Disgrunted Gruntings

From MartialTalk-Posted by celtic_crippler 11-18-2009
============

Vote an Incumbant Out Campaign 2010

I just heard an announcement about Senator Robert Byrd setting a record just 2 days before his 92nd birthday for serving 57 years in Congress...

57 f'n years!?!?! REALLY?!?!?!

He's served since the Eisenhower administration.

What the hell does this guy have in common with any of you? How can somebody "represent" you, when they can't relate to "you" or your every day problems?

I remember Senator Strom Thurmond once refer to a microphone as a "machine"...

Anyway, our government is full of out-of-touch incumbants that have LONG out-served their usefullness. These bloated parasites have fed off our successes and contributed to our problems for too long.

Why vote them in again? They've had over 1/2 century to screw our country up, and as evidenced by today's environment have done a pretty good job of it too.

"We" share the blame for becoming apathetic and complacent, allowing them to return to office over, and over, and over... so we must STOP.

"We" all know that we can not trust nor count on our current representation to do anything other than pushing us further over the edge.

"We" have to start making changes, real ones, somewhere and there's no better place than at the polls.

"We" know there's no real change on the horizon if "we" trust our county's leadership to bring it about. "We" must do that ourselves... so...

Vote an Incumbant OUT in 2010.

Send a definate message to all that remain that we're mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it any more. You screw up, and do a horrible job and we'll fire your sorry butt!

Spread the word! Vote them OUT! We need fresh perspectives and ideas.

The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause

"What has been established here is that those who have claimed that the original meaning of the Commerce Clause was narrow are right and their critics are wrong"
- Randy E. Barnett, J.D.

The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause (PDF)
68 University of Chicago Law Review 101 (2001)

News Flash: The Constitution Means What It Says

Quote:

By RANDY E. BARNETT

Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in yesterday's Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller is historic in its implications and exemplary in its reasoning.

A federal ban on an entire class of guns in ordinary use for self-defense – such as the handgun ban adopted by the District of Columbia – is now off the table. Every gun controller's fondest desire has become a constitutional pipe dream.

Two important practical issues remain. First, will this ruling also apply to states and municipalities? That will depend on whether the Supreme Court decides to "incorporate" the right to keep and bear arms into the 14th Amendment. But in the middle of his opinion Justice Scalia acknowledges that the 39th Congress that enacted the 14th Amendment did so, in part, to protect the individual right to arms of freedmen and Southern Republicans so they might defend themselves from violence.
My prediction: This ruling will eventually be extended to the states.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121452412614009067.html

Quote:

So what larger lessons does Heller teach? First, the differing methods of interpretation employed by the majority and the dissent demonstrate why appointments to the Supreme Court are so important. In the future, we should be vetting Supreme Court nominees to see if they understand how Justice Scalia reasoned in Heller and if they are committed to doing the same.

We should also seek to get a majority of the Supreme Court to reconsider its previous decisions or "precedents" that are inconsistent with the original public meaning of the text. This shows why elections matter – especially presidential elections – and why we should vet our politicians to see if they appreciate how the Constitution ought to be interpreted.

Good legal scholarship was absolutely crucial to this outcome. No justice is capable of producing the historical research and analysis upon which Justice Scalia relied. Brilliant as it was in its execution, his opinion rested on the work of many scholars of the Second Amendment, as I am sure he would be the first to acknowledge. (Disclosure: I joined a brief by Academics for the Second Amendment supporting the individual rights interpretation; one of my articles was cited by Justice Scalia and another by Justice Breyer in his dissent.)

The House voted to pass the Senate plan which now goes to Obama to sign into law.

In a separate vote the House voted to send a list of "fixes" to the Senate to vote on. No guarantee the Senate will do as they wish. If they do so, it is expected that Obama will sign that as well.

Numerous challenges are reportedly in the works from State governments.

Virginia has passed a law exempting it's citizens from compliance. Several House Dems have laughed at that idea.

It is expected that the battle will move to the US Supreme Court to decide the Constitutionality of forcing citizens to purchase insurance from 3rd parties as well as several other aspects of the bill.

The fall out from this will drag on and effect this years campaign season with the House and a 3rd of the Senate up for grabs. Republicans stand to gain the most as voter disappointment is currently directed at Democrats. 3rd parties stand a chance to make significant gains for the first time in decades, provided they don't self destruct in the process.

It is truly interesting times.

Virginia passes bill banning mandated health care.

March 13, 2010
State Stands Up Against Obama-Care

Virginia OKs first bill banning mandated health care

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4104280/s...nst-obama-care

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031003908.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35801644...more_politics/

Nice to see Virginia finding a pair again.

You're not allowed to pay us back in clunkers!

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-li...-open/1178451/

SNL hits a bullseye on things.

Senator,

I am writing in opposition to the unconstitutional health care bill and the attempt by this Congress to force this unwanted legislation on the American People. As a small business owner I am against this. As an American I am against this.

This act is little more than an unethical cash cow for the insurance industry who continues to raise premiums and subsidize insane gouging by the drug companies.

I oppose the increase in taxes this will bring.

I oppose the invasion of my privacy that this will result in.

I resent being forced to purchase something I can not afford or face jail time.

I resent the fact that should this happen, members of my family will see their benefits through Medicare cut.

Rather than force a subsidy out of already cash strapped Americans to aid the insurance lobby, you need to do something that will actually help the American People.

- Support educational aid to aspiring doctors and nurses and other medical specialists so that we can put more qualified Americans into the medical field.

- Support the creation of clinics and other medical support in poor neighborhoods so that people have care close at hand.

- Deal with the gouging of drug companies who charge $100 for a pill that cost them .01 to make.

Consider a program for providing aspiring medical professionals with tuition and a paycheck in exchange for a 10 year hitch in a Federal Hospital system, similar to civil service programs of the past.

The people of this country do not want this disaster that is being proposed. This is too important to push through and try to "fix" later. Do it right the first time.

I will not support, nor will my friends or family support any Senator or Representative who votes for this current bill, or who pushes it through by the reconciliation process.

Vote NO on the current health care bill.

Push for real reform.

Thank you.

Bob Hubbard.

====

NY Senators

Gillibrand, Kirsten E. - (D - NY)	Class I
478 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
Web Form: gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/

Schumer, Charles E. - (D - NY)	Class III
313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6542
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm

NY Representatives

New York

Ackerman, Gary, New York, 5th
Arcuri, Michael A., New York, 24th
Bishop, Timothy, New York, 1st
Clarke, Yvette D., New York, 11th
Crowley, Joseph, New York, 7th
Engel, Eliot, New York, 17th
Hall, John J., New York, 19th
Higgins, Brian, New York, 27th
Hinchey, Maurice, New York, 22nd
Israel, Steve, New York, 2nd
King, Pete, New York, 3rd
Lee, Christopher J., New York, 26th
Lowey, Nita, New York, 18th
Maffei, Daniel B., New York, 25th
Massa, Eric J.J., New York, 29th
McCarthy, Carolyn, New York, 4th
McMahon, Michael E., New York, 13th
Maloney, Carolyn, New York, 14th
Meeks, Gregory W., New York, 6th
Murphy, Scott, New York, 20th
Nadler, Jerrold, New York, 8th
Owens, Bill, New York, 23rd
Rangel, Charles B., New York, 15th
Serrano, José E., New York, 16th
Slaughter, Louise, New York, 28th
Tonko, Paul D., New York, 21st
Towns, Edolphus, New York, 10th
Velázquez, Nydia M., New York, 12th
Weiner, Anthony D., New York, 9th

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

Quote:

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation.

"Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."

[link]

Before anyone asks, yes I read the Constitution, several times, and no, "Bob Hubbard" is not an alias for Kyle Mortensen.

Ohio High Court Narrowly Interprets Anti-Porn Law

Author: The Associated Press Source: First Amendment Center

Title: OHIO HIGH COURT NARROWLY INTERPRETS ANTI-PORN LAW

The Ohio Supreme Court has narrowly interpreted a state law aimed to protecting children from online pornography and predators, delivering a blow to free-speech advocates who want it thrown out as unconstitutional.

In its unanimous ruling, the court said a 2004 law extending the state's definition of "material harmful to minors" to the Internet is clearly intended to apply only to person-to-person communications — not to generally accessible Web sites and public chat rooms.

"We conclude that a person who posts matter harmful to juveniles on generally accessible websites and in public chat rooms does not violate (the law), because such a posting does not enable that person to 'prevent a particular recipient from receiving the information,'" Justice Paul Pfeifer wrote in American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Cordray. Options: [Read Full Story]
Source: Witches Voice

A Living Document?

The Constitution ceased being a "Living Document". Year after year 1 bastard after another cut, sliced and tore at it's guts. It's been critical for the past 8 years, but I think it's flat lining now. ---------------

Obama Jokes

A woman applying for a job in a Florida lemon grove seemed to be far too qualified for the job.

The foreman frowned and said, "I have to ask you this; "Have you had any actual experience in picking lemons?"

"Well, as a matter of fact, I have!" she replied.

"I've been divorced three times, owned 2 Plymouths, and I voted for Obama."

=====
Barack Obama is an old Kenyan word for Jimmy Carter.

=====
Obama doesn't want terrorists tortured. He wants to torture American taxpayers instead.

=====
Why doesn't Obama pray?
It's impossible to read the teleprompter with your eyes closed.

=====
New Barack Channel (NBC)
Another Barack Channel (ABC)
My Seriously New Barack Channel (MSNBC)

=====
What do you call the US after four years of Obama and the Liberal ccongress?
An Obama nation.

=====
Q. What will the difference be between President Obama and Karl Marx?
A. Karl Marx had way more experience.

=====
President Obama called the Space Shuttle and the astronauts told him they had a bit of trouble getting the Hubble Telescope to cooperate. To which Obama replied, "Well, did you try taxing it, printing your own money and threatening it with the media?" More problems; the Space Shuttle call is NOT on Obama’s calling plan and it’s going to cost the taxpayers $1 trillion. Then Obama appointed Republican Governor of Utah John Huntsman ambassador to China. It’s all part of Obama’s plan to get ALL the republicans out of the country by the end of next year.

=====

Regarding Health Care, Pending Bills and Reality.

I think people miss an important distinction here.

The government isn't taking your money and giving you -anything-.
They are requiring you to buy something from a third party or face penalty.

Using water as an example as above, despite the fact that it is the one thing you absolutely need, there is no law that says "you will buy water".
Yes there are sewer taxes (which cover most of the costs of sewer related things), but you pay an authorized company for water delivery only if you own the home in most cases. Renters often don't pay a separate water charge. You can also buy water from countless bottle water suppliers. But if I don't, I'm not fined nor am I facing threat of jail time.

Now, next to water, I require food. Yet, there are no laws that I am aware of that require me to pitch in $5 a week to fed the hungry. No requirement I am aware of that automates a deduction from my income specifically for the purpose of feeding the million+ hungry in the US. Yes, there are government services that do provide that service, however the money is budgeted from government income as they wish. I pay no "food for hungry tax".

After water and food comes shelter.
Again, no "shelter tax", no requirement I provide myself or anyone with shelter. I can choose to live in a tent in a field on public property if I so choose and in most cases will be allowed to do so. No requirement nor seperate tax/fee assessed at pay time that goes specifically towards any homeless shelters. Those are covered as is food and water through generic income/property taxes and other fees in a general pool.

Water, food, shelter. What's next on the "Needs list"
Sleep.
Sex.

Again, neither are covered by any taxes, fees, etc, nor provided directly by the government. We're kinda left up to those on our own.

Ah, Travel! All those roads.
No specific tax/deduction nor any requirement to pay for or face fine/jail.
Toll roads are covered by tolls. I can not drive them and avoid the fee.
Public roads are covered by various general funds at various levels.
Highways are a national security level importance due to their intended uses of troop transport and air strip use in emergency. Yet despite their importance, again, no "road tax".

The fact that Dr. X charges $120 for an office visit is irrelevant. Go see Dr. Y who only charges $25 a visit. Shop around if you don't like the prices. Right now, you can do that. Under alot of these systems people are pointing at as superior, you get the doctor assigned to you, no choice to choose differently.

Now, you also have to realize that there is no Health Care in this Health Care Bill. What it is is an Insurance Mandate forcing you to buy a service. Since you are required to buy it, there is no incentive to lower the costs, so they will go up, you will be gouged, and the only people who benefit are the insurance companies.

If they were serious about fixing the health care problem, they would be addressing the -2- issues people keep bringing up yet are ignored by the bill pending.

-1 costs
-2 access

We need our costs lowered, waste reduced, overcharges reduced and high drug costs addresses.

We need more doctors, nurses, specialists, hospitals and clinics.

This bill provides for none of that.

It's not a case of "it's better than nothing".
It's a case of it's nothing and they can do better!

How about a system that pushes for individual responsibility, doesn't subsidize mediocrity nor create an ineffective and bloated bureaucracy, and actually solves problems? I've yet to see that one on the table.

The "Uh, lets create some offices, raise some taxes, and work in some rewards for our buddies" answer is what got the US where it's at now, in deep ****.

Current plan:
- Everyone must BUY a policy.
- If you make under X, we will give you free cash to do so.
- If you make more than Y, or have a health plan that really works, you will pay extra to cover the poor people.
- If you do not buy a plan or otherwise prove you have a plan, you will pay a fine and face jail time.
- We get lots of free money tacked on in exchange for our votes.

That's the current plan in a nut shell.

Here's a real plan
- If you make less than X, you get free care
- From X to Y you get graduated care
- Over Y you're on your own.
- 1-2% tax increase on everyone making more than X to cover costs.
- drugs and tests and hospital bills carefully controled.
- doctors allowed to opt out of program.

There's a plan. Not as sexy, wouldn't take 6,000 pages, and not much room for self rewarding pork.

But, it would actually provide care, and not a feel good. That's the problem, we stopped living in the United States, and all somehow moved to the United Strokes. I for one am tired of being stroked off by the government.

Despite the Democrats ignorance of the Constitution, and refusal to answer questions concerning their invasive pork and graft filled "Health" plan's Constitutionality and even legality, others are questioning it and some are preparing to take this matter to court and fight it.

Constitutionality of Federal Health Plan.

What would a Real Universal Health Plan look like?
11-08-2009, 05:13 PM

The current plans being tossed around fall far short of what would really help America. It creates a huge bloated bureaucracy and does little to solve the real problems with health care in America today.

Here are my thoughts on what a real system might look like.

First, it would cover all American's, not just some.

Costs would be done through a separate tax.
Those under 18, and those earning less than $15,000 would pay nothing.
Those who choose to have private insurance receive a fair tax credit.
Cost is deducted via payroll tax like FICA/SSI/etc.
FICA taxes are collected at a rate of 7.65% on gross earnings - earnings before any deductions. The breakdown of FICA is 6.2% for Social Security (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance or OASDI) and 1.45% for Medicare. There are upper limits to what is taxed. This system can be used here.
Using a 2% rate, someone grossing $20k would pay about $34/month in costs.

The plan would cover:
1 eye exam and 1 pair of glasses every 2 years.
Basic Dental Care
Basic Drug Care
Recommended Primary visits
Basic tests
Emergency Services.

Depending on your plan level, a copay may apply.

Some drugs, treatments and services may not be covered.
Cosmetic treatments, as well as vanity services would not be covered.

This is much like any other policy.

Doctors may choose to opt-out of accepting the insurance.

Your Social Security number could (though shouldn't be) all you need to access for treatment. As long as you file a tax return, you are covered.

I still dispute the constitutionality of a forced health plan, and I dispute the constitutionality of a forced retirement plan, however, if we are to be forced to have something, this seems at the moment the less intrusive manner. It retains choice, it allows for the purchasing of superior coverage through a private firm, and it allows for the ones most in need to get the basics needed.

Thoughts?

Pastor Tazed in US "Constitution Free Zone"

http://immigration.change.org/blog/v...antless_search

Quote:

According to this pastor, the State Security Apparatus decided to break his car windows, taze him repeatedly, and then stomp on his head because he refused to consent to a warrantless search and seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

So, tell me again why US Border Patrol is manning road blocks outside Phoenix AZ? Isn't the border, quite a bit south of there?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes...red.pastor.cnn

I know, I know, shut up and do what they say, or else Osama will win.

Short blurbs from the NRA.
=======

Lawmaker aims at making Texas made and owned firearms exempt from federal regulation

A Texas lawmaker wants to further push state sovereignty from the federal government. Rep. Leo Berman, a former Arlington mayor pro tem, has filed a bill to make guns, ammunition and gun parts that are made, sold and kept in Texas free from federal regulation.

Read About It: The Fort Worth Star Telegram

Posted: 5/4/2009 9:33:20 AM
=========

Montana: State exempts guns from federal regulations

The state of Montana has drawn a line in the sand, challenging the federal government to decide whether to follow the U.S. Constitution with a new gun law that exempts from federal regulations any gun, gun accessory or ammunition made in the state and intended for use there.

Read About It: WorldNetDaily

Posted: 5/7/2009 9:11:04 AM

========

Montana's is now law, passed by both parts of it's government and signed by it's Gov. Texas's bill is pending, as is a similar one in Alaska. All eyes are on Montana however, with the Feds not expected to honor it, and force legal action.

Daniel Miller's Short Take On Texas Secession

Quote:

Although I could talk about governmental theory and the social contract, I want to start by giving you an analogy. Imagine for a moment that you are married. Not a stretch for some of you since you are married or have been in the past. Now imagine that your spouse had done the following:
- Taken your paycheck and spent it on drugs to the point of running you into serious debt
- Rendered you and your children financially strapped to the point of financial ruin
- Taken your money and given it to your neighbor so that "we can be friends"
- Actively worked to turn your kids into "abusive" clones and against you
- Ran up gambling debts that you and your children had to pay
- Repeatedly cheated on you but promised that the next time would be different
- Made decisions for you that were detrimental without your agreement
- Put a second, third or fourth mortgage on your home without your consent
- Promised that they were placing money into your retirement but they were really spending it on frivolous items which would render you destitute at retirement
- Refused to put locks on the door even when your house has been broken into, your property stolen and you have been raped repeatedly
- Failed to come to your aid when you were injured or sick
- Became domineering and controlling to the point of obsession
- Refused to let you speak your mind about these problems and when you did labeled you as "unstable" and "fringe"
- Threatened to beat or kill you if you ever leave
What would you want to do in this situation? If you said anything short of "divorce" please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233).
But did you catch that? D-I-V-O-R-C-E! Divorce and secession are the exact same thing.

A very interesting read.

545 PEOPLE By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices; 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country..

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.

The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in ....IRAQ.... it's because they want them in ....IRAQ....

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible.

They and they alone, have the power.

They and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

=======

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

At least 3 US State have passed or introduced bills telling Uncle Sam to go and get stuffed over guns.So, what will the Fed withhold from Montana to force compliance? Highway money, education money, health care and drug funding for seniors?

Montana:

Quote:

In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.

FULL ARTICLE

Texas:

Quote:

A bill by state Rep. Leo Berman exempting Texas-made firearms, gun accessories and ammunition sold within the state from federal regulation and law -- including registration -- was heard in a House committee on Monday.

"With the appointment of Eric Holder as U.S. attorney general, we have the most anti-Second Amendment attorney general in the history of the nation," Berman said. "What we're saying with this is there are some guns not subject to federal regulation. We have guns and gun accessories and ammunition here that are not subject to their regulation."

LINK

Alaska:

Quote:

Prime sponsor Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks, attracted 10 co-sponsors and said the bill is both a measure to allow manufacture of guns and a statement that Alaska intends to reclaim some of its rights. Alaska has seen rights eroded in the oversight of navigable waters, fish and game, and access to natural resources, Kelly said, but can reclaim rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
"We will handle the regulation of it," he said.
Kelly said the federal government has regulated firearms in part though the oversight of interstate commerce. The bill addresses that by exempting firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories that are manufactured and retained in the state. Guns and ammo that fit that criteria should be exempt from federal regulation, including registration, he said.

LINK

AddThis

AddThis

About Bob

Important Resources

Followers

US Political Parties

Subscribe to Disgruntled Gruntings

Blog Archive

Blogs of Note

America

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Monday, March 22, 2010

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Friday, March 5, 2010

Thursday, March 4, 2010

New York

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Friday, January 29, 2010

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Friday, December 25, 2009

Monday, December 21, 2009

Friday, May 15, 2009

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Monday, May 11, 2009

Friday, May 8, 2009

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Constitution Class taught by Michael Badnarik (2003)