones panties are bunched.

Nobody has a right to be here right? Our goal is to keep Americans free & safe right?

Well then it's easy. If you are a terrorist, stay out. If you chant "death to America" or cheer when people chant that, stay out. If you don't like America, stay out. If you won't assimilate, stay out. If you don't believe in freedom & tolerance, stay out. If you won't place our Constitution above your Sharia, stay out.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/joewalsh/videos/773287326109965/

 

The truth is we dont need these people, if you dont want to become an American dont come here. Oh crazy provacative.... No common sense, you dont go to someone else country to change them. Go where you fit in. They may need you.

TRUMP..... a word my 5 year old Grandson uses when he breaks wind, lol,lol. See the connection? lol,lol. Here's something we can all agree on.... he does have super hair, lol,lol Sorry guys couldn't resist....carry on

"If you are a terrorist, stay out. If you chant "death to America" or cheer when people chant that, stay out. If you don't like America, stay out. If you won't assimilate, stay out. If you don't believe in freedom & tolerance, stay out. If you won't place our Constitution above your Sharia, stay out."

Any American who doesn't agree with all of the above is probably at toilet 'humor' mentality anyway.

Gigante & Joanro - 

I think people like Trump because he isn't PC.  He stands behind what he says and doesn't backpedal and apologize.

Will I vote for him?  No, I like another GOP candidate better.  But I do like that he is getting people to look at the issues.

"He is really smart"

Yeah, he is so smart he believes he can call Bill Gates to shut down the internet. LMFAO. The guy is a buffoon.
Rich, LMFAO, he is rich on the back of daddy and the government - how many bankruptcies has he had?
Anyone who supports him or advocates for him is - a bigoted racist. He is Xenophobic to the max and a total putz of a loser. Yes, he has money that doesn't make him smart, it doesn't make him compassionate, a good person or a leader of a free country.

"The truth is we dont need these people, if you dont want to become an American dont come here. Oh crazy provacative.... No common sense, you dont go to someone else country to change them. Go where you fit in. They may need you."

Gigante - then why did the white people come here and kill, rape and try to change the native Americans??????????????????? Lets talk common sense again, ok? You guys are real hypocrites, just unbelievable.

 

"But I do like that he is getting people to look at the issues."

Like bigorty, racism and xenophobia?

Historical analysis can challenge dearly held beliefs about the past. That is, historical analysis based on evidence examined acc. to the standards of historical scholarship, not bar room talk about the past. The following quoted article is on the history of the 2nd Amendment, written for a non-scholarly readership but based on solid historical scholarship. It shows how the claim for a 'right' for everyone to carry deadly weapons based on the 2nd Amendment came into being only very recently. It shows that gun advocates cannot ground their claims on the 2nd Amendment. Quotes are from the article referenced:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/23/battleground-america

"The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 by two men, a lawyer and a former reporter from the New York Times. For most of its history, the N.R.A. was chiefly a sporting and hunting association. To the extent that the N.R.A. had a political arm, it opposed some gun-control measures and supported many others, lobbying for new state laws in the nineteen-twenties and thirties, which introduced waiting periods for handgun buyers and required permits for anyone wishing to carry a concealed weapon. It also supported the 1934 National Firearms Act—the first major federal gun-control legislation—and the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, which together created a licensing system for dealers and prohibitively taxed the private ownership of automatic weapons (“machine guns”). The constitutionality of the 1934 act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security.” Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The Court agreed, unanimously. In 1957, when the N.R.A. moved into new headquarters, its motto, at the building’s entrance, read, “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation.” It didn’t say anything about freedom, or self-defense, or rights.

...

Gun-rights arguments have their origins not in eighteenth-century Anti-Federalism but in twentieth-century liberalism. They are the product of what the Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet has called the “rights revolution,” the pursuit of rights, especially civil rights, through the courts. In the nineteen-sixties, gun ownership as a constitutional right was less the agenda of the N.R.A. than of black nationalists. In a 1964 speech, Malcolm X [a Muslim, LF] said, “Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.” Establishing a constitutional right to carry a gun for the purpose of self-defense was part of the mission of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, which was founded in 1966. “Black People can develop Self-Defense Power by arming themselves from house to house, block to block, community to community throughout the nation,” Huey Newton said.

....

In the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. began advancing the argument that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to carry a gun, rather than the people’s right to form armed militias to provide for the common defense. Fights over rights are effective at getting out the vote. Describing gun-safety legislation as an attack on a constitutional right gave conservatives a power at the polls that, at the time, the movement lacked. Opposing gun control was also consistent with a larger anti-regulation, libertarian, and anti-government conservative agenda. In 1975, the N.R.A. created a lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, headed by Harlon Bronson Carter, an award-winning marksman and a former chief of the U.S. Border Control. But then the N.R.A.’s leadership decided to back out of politics and move the organization’s headquarters to Colorado Springs, where a new recreational-shooting facility was to be built. Eighty members of the N.R.A.’s staff, including Carter, were ousted. In 1977, the N.R.A.’s annual meeting, usually held in Washington, was moved to Cincinnati, in protest of the city’s recent gun-control laws. Conservatives within the organization, led by Carter, staged what has come to be called the Cincinnati Revolt. The bylaws were rewritten and the old guard was pushed out. Instead of moving to Colorado, the N.R.A. stayed in D.C., where a new motto was displayed: “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.”

 

 

 

And more. Shocking facts. http://news.discovery.com/human/life/shocking-facts-about-us-gun-control-151209.htm

 

The latest mass shooting at the Inland Regional Center complex (pictured here) in San Bernardino, Calif., which left 14 people dead and injuring many others, has once again reinvigorated the national debate on gun control.

Perhaps responding to a national mood that has grown increasingly concerned over these kinds of mass casualty incidents, the Supreme Court yesterday elected not to hear a challenge to city ordinances banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, a somewhat surprising move for the Roberts court given that it has left such a strong mark on gun control legislation. Judges don't explain publicly why they refuse cases, however.

Ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment 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." Determining the exact meaning and intent of those 27 words has been the subject of debate for centuries now, and you might be surprised to find where that still-unsettled dispute has led the United States.

 

The United States hosts about 5 percent of the world's population, but has nearly half of the world's civilian-owned guns. With the population of roughly 317 million people, the United States has roughly 357 million guns, reports the Washington Post. One in three American households own at least one firearm.

Gun manufacturing is also big business in the United States, the world's number one arms exporter accounting for an estimated 31 percent of the global trade between 2010 and 2014, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The biggest recipients of U.S. arms were South Korea (9 percent), the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (8 percent) and Australia (8 percent). Between 2009 and 2013, the total output of U.S. gun manufacturers doubled, from 5.6 million guns per year to 10.9 million firearms annually.

 

In 2008, the Supreme Court established in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self defense, a still-controversial decision. The ruling in a case two centuries earlier contributed to the court's majority opinion.

More than four decades after the passage of the Second Amendment, a Southern state was the first to challenge the amendment. Georgia in 1837 became the first to restrict gun ownership by passing a law prohibiting the sale and posession of handguns and certain types of knives. Eight years later, the state Supreme Court overturned the law citing it as unconstitutional in the case of Nunn v. State of Georgia.

Nunn v. State established that neither federal nor state governments could infringe on the right to bear arms. Furthermore, the Nunn court held that "whole people" and not just militias had a right to keep and bear arms, the same decision reached in the Heller case.

 

Georgia is not only the first state to challenge the right to gun ownership; the state is also home to Kennesaw, a town that passed a law in 1982 requiring all of its residents to carry guns.

The mandatory gun ownership law was a response by gun rights advocates to a law that passed a year earlier in Morton Grove, Ill., that banned guns within city limits. The Illinois ban has since been repealed.

Gun rights advocates often trumpet Kennesaw as a triumph of guns as crime deterants, pointing to a decrease in criminal activity since the law's passage. Kennesaw, however, already had a low crime rate and the entire state of Georgia also saw a drop in violent and property crime over the same period. Furthermore, the population isn't actually fully armed. The Kennesaw law is mostly symbolic and is unenforceable, officials contend, largely because there are a number of loopholes that allow residents to opt out.

 

The National Rifle Association (NRA) wasn't always a strict opponent of any gun control legislation. Founded in 1871 by William Conant Church (pictured here) and George Wood Wingate, both of whom were disappointed by the poor aim of Union soldiers during the Civil War, the NRA began as an organization to promote markmanship rather than a political advocacy group.

For the first half of the 20th century, the NRA supported a number of gun control measures, including the 1934 National Firearms Act, which passed to try to limit gangster gun violence during the Prohibition Era, and the Gun Control Act of 1968, which followed a number of high-profile assassinations that decade including that of President John F. Kennedy.

 

Following the conclusion of the Civil War, one of the most ruthless organizations in American history, the Ku Klux Klan, terrorized former slaves, seizing the guns of the newly freed black Americans in order to disarm them. The Klan also supported gun control laws to restrict the ownership of firearms to non-white individuals.

The Fourteenth Amendment passed to guarantee the rights of the freedman in the United States the same as those afforded white Americans under the Bill of Rights. Guns rights were a major concern for the authors of the amendment.

During the civil rights era, the Black Panthers were one of the most visible gun rights groups, particularly in the matter of open-carry laws. Even Martin Luther King, Jr., had kept an "arsenal" in his home.

 

Leading up to his campaign for the presidency and as president, Ronald Reagan was a known support of Second Amendment rights. He even penned an article in a 1975 issue of Guns & Ammo to speak out against efforts to prohibit and confiscate guns.

But he enacted gun control measures as governor of California, in response to the Black Panther movement, and he supported restricting firearm sales and distribution in his post-presidency.

In 1991, Reagan endorsed the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated federal background checks for new gun purchases, institued a five-day waiting period and prohibited firearm sales to certain individuals, such as convicted felons. Three years later, Reagan along with former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter jointly wrote to Congress to advocate for legislation banning assault weapons.

 

Fifteen years ago, gun manufacturers learned that it doesn't pay to compromise.

In 2000, gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson came to an agreement with the Clinton administration to settle lawsuits brought by the federal government and 15 states. The company agreed to change the distribution of its products and alter their design to improve safety.

The response was an immediate backlash amongst gun owners and manufacturers who saw the move as a capitulation to the gun control advocates. Retailers and consumers launched a successful boycott of Smith & Wesson that led to a nearly 40 percent decline in sales that year and almost killed off the company, which was founded in 1852.

 

In 1990, 13 people were killed in mass shooting in Aramoana, New Zealand. Within two years, the nation's government passed a number of laws tighening requirements on ownership.

In 1996, Australia coped with the worst mass shooting in its history. At a resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania, a gunman killed 35 people and wounded 23 others. Within two weeks of the shooting, the Australian government announced a ban on semiautomatic assault rifles and pump shotguns, a four-week waiting period on gun purchases and a national gun registry.

Germany, a nation that already had some of the most stringent gun ownership laws in Europe, passed laws restricting the use of large caliber weapons and creating a federal gun firearm registry following separate mass shooting in 2002 and 2009.

Official responses to mass shooting in the United States have been different, however, with states often loosening gun possession regulations in the wake of a tragedy in the name of self-defense. This often means permitting or expanding the carrying of concealed weapons in public places, such as college campuses.

 

Gun control advocates frequently insist that laws restricting the sale of firearms can reduce violent crime. But perhaps the larger impact would be on the number of suicide, found a 2000 study by Duke University.

While Duke data found no evidence for a reduction in homicides, there was a decrease in the number of firearm-induced suicides following the passage of the Brady Bill. Although this decline was partially offset by an increase in the number of non-firearm-related suicides, the Brady Bill helped reduce the overall suicide rate, the Duke data determined.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 21,175 people took their own lives using a firearm in 2013, almost twice the number of people murdered by someone using a gun, which stood at 11,208.