People can hope for change but doesn't mean there will be change

HUNG IN FRONT OF THE ALAMO THEN BURIED IN THE MULCH FIRE THEN SPREAD
IN THE FIELD FOR FERTILIZER

JUST A THOUGHT LOL

all of the major cities in the U S that have strict gun laws and democratic executors have high gun crime

the only gun control law that will work is one like the militia act of 1792

which states::::

every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed,

------------------------------------------------------------


i would change ages now tho to anyone that qualifies to run for federal congressional office

so yes the fore fathers meant it when they said right to bare arms

didnt they also say something about no standing armies?

more about chicago gun laws here:

But Chicago Police have disputed that, saying it is a common misconception that Chicago has the country's strictest gun control, and the department's officials have contended that gang members face worse sanctions from their gangs for losing a gun than they do by the courts for illegally possessing one. Police have also emphasized that most guns used in Chicago crimes were bought outside of the city or state, where regulations are not as strict.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20151027/downtown/does-chicago-have-strictest-gun-laws-country-its-complicated

and the department's officials have contended that gang members face worse sanctions from their gangs for losing a gun than they do by the courts for illegally possessing one

______________________________________________________________________

Lol

so the thugs get in trouble.. by the thugs.. for losing their stolen guns.

So somehow that justifies the whole thing...makes it o.k...

inventory control is very important. maybe the thugs should start signing the guns in and out.. when they start and end their shifts ;)

Pretty hilarious amount of losing the Dems have done this year.
1st, they hung their hat on Nov 8th and an elitist, career politician who didn't even have the common decency to come out on election night and concede.
2nd, they then hung their hat on recounts that, in some cases, turned up more votes for Trump.
3rd, they then hung their hat on "faithless electors", and that blew up in their face.

I'm sure now they have started sticking pins in a Trump voodoo doll. Knowing them, they'll miss and only end up with bloody fingers.
Thanks for the laughs, Dems

the point was nothing about justification

the point was about the oversimplified argument implying stricter gun laws cause more crime

because gun laws are regional and people now have something called TRANSPORTATION, and INTERNET,, they dont have to go locally to get their guns,,,,

as a Dem, I don't disparage the struggle and perseverance of people trying to see things get better,, most of our 'progress' in this country wouldn't take place without people who lost plenty of times before 'winning'.

As an Independent, I, frankly, don't care that you are a Dem or what you do or do not disparage. Just watch out for those voodoo doll pins. And keep the laughs coming. Your "see things get better" may not be the same as someone else's "see things get better", and those folks "see things get better" won.
But I get it, as usual, Dems think their solutions are always better. As with their candidate, their elitism runs amok even after a loss. Like I originally stated, it's hilarious.

the fact is when honest people are regulated out of the ability to
protect themselves the criminal knows that the chance of them being retaliated against while committing a crime is very low thus the probability of them committing a crime goes up

not rocket science

does not matter where they get the weapon fact is as stated above
if people could defend themselves legally then criminals would be less likely to attack them

what's hilarious is the pot calling the kettle black....

oh, all sides are full of those who are full of ego though aren't they?

why else would one laugh at and negatively stereotype a whole political party ?


this was not a post by 'DEMS', just an individual that happens to be a democrat, responding to blanket insults and jabs regarding 'dems'

that makes little sense, because people CAN defend themselves legally, and get their guns the same places that criminals can

really so its ok to do what criminals do without becomming a criminal
i doubt that if they defend themselves with a gun then they will be
prosecuted and be thrown in jail because they broke the unconstitutional
law --- the key line is regulated out of protecting themselves
sure they can get a gun if they jump thru all the hoops and can show a need
even tho the need is easily obvious

criminals pee and poop, so , yes, its ok to do what criminals do without becoming a criminal

unless you are committing a crime

if it is criminal to purchase something in one place, you can order it from another or travel to another and purchase it,,,

Contrary to popular opinion, that wasn't a democrat republican thing,, people from across the political spectrum supported doing what was possible and legal to prevent a presidency that was not supported by the MAJORITY


my posts are to encourage people to 'move on', and stop with the silly attacks about this election

I understand the electoral college, and I understand at one point women couldnt vote and minorities couldnt vote, so felt their voice wasnt heard

and now

many citizens , across the political spectrum, feel the electoral college is succeeding in ignoring or repressing their voice as well

I took grade school civics, btw, and found out that things have been changed over the course of history, by people who understood how the US 'conducts elections' and felt like the process needed to change

like those in the womens rights struggle or minority rights struggle,

perhaps growing up a woman and a minority

causes me to be inclined to not just feel obliged to accept 'thats how things are' as the end game

maybe try not to debate in such personally condescending manner and provide facts and logic instead,,,

or not

its a 'free' country (something else I learned in grade school)


I can move on, when I stop being addressed,,,

many want california and new york to decide the president

truth be told she was behind in the popular vote till california
overwhelmingly voted for her (what state has the most illegal aliens
wonder how many voted illegally)

you need an id for almost everything else an id to vote should be enforced

many dont want living in california or new york to make the individual any less or more significant

only when IDs come without cost

people on welfare must have an id and a birth certificate so cost is
not a good argument

but yes i agree id should be without cost as should anything the govt
wants you to give theman id for (car boat and aircraft registration
to name a few and licensing such as fishing hunting and driving)
these are things for the govt to follow you around so yes they should be free)

welfare does not REQUIRE a photo id,,,,actually,

and welfare, unlike voting, is not an express citizenship right, you must be found 'eligible'


but we do agree if something is required for exercising a right, it should be provided free of cost