Politics

Arkansas_Traveler

AH senior member
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Messages
94
Reaction score
167
Location
Arkansas
Hunted
Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Wyoming
I wouldnt be so sure..

We also thought the USSC was going to kill Obama Care.. while there was a republican controlled senate and a republican in the White House..

Didnt happen..

I've learned to not count on the USSC or the three-branch government to support the will of the people or do the right thing..
Yes, but there's a big difference between asking the Supreme Court to overturn a bill that was legitimately passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by a sitting President (no matter how unpopular said bill / law may be) VS. asking the courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) to overturn an executive order that was signed to intentionally bypass the constitutionally established process of creating law.

Apples and Oranges.

But again, I could always be wrong.
 

mdwest

AH legend
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
2,181
Reaction score
4,838
Location
DFW
Media
42
Articles
1
Hunting reports
Africa
2
Mex/S.Amer
1
Member of
DSC Life Member, NRA Life Member
Hunted
USA, South Africa, Argentina, Peru
Yes, but there's a big difference between asking the Supreme Court to overturn a bill that was legitimately passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by a sitting President (no matter how unpopular said bill / law may be) VS. asking the courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) to overturn an executive order that was signed to intentionally bypass the constitutionally established process of creating law.

Apples and Oranges.

But again, I could always be wrong.

How so?

The role of the supreme court is to determine the constitutionality of law (straight off of their own website).. and ensure the american people equal justice under the law (also straight off their own website)

So however that law gets passed.. whether a municipal order, state regulation, federal law, or an executive order.. the role of the USSC remains the same..

Determine if its constitutional or not.. and make sure US Citizens recieve equal justice under it (if a law is indeed constitutional)..

It doesnt matter if the law is passed by the 535 nit wits in congress.. 1 nit wit in the white house.. or a bunch of yahoos sitting on a city council.. if the USSC hears the case.. their role remains the same..
 

CJW

AH enthusiast
Joined
Nov 18, 2018
Messages
475
Reaction score
661
It's sad that parents have to waste their time fighting this type of BS in their kids schools but they represented themselves very well. I hope they get the recalls they want.

 

Arkansas_Traveler

AH senior member
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Messages
94
Reaction score
167
Location
Arkansas
Hunted
Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Wyoming
How so?

The role of the supreme court is to determine the constitutionality of law (straight off of their own website).. and ensure the american people equal justice under the law (also straight off their own website)

So however that law gets passed.. whether a municipal order, state regulation, federal law, or an executive order.. the role of the USSC remains the same..

Determine if its constitutional or not.. and make sure US Citizens recieve equal justice under it (if a law is indeed constitutional)..

It doesnt matter if the law is passed by the 535 nit wits in congress.. 1 nit wit in the white house.. or a bunch of yahoos sitting on a city council.. if the USSC hears the case.. their role remains the same..
It's different because the ACA - no matter how terrible it was / is - was passed through the constitutional means of establishing law. House to Senate to Presidential desk for signature. Clean, tidy, and constitutionally enacted. Is it an awful law? Yes, by many accounts absolutely. But is it unconstitutional? No, not according to the SCOTUS.

But Executive Orders are meant to only be used to "execute" a law or power that is already given to the Executive Branch by the Congress or Constitution.
When EOs begin to pass beyond such boundaries, then it becomes much trickier constitutionally to uphold them in the courts.

Nowhere in the constitution that I am aware of is the President of the US given power to enact law unilaterally or to issue orders that would overrule constitutional amendments or legal precedent within the interpretation and application of those constitutional amendments.

It really is apples to oranges. The ACA challenges really have nothing at all to do with challenges to overreaching Executive Orders. Two different beasts - in this case both bad, but different nonetheless.

I'm not saying that the SCOTUS or lower courts are absolutely beyond screwing up their ruling when the inevitable and necessary lawsuits come, but I am saying it's extremely unlikely that an Executive Order infringing on the 2nd would actually manage to stand in the court system.
 

mdwest

AH legend
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
2,181
Reaction score
4,838
Location
DFW
Media
42
Articles
1
Hunting reports
Africa
2
Mex/S.Amer
1
Member of
DSC Life Member, NRA Life Member
Hunted
USA, South Africa, Argentina, Peru
Your post makes no sense at all...

ACA was indeed passed.. but the question as to whether or not it was constitutional was exactly why it was challenged and heard by the supreme court..

Just because congress passes a law doesnt mean it is constitutional.. in fact ACA continues to get challenged and brought before the USSC.. As recently as November 2020 eighteen states challenged the way that ACA is being managed and sued under the premise that the management of ACA is not constitutional..

In 2012 the ACA itself was challenged and taken to the USSC due to the question of its constitutionality..

The purpose of the USSC is to make those determinations..

While Congress's job is to pass legislation (among other things).. just because they pass a law doesnt mean it is "constitutional"... They in fact pass laws that are unconstitutional with some frequency..

Between 1986 - 2006 (30 years) the USSC in fact struck down 121 laws passed by the US Congress due to them being unconstitutional..

A law is a law.. regardless of how it comes to pass.. Executive order, federal legislation, state legislation, etc.. does not matter..

If the law is challenged.. and if the USSC choses to hear the case.. they will determine whether or not the "law" is in fact legal and will be upheld or struck down..

The question of whether or not a POTUS can issue an EO has already been answered... yes.. they in fact can..

Whether or not that EO violates the US Constitution depends on the interpretation of the EO and the constitution by the USSC... what you think violates the 2A doesnt matter.. what the USSC thinks violates the 2A does..

Plenty of constitutional scholars.. far more wise, learned, and experienced than you and I determined that ACA was not constitutional..

The USSC clearly disagreed..

You might think an EO that pertains to firearms is unconstitutional.. and therefore wont stand..

What happens when the USSC disagrees?


YOU believe Biden's EO(s) if they in fact breach the 2A will be struck down by the USSC..

That may well be true..

But to believe that it is "easier" or any different than any law passed through legislation that you believe violates the 2A is naïve..

What matters is whether or not the USSC believes it is unconstitutional.. not where the law originated from.. or how the law was passed..
 

cpr0312

AH ambassador
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Messages
10,171
Reaction score
13,546
Location
North Carolina
Media
346
Articles
1
Hunting reports
Africa
7
USA/Canada
1
Australia/NZ
1
Member of
NRA Life Member
Hunted
US (All over), New Zealand, South Africa(Northern Cape, Northwest), Zimbabwe, Zambia
FB_IMG_1618015676090.jpg
 

Arkansas_Traveler

AH senior member
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Messages
94
Reaction score
167
Location
Arkansas
Hunted
Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Wyoming
@mdwest , I think you misunderstood my post. I was not arguing the constiutionality of the ACA itself - although we could debate that (I'm not going to, so that's a non-starter). I'm stating it was enacted in a constitutional manner. That particular point is not up for debate.

But enacting a gun control measure via Executive Order cannot rise to the level of "law". Executive orders aren't laws. They were never meant to be. So challenging the constitutionality or legal extent of an executive order isn't the same as challenging a law.

I'm not sure what part of that is unclear.

Having said that, whether or not Biden's EO on "gun violence" actually establishes policy that intends to rise to the level of law, and / or whether or not it exceeds his authority as President or pushes for actions that sidestep the constitutional means of establishing policy will have to be seen.

Again, I suspect multiple lawsuits will be filed immediately upon executive overreach, and I suspect they will ultimately prevail - assuming constitutional violations have actually occurred.
 

Arkansas_Traveler

AH senior member
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Messages
94
Reaction score
167
Location
Arkansas
Hunted
Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Wyoming
@mdwest sorry, one other quick thought - your belief that the SCOTUS isn't trustworthy seems to be based on the idea that ACA was actually unconstitutional and that the SCOTUS upheld it anyway, and that therefore SCOTUS now cannot be trusted to make a proper decision on Biden's EOs regarding gun control, assuming that the actions they call for rise to the level of infringement (thus resulting in the anticipated lawsuits). Am I understanding that correctly?

If I have understood that premise correctly, I must disagree with the conclusion. Yes, there were constitutional / law scholars that stated ACA was unconstitutional. There were others who argued it was and is perfectly constitutional, and I'm sure many in between those polar positions who would argue any number of nuances regarding which particular parts of the ACA are and are not constitutional.

We cannot cherry pick the data (in this case the constitutional scholars) that we want in order to make our case. Obviously the SCOTUS sided with those who see the ACA as constitutional.
Is it? Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, I'm not here to debate that particular point (it really wouldn't accomplish much anyway now, would it?).

But I do want to point out that your conclusion that the (heavily "conservative" leaning) SCOTUS is somehow untrustworthy to make the right decision is based on a false premise.
The SCOTUS decision on ACA may be unpalatable to you and I, but that does not of necessity mean they made the wrong decision or that they are to be logically deemed untrustworthy as a result of that decision, contrary to what I think I'm understanding you to say.

And if I've completely misunderstood your position or your basis for your argument, I hope you'll forgive my misunderstanding. I certainly don't want or mean to misrepresent what you're saying. (y)
 

wesheltonj

AH legend
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
2,498
Reaction score
2,643
Location
South Texas
Media
19
Articles
7
Hunting reports
Africa
2
Member of
Benefactor-Life NRA, Life SCI, Life DSC, HSC
Hunted
USA, RSA
Yes, but there's a big difference between asking the Supreme Court to overturn a bill that was legitimately passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by a sitting President (no matter how unpopular said bill / law may be) VS. asking the courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) to overturn an executive order that was signed to intentionally bypass the constitutionally established process of creating law.

Apples and Oranges.

But again, I could always be wrong.

Zero difference -- appellate issue on both.

With regard to Biden's executive orders.

(1) A history lesson. The SC was overturning FDR New Deal at every turn. Then FDR announces that he planning to expand the court. SC rules as constitutional FDR New Deal plans thereafter, the need for packing as disappeared.

(2) Do you really believe, that 9 highly educated lawyers cannot get the inference of the commission on SC reform?

(3) Please carefully read the Heller case. Biden would have no problem reclassifying AR-15, hand braces, etc. as schedule III items under the 1968 firearms law. All that would be need is to publish the propose regulations in the Federal Register and it become Administrative Law, subject to review. How do you think the result of the review with be? See above #1 above for the answer.
 

Arkansas_Traveler

AH senior member
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Messages
94
Reaction score
167
Location
Arkansas
Hunted
Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Wyoming
Zero difference -- appellate issue on both.

With regard to Biden's executive orders.

(1) A history lesson. The SC was overturning FDR New Deal at every turn. Then FDR announces that he planning to expand the court. SC rules as constitutional FDR New Deal plans thereafter, the need for packing as disappeared.

(2) Do you really believe, that 9 highly educated lawyers cannot get the inference of the commission on SC reform?

(3) Please carefully read the Heller case. Biden would have no problem reclassifying AR-15, hand braces, etc. as schedule III items under the 1968 firearms law. All that would be need is to publish the propose regulations in the Federal Register and it become Administrative Law, subject to review. How do you think the result of the review with be? See above #1 above for the answer.
The difference lies in the scope of the appeal.

An executive order does not have to be shown to be unconstitutional in substance, although that is a legitimate appeal. Executive orders can be appealed on the basis of separation of power - does / did the president have authority within the scope of his power to issue said executive order? Does this executive order claim for the President power reserved solely for Congress? Etc., etc., etc.

The specific challenge to the ACA - the case that is repeatedly being referenced for this discussion - was based on the constitutionality of the law as it stood following its passage into law through the appropriate processes.

In other words, I'm saying they're different because the executive orders do not have to be challenged solely on the basis of the constitutionality of the orders themselves (or even the manner in which it is interpreted and applied - although that is a possibility as well). There are multiple avenues to challenge this or any Executive Order, and the bar is somewhat lower - by my understanding - for said challenge than it is for something like the ACA.

Does this mean Biden will give up if the order is challenged and overturned? No, I'm not saying that. I'm also not saying I support this executive order or the effort behind it in any way.
I'm just saying that challenging an executive order is not exactly the same as challenging the constitutionality of a law such as the ACA.

They may both be addressed via the same process (appellate), but they're different.
I eat an apple and an orange with my mouth - same process, but different fruit. And one has to be peeled, while the other doesn't.
 

Arkansas_Traveler

AH senior member
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Messages
94
Reaction score
167
Location
Arkansas
Hunted
Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Wyoming
Zero difference -- appellate issue on both.

With regard to Biden's executive orders.

(1) A history lesson. The SC was overturning FDR New Deal at every turn. Then FDR announces that he planning to expand the court. SC rules as constitutional FDR New Deal plans thereafter, the need for packing as disappeared.

(2) Do you really believe, that 9 highly educated lawyers cannot get the inference of the commission on SC reform?

(3) Please carefully read the Heller case. Biden would have no problem reclassifying AR-15, hand braces, etc. as schedule III items under the 1968 firearms law. All that would be need is to publish the propose regulations in the Federal Register and it become Administrative Law, subject to review. How do you think the result of the review with be? See above #1 above for the answer.
But again, I should state that I may very well be wrong. If so, then I will respectfully accept that reality.
 

Arkansas_Traveler

AH senior member
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Messages
94
Reaction score
167
Location
Arkansas
Hunted
Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Wyoming
@wesheltonj And - I just realized I'm arguing this with a Lawyer retired from government service.
I'll shut up and bow out of the conversation with the acknowledgment that I am probably incorrect and likely over my head in attempting to argue this particular situation with you. (y)

Thanks for your input.
 

wesheltonj

AH legend
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
2,498
Reaction score
2,643
Location
South Texas
Media
19
Articles
7
Hunting reports
Africa
2
Member of
Benefactor-Life NRA, Life SCI, Life DSC, HSC
Hunted
USA, RSA
@wesheltonj And - I just realized I'm arguing this with a Lawyer retired from government service.
I'll shut up and bow out of the conversation with the acknowledgment that I am probably incorrect and likely over my head in attempting to argue this particular situation with you. (y)

Thanks for your input.

I think what you are trying to say, is the level of scrutiny that applies to cases.
 

jpr9954

AH veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
145
Reaction score
296
Location
North Carolina
Website
www.onlygunsandmoney.com
Member of
NRA, SAF
Zero difference -- appellate issue on both.

With regard to Biden's executive orders.

(1) A history lesson. The SC was overturning FDR New Deal at every turn. Then FDR announces that he planning to expand the court. SC rules as constitutional FDR New Deal plans thereafter, the need for packing as disappeared.

(2) Do you really believe, that 9 highly educated lawyers cannot get the inference of the commission on SC reform?

(3) Please carefully read the Heller case. Biden would have no problem reclassifying AR-15, hand braces, etc. as schedule III items under the 1968 firearms law. All that would be need is to publish the propose regulations in the Federal Register and it become Administrative Law, subject to review. How do you think the result of the review with be? See above #1 above for the answer.
As to lesson number one, FDR made his court packing threat in 1937 with the Judicial Procedures Reform Act. The Democrats held a 72D-22R majority in the Senate and a 308D-100R majority in the House. In essence, he could do what he wanted because he had the votes to do it.

Fast forward to today. Even without a filibuster do you think Joe Biden has the Democrat votes to pack the court when even the SCOTUS liberals oppose it?

As to the justices being swayed, it is only CJ John Roberts who sways with the wind.

Moving ARs and pistol braces to the NFA is not entitled to Chevron deference as having the possession of an unregistered NFA item is a criminal offense. See GOA v. Garland in the 6th Circuit on bump stocks.

I'm not a lawyer but I was a political scientist at one time and do know my political history.
 

Attachments

  • 21a0070p-06.pdf
    489.9 KB · Views: 3

Arkansas_Traveler

AH senior member
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Messages
94
Reaction score
167
Location
Arkansas
Hunted
Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Wyoming

CJW

AH enthusiast
Joined
Nov 18, 2018
Messages
475
Reaction score
661
Maryland is about to get even more dangerous. Look for cops to quit and recruiting to go down the tubes.


Here's a bit of the article.

Maryland enacts landmark police overhaul, first state to repeal police bill of rights​

Ovetta Wiggins, Erin Cox 4 mins ago
http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BB1fuxlk?ocid=sf
https://twitter.com/share?url=http:...er=http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BB1fuxlk?ocid=st
https://web.whatsapp.com/send?text=http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BB1fuxlk?ocid=sw


https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/ne...st-violence-in-them/ar-BB1fw4N5?ocid=msedgntp
Maryland enacted historic police accountability measures Saturday, becoming the first state to repeal its powerful Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights and setting new rules for when police may use force and how they are investigated and disciplined.

The Democratic-dominated legislature dealt Republican Gov. Larry Hogan a sharp rebuke, overriding his vetoes of measures that raise the bar for officers to use force; give civilians a role in police discipline for the first time; restrict no-knock warrants; mandate body cameras; and open some allegations of police wrongdoing for public review.
Each bill had been hailed by criminal justice advocates as having the potential to make policing in the state fairer and more transparent. Democrats, who hold large majorities in the legislature, made enacting them a top priority after months of protests over the police-involved deaths of unarmed Black men and women.
“Maryland is leading the nation in transforming our broken policing system,” said House Speaker Adrienne Jones (D-Baltimore County), who sponsored the repeal of the officers’ bill of rights and is the first Black person to hold her leadership role. “I am proud to lead the House in overriding the governor’s veto and showing the nation exactly where we stand as a state.”
The changes are not as sweeping as criminal justice advocates had hoped: civilians will have input on disciplinary decisions, for example, but will not control the process.
 

Attachments

  • 1618097327596.png
    1618097327596.png
    68 bytes · Views: 31

CJW

AH enthusiast
Joined
Nov 18, 2018
Messages
475
Reaction score
661
My God these people are out of their minds. They'll say anything in the name of making people hate each other.


CNN

Opinion: What's really behind the GOP's attacks on transgender athlete​

Opinion by Joe Kennedy 1 hr ago
http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BB1fwcH3?ocid=sf
https://twitter.com/share?url=http:...er=http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BB1fwcH3?ocid=st
https://web.whatsapp.com/send?text=http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/BB1fwcH3?ocid=sw

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle...me-out-as-pansexual/ss-BB1ftY81?ocid=msedgdhp
1618102239461.png


You've surely read about girls' sports recently. State legislators across the country have introduced dozens of bills that would bar transgender girls from competing in girls' sports, based on the misguided concern that their participation would somehow hurt their cisgender teammates and competitors.
FILE - In this March 15, 2021, file photo demonstrators gather on the step of the Montana State Capitol protesting anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in Helena, Mont. The Montana Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday, March 18 to advance two bills targeting transgender youth despite overwhelming testimony opposing the measures. The measures would ban gender affirming surgeries for transgender minors and ban transgender athletes from participating in school and college sports. Both bills have already passed the Montana House. They head next to votes by the GOP-controlled Montana Senate. (Thom Bridge/Independent Record via AP, File)
© Thom Bridge/AP FILE - In this March 15, 2021, file photo demonstrators gather on the step of the Montana State Capitol protesting anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in Helena, Mont. The Montana Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday, March 18 to advance two bills targeting transgender youth despite overwhelming testimony opposing the measures. The measures would ban gender affirming surgeries for transgender minors and ban transgender athletes from participating in school and college sports. Both bills have already passed the Montana House. They head next to votes by the GOP-controlled Montana Senate. (Thom Bridge/Independent Record via AP, File)
It is a claim so absurd that you almost laugh at first. The examples of this happening are essentially zero. School districts, colleges and the NCAA have protocols in place to ensure fair treatment for kids of all genders and gender identities. One of the plaintiffs who recently filed a lawsuit in Connecticut alleging that transgender girls have an advantage over cisgender girls went on to defeat one of the trans athletes targeted in the lawsuit just days after it was filed.

But as you shake your head at the GOP's craven ploy, I'd urge you to also stop and remember your own teenage years; how critical sports or other extra-curriculars were to your sense of belonging and self, the development of your confidence, your friendships and support structures -- all things our country still systemically denies transgender Americans to a sickening degree. In that light, you realize that this effort is not ludicrous but deeply intentional, from a Republican Party that sees political gain in the further exploitation of marginalized people.
This week that effort found a new and ugly front, as Arkansas became the first state in the nation to ban transgender kids from receiving gender-affirming health care. Twenty other states have similar efforts under way. In North Carolina, a particularly pernicious bill that was just introduced would ban gender-affirming treatment for anyone up to the age of 21 -- and require public employees, including public school teachers or counselors, to notify a parent "in writing" if the child displays any signs of gender nonconformity.
All of which indicates that, rather than seeing the end of Donald Trump's presidency as a chance to move on from a hateful anti-equality agenda, the GOP is doubling down, continuing the dramatic descent of a party struggling for definition. Adrift from their traditional foundations -- open markets, limited spending, small government -- they have found a powerful new organizing principle: victimhood.
They routinely warp the power dynamics of some of society's most crushing injustices, attempting to convince voters that victims of discrimination, oppression and hate are in fact perpetrators of some larger wrong against everyone else.
The terrified 5-year-old ripped from his mother's arms at our southern border. The young Black men and women who fear for their lives walking down the street. The trans kids forced to be brave every day in ways most of us cannot begin to fathom. No, the GOP seems to insist, these are not the obvious casualties of American injustice -- they are instead powerful perpetrators who pose a threat against the rest of us, our values, our "way of life."
Inverting the victim is an anti-civil rights tactic as old as the day is long. Our hearts should go not to the family denied service at the lunch counter but the restaurant forced to serve them. Not to the Black children that bravely marched into desegregated schools with rocks thrown at their backs but to the White children who had to receive them. Not to the LGBT couple denied a wedding cake or the female employee denied birth control but to the institutions asked to provide them.
And the gutting thing is that Republicans have been doing this so incessantly, so strategically and so consistently for decades. Too many people with privilege that marginalized communities will never know believe that they are the ones under attack. So they fight with the desperation of someone whose back is against wall, paying little attention to who is really in peril -- even when it is a child.
After many years of working on transgender rights in Congress, it is the stories of trans kids and their families that I carry closest to this day.
The transgender daughter of a member of our military denied basic medical treatment while her family was stationed on a base overseas. The young trans college student who used to go without drinking or eating before driving home on school breaks so they wouldn't have to stop and use a restroom along the way. The mother of a trans child who had to keep a file of affidavits at the ready to respond to inevitable claims that she was "abusing" her child by letting him be his authentic self.
I think of them when I hear media and pundits call this latest effort the GOP's new "culture war." They should stop using that phrase, which works to silo and diminish the severity of what is happening. Equal justice and human rights are not a matter of culture but of law. This is a civil rights war. And America has lost a lot of those, spending generations repairing what we broke. Let's not make that mistake again.
 

Ike85123

AH fanatic
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Messages
760
Reaction score
1,465
Location
Arizona, USA
Media
1
Hunting reports
Africa
1
Member of
None
America keeps making the same mistakes over and over unfortunately. Especially with regards to human rights. Im not a lawyer, but I studied law 2 yrs to get a paralegal cert. And I find the government is always 10yrs behind trying to get 10yrs ahead, if you know what I mean.
The government always picks a group of people to go after. No rights for women, no rights for blacks, no rights for gays, no rights for sex offenders. Now its no rights for gun owners. The old saying, history repeats itself totally fits. They will make a law and then use their own interpretation to enforce it. They know it takes years sometimes to get through the courts. I try not to waste my time even thinking about it. They always do what they are gonna do anyway. Then when enough people get together it gets changed. I.e. ww2, million man march and so on. They dont have our best interests in mind, only the agenda to make them money in a back room deal. Be it take away a groups rights to acheive cheaper labor. Or taking away rights to acheive a personal goal set on false science.
The rich are the only ones that get the loopholes. Look at machine gun manufacturing and how much it costs to own one. The rich can have anything they want, it will just cost more. Same with new gun laws. They will still have everything they want. But you wont !
Its just the way the world is now, but doesnt seem like it really ever changed throughout history unfortunately.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
37,738
Messages
722,067
Members
67,544
Latest member
RogerGog
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

pam308 wrote on TOBY458's profile.
Just saw your listing for a winchester 70 458. Is it still for sale? I want it!!! pam308
flatwater bill wrote on john stroud's profile.
Leopard Legend....................Hi John.............I see that you have not visited AH in awhile. Hope all is well. I am looking for a hunt in Namibia..............would like to ask a few questions about your hunt.............all the best..............................Bill
Cervus elaphus wrote on Bob Nelson 35Whelen's profile.
Hi Bob, how's things going in Wyong?. Down your way a couple of years back but haven't been in NSW since Ebor for the fishing. just getting over some nasty storms up here in Qld, seeing the sun for the first time in a few days. I'm going to NZ in the spring and hope to clean up a few buns while there and perhaps shake the spiders out of my old .303LE (currently owned by my BIL). Cheers Brian
A couple pictures of the sable i chased for miles in Mozambique, Coutada 9!! We finally caught up to him and I had the trophy of a lifetime. Mokore Safaris, Doug Duckworth PH
sable Coutada 9.JPG
sable 2 - Coutada 9.JPG
Safari Dave wrote on egrmpty507's profile.
Did you purchase your hunt at a US SCI fundraiser?
 
Top