Russian politician Alexander Torshin said his ties to the NRA provided him access to Donald Trump — and the opportunity to serve as a foreign election observer in the United States during the 2012 election.

These revelations come amid news that the FBI is investigating whether Torshin, the deputy governor of the Bank of Russia, illegally funneled money to the NRA to assist the Trump campaign in 2016,

QUOTE=scottw;1138130]PARKLAND, Fla. — Broward County deputies received at least 18 calls warning them about Nikolas Cruz from 2008 to 2017, including concerns that he "planned to shoot up the school" and other threats and acts of violence before he was accused of killing 17 people at a high school.

The warnings, made by concerned people close to Cruz, came in phone calls to the Broward County Sheriff's Office, records show. At least five callers mentioned concern over his access to weapons, according to the documents. None of those warnings led to direct intervention.

In February 2016, neighbors told police that they were worried he “planned to shoot up the school” after seeing alarming pictures on Instagram showing Cruz brandishing guns.

About two months later, an unidentified caller told police that Cruz had been collecting guns and knives. The caller was “concerned (Cruz) will kill himself one day and believes he could be a school shooter in the making,” according to call details released by the Sheriff's

My statement

The NRA and 2nd supporters would have pitched a fit if they took his guns over instargram, or Internet posts yelling confiscation or FREEDOM of speech. .. they are now blaming everyone else . To insulate them from the laws they supported which gave assistance and legal standing for Cruz to have what he had .... law enforcement was toothless until he committed a crime ...

And I was told UMMMMN NO they would not if they took Cruzs guns based on a callers concerns ... then RI passes a Red flag measure to head off possible shooters and the response was as suggestec

Told him to change his mind

Gotcha.

Well if they told him to change his imnd, I would be in agreement. Due process has to come before we strip constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms from US citizens. The feds can't take something away, and then we petition to get that freedom back.

Due process must come first. The constitution could not be more clear. You disagree?

It's a slippery slope ...due process ignored the Fla shooter ,,, I know in Mass a 209a protection order or admission to a detox voluntary or in voluntary gets a knock at your door to secure all weapons .... it's automatic . You can get them back via Due process ... but they can't just take them based on a unnamed caller or because some thinks your weird..

so whos rights gets priority those of a possible shooter or those of his potential victum's ?..

Be inconvenienced. In court to get your guns back due process

Be inconvenienced because your dead no due process

The possibility of abuse exists that's why we have courts .. reasonable people who have nothing to hide and operate with in the rules won't be effected .

And I don't buy that the freedom to own a gun is absolute. Or with out restriction
Or the fantasy this leads to taking people's guns .... it's just not based in facts

Apparently not for ALL US citizens because we behind enemy lines in the peoples republic of Massachusetts must have had our due process by legislation with regards to owning a piece of plastic known as a bump stock. Most every firearms permit holder got their letter in the mail. I felt like mailing it back to them with a rubber band or a belt loop(seeing how they can accomplish the same effect), but we all know passing the law was not about safety but about optics and rushing to feel good about doing something. And Trump is just like them with his stupid statement about ignoring due process.
There is no shortage of tyrants in this state.
Judges that ignore or make their own interpretations of the Constitution are the ones who are dangerous to our country.

...

Behind enemy lines?

MA is in the bottom third for unemployment, the second lowest firearm death rate of all states, ranked the best schools in the nation etc... etc...

Keep this nonsense up and I'm not going to show you the amazingly tight corners on the giant picture frame I just made.

...a bump stock is not a gun. No different then AR dosn't mean assault rifle.. >>>

so your rights were never violated by the banning of bump stocks

And their rights wouldn't be violated by banning assault weapons either. Even in the Heller case the SC didn't say the government couldn't ban certain types of weapons.

Just wait till some states ban ammunition because they're not guns LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

Property that was attained while legal and then banned and confiscated absolutely DOES violate rights. And if it ever goes to court before a judge that is not a liberal constitutional tyrant, then it would be overturned.




The argument about modern firearms are not what the 2A was for is horsecrap, The British had what the people had, and when they wanted to disarm the people, the revolution began. You can believe whatever you want about what can be banned or should be banned and we are never going to agree apparently. I know what is right and what is wrong. Did a bunch of ranchers armed with AR-15's win a standoff with the feds? yes they did.

If the country goes over the ledge to socialism, that is when you will finally realize you are left with Communism and wonder how it happened.

1) Doesn't mean you can't ban new sales and

2) Doesn't mean you can't add registration requirements and sale transfer requirements onto existing weapons.

Correct
I didn’t say it did

Banning something for future is one thing
Banning it retroactively is another.

States are allowed to put restrictions
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is kind of a stretch. Had the Feds wanted to win the standoff, it would have been over it seconds. They didn't want the repercussions of doing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not to mention the ranchers were wrong to begin with.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this was on fox Tucker Carlson

“Imagine if Barack Obama had said that? ‘Just ignore due process and confiscating guns.’ Obama would have been denounced as a dictator,” Carlson said on Thursday. “Congress would be talking impeachment right now. Someone would be muttering about secession.”

not sure if he is asking why this isn't happening or just for once see's how hypocritical the base is?

Went to see the comments which are very telling and no where on the 1st page of comments was there a critical comment against Trump he was mentioned 1 time here is the comment

What Fiasco. President Trump is battling the Democratic Communist Party, the Rhinos, the push towards a NWO,

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/...ke-guns-first/


I am sure they wont see an issue with this one as well ,,Trump praises Chinese president extending tenure 'for life'


“He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.

this is the part that scares me^^^^

Trump is enamored with dictators and authoritarian regimes. I don't even think he realizes what he's saying.

Did you read it?

So you would be OK with it?

For a lot of people, it is easy to strip away Constitutional Rights. I mean, what's the worst that could happen, right?

Yeh - not hearing much (as we should) about the deeper investigations that need to be done.

So this slippery slope is OK?

We do need a good examination on how to protect rights and balance the need for some people not to have access to firearms (and removal if needed) due to disqualifying events (mental health/Drug Abuse/Criminal Records) and not limit those that are not disqualifying.

The FL shooter Cruz wasn't failed by Due process? The students at MSD were failed by the lack of any ATTEMPT of ANY PROCESS by legal authorities at the local, state, and Federal level.

The reasonable people are the ones that will have their rights curtailed. You CAN support 2A and not own a firearm. Interestingly after the recent hits on the NRA (you know, the killers that caused the MSD shootings) they signed up thousands of new members because it is a fight over Constitutional rights.

Move the discussion from 2A to 1A - how flexible are you in having your speech curtailed?

I do not think it is without restriction, but the default is to allow with certain items to disqualify. But there has been significant calling from Dems and Dem legislators to ban and confiscate.

Due process? Or the lack of implementation of Due Process by legal authorities at the local, state, and Federal level??

Heller also stated the people have the right to the same arms in use in "lawful purpose". So technically, the people could get more advanced systems than currently available.

You are exceptional at Cherry Picking you quotes to broad brush people. You may be even more effective than Spence. :rotf2:

Here we agree

[QUOTE=JohnR;1138733]



You are exceptional at Cherry Picking you quotes to broad brush people. You may be even more effective than Spence. :rotf2:



/QUOTE]

And you are exceptional at refusing to see what you call cherry picked quotes as what they are ...
Actual statements from real people who lead the narrative and sit in postions of power and represent those who have have elected them

If you only look at quotes as only quotes I can see why you have a hard time seeing the picture they paint ... over time

@JohnR
Yes, It is 126 pages. Not going to list the specific individual weapons banned as new models would replace the banned ones.

Semi-automatic rifles and pistols with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine;

· Semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;

· Semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature;

· Any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds;

It won't pass anyway, but a semi-auto .45 pistol or the semi-auto rifle with a 10 round fixed magazine would be legal if it didn't have a folding stock or the grips.
Did you read something different than that?

Russian politician Alexander Torshin said his ties to the NRA provided him access to Donald Trump — and the opportunity to serve as a foreign election observer in the United States during the 2012 election.

Just Another cherry off the nothing to see here Tree

Russia funneling money through the NRA to help Trump? Say it ain’t so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, but we drastically disagree on many things.

You led with a tiny and very extreme view of guns and religion, and then moved to Trump. You went and framed the conversation with a tiny fringe (Moonies fer crying out loud??) and then rolled into Trump.

I wouldn't be shocked, keep in mind they funnel money everywhere (Workers Parties, CPUSA, Cough Cough) and have for hundreds of years. It's what they do.

I agree

What I presented were all legit stories and statements who common intersection are guns

And only presenting them as reported

And I strongly feel The NRA and it intractable position. On gun control will be the biggest negative impact on all gun owners in the years to come

But the extreme fringe, as if you are trying to categorize everyone supporting 2A as that extreme fringe.

You can support the 2nd amandment and want strict gun control at the same time. It’s an amazing concept called back ground checks and regulation. I’m not sure why people can grasp this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the extreme fringe are the ones with all the money that are making the most noise.. I am not against the 2a i have said it 10 different ways

But here like most other places like FB if your open to any gun control and again i mean any .. your Anti 2nd Amendment (bump stocks are a good example )

And if your a 2 a supporter and own guns and agree with the need for some gun control your a NRAINO.

Yes, I understand better backgrounds checks are necessary but there is also "Shall not be infringed" . So you can't take away the right to bear, and for those that do you had better have due process figured out (regardless of what DT said). Heller stated the public has the right to arms and to used in lawful purpose (ie self defense / home defense).

So lets have a discussion on how to protect 1A, 2A and 4A, 8A, etc and keep people safe. I’m not sure why people can grasp this.



The Bill of Rights is the basis upon which this country is governed and if that is altered there will be unimaginable conflict.

Simply not true, prove it.

This is part of the problem, what exactly shall not be infringed? "Arms" is a pretty vague term and the SCOTUS has clearly stated it's not unlimited.

Right, they blew it with the wording. There was no way for them to know that state militias would become obsolete. There was no way for them to know the 14th amendment would come along and make it apply to state governments, as well as feds. It was 200 years until the Heller decision came along and flipped things on their head.

Context of the writing of the 2nd amendment:
4 million people in US
Private arms were black powder flintlock muskets (a militia would have canons)
At time of writing, only applied to federal laws, states could have completely banned private ownership of arms.

[QUOTE=zimmy;1138798]Right, they blew it with the wording. There was no way for them to know that state militias would become obsolete.

The militia did not refer to "state" militias:
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

There was no way for them to know the 14th amendment would come along and make it apply to state governments, as well as feds. It was 200 years until the Heller decision came along and flipped things on their head.

Heller decision didn't flip the original meaning. It asserted, in it's opinion, the original meaning.

Context of the writing of the 2nd amendment:
4 million people in US

Number of people in the entire nation is irrelevant. Most cities have less than 4 million people. Some States do.

Private arms were black powder flintlock muskets (a militia would have canons)

Private arms, flintlock muskets were the "assault" weapons of the day. They were standard military arms. And some private citizens did own canons--legally.

At time of writing, only applied to federal laws, states could have completely banned private ownership of arms.

That was one of the benefits of an armed citizenry. It would not have been possible then for the states to ban ownership of arms. And some of the original 13 state constitutions did establish the right to own and bear arms. And that right had already been established in English common law before the revolution and was considered by the Founders as a universal right.

This isn't even a real quote, it's two Mason quotes glued together. The second statement was in context of the British Government's attempts to control the subjects in America.

Regardless, Mason's remarks at the debate were against reliance on a standing army (in addition to the risks he thought it posed) in favor of local militias that could be raised when necessary. They would need to be "well regulated" so that states that were called to come to the aid of other states would be sufficiently trained and equipped.

But fast forward a few hundred years and the militias are now really the National Guard, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government.

If you're called up for National Guard duty you don't bring your personal AR-15 in fact you're not even allowed.

How this justifies the average person to have a weapons designed for war is beyond me.

Jeff, there is a lot of things that are beyond you. But that's alright because you live in a free country where you can voice your disapproval with an occasional clear thought. I respect that we live in an evolving country that has an unique way of balancing things out when they go askew. Things will slowly improve,hopefully to where only the good guys have Whatever type of firearm they want to shoot paper with.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

According to the supreme court, it doesn't. There are tons of banned weapons. There were weapons banned under 1994 law. They could be banned again if/when congress or individual states decide to do it. Legal precedent supports it.

So adorable

Unfortunately this argument has moved from what would reasonable people do to "weapons designed for war"
All weapons were designed for war is how some people think of guns. I read a letter to the editor the other day that said "it is just a matter of time till the owner of these guns decides to kill people with them".
This won't be solved until the two just a matter of time groups (decide to kill and slippery slope) come together and find some middle ground.

It is beyond you because your understanding of the Constitution is not informed by the actual language and meaning used to write the Constitution, but informed by Progressive revisionism--so-called interpretation which is actually a rewriting, a changing, outside of the legal and proper amendment process.

Here is a good explication of the meanings of the words in the 2A contemporaneous to the time it was written. It is a little bit longish, not too much, just very thorough and a really good guide to understanding the 2A.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-te...cond-Amendment