The Mass Migration from the 3rd World Must End

[mg]

"The Mass Migration from the 3rd World Must End
(submitted 1 year ago by SwissT0E)

We cannot allow the Leftist Ruling Elites of the Western World to turn
our nations into the dumping grounds for the world's poor, due to
their idiotic Leftist agenda of OPEN BORDERS, for the purpose of
ballooning the Leftist voter rolls, and giving the Left a monopoly
over all political power.

The astronomical growth of the poor populations of the world
necessitates a strict immigration policy, similar to Japan's and South
Korea's, where they allow almost NO ONE to immigrate to and become
citizens of their nation, unless they are Japanese or Korean
descended.

Are the Japanese or South Koreans racists?.....or do they simply wish
to preserve the heritage, the essence, of their countries?

Africa will have four billion people in a few decades, as just one
example of rapid, unsustainable population growth of the poor of the
world.

How can any western nation preserve it's ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and economic prosperity if hundreds
of millions, or even a billion or more, of poor Muslims, Chinese,
Bangladeshis, Africans, Middle Easterners, South and Central
Americans, etc. are trying to crash the gates? . . .

Sweden is probably the worst example of a nation’s People being
bullied by their Leftist Ruling Elites into the deliberate destruction
of the Swedish People’s heritage…..their ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and their economic prosperity.

Sweden is a country with a small population which had been totally
homogeneous......where the population has been the same for the past
10,000 years, when people populated the Scandinavian peninsula after
the glaciers retreated at the end of the ice age.

The Leftist Elite Rulers of Sweden have been DELIBERATELY implementing
a Multi-Cultural policy of inviting in massive numbers of third world
migrants. They have been bringing in mainly Muslims from the Middle
East, Africans, and others, yet have NEVER asked for approval from the
Swedish People for this FORCED Multi–Cultural transformation of
Sweden. Amazingly, the ?Leftist Ruling Elites of Sweden have even
dictated an advisory message to the native Swedes, advising them that
they will become a minority in their own ancient land within 40 years.

Sweden has become, in places, a third world heII hole, where whole
sectors of cities are ‘No Go’ areas for Swedish police. Sweden has
been ‘transformed’ from a peaceable, homogenous, small nation where
crime was close to non-existent, into one of the rape capitals of the
world, where Swedish girls are hunted on the streets by gangs and
individuals of violent, Muslim (and other), foreign predator men of
military age. Swedish girls are beaten brutally into submission,
raped, and sometimes killed. Even children have been raped, and
general crime rates have skyrocketed due to the mass migration.

And, here’s the irony…...if a Swedish citizen speaks out publicly
against this Mass Migration and Multi-Cultural Agendas of the ?Leftist
Ruling Elites…...she or he can be charged with a Hate Crime, and be
sentenced to five years in prison. The Western Nations need TRUE FREE
SPEECH ….not the muzzle the ?Leftist Ruling Elites have been shutting
up the People with across the Western World ! " [. . .]
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4udf09/the_mass_migration_from_the_3rd_world_must_end/




--------------------------------------------
There is little value in insuring the
survival of our nation if our traditions
do not survive with it.
-- JFK

[Jack Fate]

Post by mg
We cannot allow the Leftist Ruling Elites of the Western World to turn
our nations into the dumping grounds for the world's poor, due to
their idiotic Leftist agenda of OPEN BORDERS, for the purpose of
ballooning the Leftist voter rolls, and giving the Left a monopoly
over all political power.

Need some more aluminum for a new hat? Oh wait ... it can't be imported.

[Tzatz Zikki]

Need

"...but I will no longer be posting here. No one here is going to change
so, basically, I'm wasting the little time I have left by posting to
this obscure little group full of stupid bigoted and racist Trump
lovers."

[Tell it like it is.]

Post by Jack Fate

Post by mg
We cannot allow the Leftist Ruling Elites of the Western World to turn
our nations into the dumping grounds for the world's poor, due to
their idiotic Leftist agenda of OPEN BORDERS, for the purpose of
ballooning the Leftist voter rolls, and giving the Left a monopoly
over all political power.

Need some more aluminum for a new hat? Oh wait ... it can't be imported.

http://adl.org
http://aipac.org
http://aljazeera.com

[Tell it like it is.]

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 11:16:32 AM UTC-6, Jack Fate wrote:
mg wrote:
We cannot allow the Leftist Ruling Elites of the Western World to turn
our nations into the dumping grounds for the world's poor, due to
their idiotic Leftist agenda of OPEN BORDERS, for the purpose of
ballooning the Leftist voter rolls, and giving the Left a monopoly
over all political power.
Need some more aluminum for a new hat? Oh wait ... it can't be imported.

http://financesonline.com/a-list-of-third-world-countries-10-poorest-nations-
with-rising-economies

http://adl.org
http://aipac.org
http://aljazeera.com

Commumnist Russia allied as Communists with China battled it out from 1964-1975 by proxy with the USA in our never-to-be-forgotten ideological shitting space in Southeast Asia. Or, perhaps you've gone camping, and wondered where indigent persons defecate on-the-streets-of-our-major-cities.
The displaced persons aka refugees from war aren't arriving from the poor countries listed at http://financesonline.com.
They are arriving from the theocratic Middle East as displaced persons.

[Tell it like it is.]

Post by mg
We cannot allow the Leftist Ruling Elites of the Western World to turn
our nations into the dumping grounds for the world's poor, due to
their idiotic Leftist agenda of OPEN BORDERS, for the purpose of
ballooning the Leftist voter rolls, and giving the Left a monopoly
over all political power.
Need some more aluminum for a new hat? Oh wait ... it can't be imported.

http://financesonline.com/a-list-of-third-world-countries-10-poorest-nations-with-rising-economies
VS.
http://adl.org
http://aipac.org
http://aljazeera.com

Commumnist Russia allied as Communists with China battled it out from 1964-1975 by proxy with the USA in our never-to-be-forgotten ideological shitting space in Southeast Asia. Or, perhaps you've gone camping, and wondered where indigent persons defecate on-the-streets-of-our-major-cities.

Post by mg
The displaced persons aka refugees from war aren't arriving from the poor countries listed at http://financesonline.com.
They are arriving from the theocratic Middle East as displaced persons.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg
"The Mass Migration from the 3rd World Must End
(submitted 1 year ago by SwissT0E)
We cannot allow the Leftist Ruling Elites of the Western World to turn
our nations into the dumping grounds for the world's poor, due to
their idiotic Leftist agenda of OPEN BORDERS, for the purpose of
ballooning the Leftist voter rolls, and giving the Left a monopoly
over all political power.
The astronomical growth of the poor populations of the world
necessitates a strict immigration policy, similar to Japan's and South
Korea's, where they allow almost NO ONE to immigrate to and become
citizens of their nation, unless they are Japanese or Korean
descended.
Are the Japanese or South Koreans racists?.....or do they simply wish
to preserve the heritage, the essence, of their countries?
Africa will have four billion people in a few decades, as just one
example of rapid, unsustainable population growth of the poor of the
world.
How can any western nation preserve it's ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and economic prosperity if hundreds
of millions, or even a billion or more, of poor Muslims, Chinese,
Bangladeshis, Africans, Middle Easterners, South and Central
Americans, etc. are trying to crash the gates? . . .
Sweden is probably the worst example of a nation’s People being
bullied by their Leftist Ruling Elites into the deliberate destruction
of the Swedish People’s heritage…..their ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and their economic prosperity.
Sweden is a country with a small population which had been totally
homogeneous......where the population has been the same for the past
10,000 years, when people populated the Scandinavian peninsula after
the glaciers retreated at the end of the ice age.
The Leftist Elite Rulers of Sweden have been DELIBERATELY implementing
a Multi-Cultural policy of inviting in massive numbers of third world
migrants. They have been bringing in mainly Muslims from the Middle
East, Africans, and others, yet have NEVER asked for approval from the
Swedish People for this FORCED Multi–Cultural transformation of
Sweden. Amazingly, the ?Leftist Ruling Elites of Sweden have even
dictated an advisory message to the native Swedes, advising them that
they will become a minority in their own ancient land within 40 years.
Sweden has become, in places, a third world heII hole, where whole
sectors of cities are ‘No Go’ areas for Swedish police. Sweden has
been ‘transformed’ from a peaceable, homogenous, small nation where
crime was close to non-existent, into one of the rape capitals of the
world, where Swedish girls are hunted on the streets by gangs and
individuals of violent, Muslim (and other), foreign predator men of
military age. Swedish girls are beaten brutally into submission,
raped, and sometimes killed. Even children have been raped, and
general crime rates have skyrocketed due to the mass migration.
And, here’s the irony…...if a Swedish citizen speaks out publicly
against this Mass Migration and Multi-Cultural Agendas of the ?Leftist
Ruling Elites…...she or he can be charged with a Hate Crime, and be
sentenced to five years in prison. The Western Nations need TRUE FREE
SPEECH ….not the muzzle the ?Leftist Ruling Elites have been shutting
up the People with across the Western World ! " [. . .]
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4udf09/the_mass_migration_from_the_3rd_world_must_end/

We're not in complete agreement here, though I regard myself as
"leftists" and am also an "immigrant" (legal). I'm not however in
favour of free-for-all immigration, and am very much opposed to
San Francisco being a "refugee city" and California being a
"refugee state". Immigration, I feel, should be entirely under
control of the national government, and not of states or cities.

You might like this Seinfeld spiel:

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
"The Mass Migration from the 3rd World Must End
(submitted 1 year ago by SwissT0E)
We cannot allow the Leftist Ruling Elites of the Western World to turn
our nations into the dumping grounds for the world's poor, due to
their idiotic Leftist agenda of OPEN BORDERS, for the purpose of
ballooning the Leftist voter rolls, and giving the Left a monopoly
over all political power.
The astronomical growth of the poor populations of the world
necessitates a strict immigration policy, similar to Japan's and South
Korea's, where they allow almost NO ONE to immigrate to and become
citizens of their nation, unless they are Japanese or Korean
descended.
Are the Japanese or South Koreans racists?.....or do they simply wish
to preserve the heritage, the essence, of their countries?
Africa will have four billion people in a few decades, as just one
example of rapid, unsustainable population growth of the poor of the
world.
How can any western nation preserve it's ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and economic prosperity if hundreds
of millions, or even a billion or more, of poor Muslims, Chinese,
Bangladeshis, Africans, Middle Easterners, South and Central
Americans, etc. are trying to crash the gates? . . .
Sweden is probably the worst example of a nation’s People being
bullied by their Leftist Ruling Elites into the deliberate destruction
of the Swedish People’s heritage…..their ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and their economic prosperity.
Sweden is a country with a small population which had been totally
homogeneous......where the population has been the same for the past
10,000 years, when people populated the Scandinavian peninsula after
the glaciers retreated at the end of the ice age.
The Leftist Elite Rulers of Sweden have been DELIBERATELY implementing
a Multi-Cultural policy of inviting in massive numbers of third world
migrants. They have been bringing in mainly Muslims from the Middle
East, Africans, and others, yet have NEVER asked for approval from the
Swedish People for this FORCED Multi–Cultural transformation of
Sweden. Amazingly, the ?Leftist Ruling Elites of Sweden have even
dictated an advisory message to the native Swedes, advising them that
they will become a minority in their own ancient land within 40 years.
Sweden has become, in places, a third world heII hole, where whole
sectors of cities are ‘No Go’ areas for Swedish police. Sweden has
been ‘transformed’ from a peaceable, homogenous, small nation where
crime was close to non-existent, into one of the rape capitals of the
world, where Swedish girls are hunted on the streets by gangs and
individuals of violent, Muslim (and other), foreign predator men of
military age. Swedish girls are beaten brutally into submission,
raped, and sometimes killed. Even children have been raped, and
general crime rates have skyrocketed due to the mass migration.
And, here’s the irony…...if a Swedish citizen speaks out publicly
against this Mass Migration and Multi-Cultural Agendas of the ?Leftist
Ruling Elites…...she or he can be charged with a Hate Crime, and be
sentenced to five years in prison. The Western Nations need TRUE FREE
SPEECH ….not the muzzle the ?Leftist Ruling Elites have been shutting
up the People with across the Western World ! " [. . .]
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4udf09/the_mass_migration_from_the_3rd_world_must_end/

We're not in complete agreement here, though I regard myself as
"leftists" and am also an "immigrant" (legal). I'm not however in
favour of free-for-all immigration, and am very much opposed to
San Francisco being a "refugee city" and California being a
"refugee state". Immigration, I feel, should be entirely under
control of the national government, and not of states or cities.
http://youtu.be/8I_u5fvB15Q

I think we're probably in complete agreement. I'm totally in favor of
the immigration law as it was until 1965, when Lyndon Johnson changed
it to allow mass immigration from third-world countries. In addition,
I don't believe that mass immigration is a leftist phenomenon. It's
actually a policy being implemented by The Establishment and I don't
think that we've actually had a true liberal in the white house since
Jimmy Carter. Modern day Democrats are what I would call Reagan
Democrats, for lack of a better word.




------------------------------------
The Republicans are crazy and the
Democrats have been bought off.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
"The Mass Migration from the 3rd World Must End
(submitted 1 year ago by SwissT0E)
We cannot allow the Leftist Ruling Elites of the Western World to turn
our nations into the dumping grounds for the world's poor, due to
their idiotic Leftist agenda of OPEN BORDERS, for the purpose of
ballooning the Leftist voter rolls, and giving the Left a monopoly
over all political power.
The astronomical growth of the poor populations of the world
necessitates a strict immigration policy, similar to Japan's and South
Korea's, where they allow almost NO ONE to immigrate to and become
citizens of their nation, unless they are Japanese or Korean
descended.
Are the Japanese or South Koreans racists?.....or do they simply wish
to preserve the heritage, the essence, of their countries?
Africa will have four billion people in a few decades, as just one
example of rapid, unsustainable population growth of the poor of the
world.
How can any western nation preserve it's ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and economic prosperity if hundreds
of millions, or even a billion or more, of poor Muslims, Chinese,
Bangladeshis, Africans, Middle Easterners, South and Central
Americans, etc. are trying to crash the gates? . . .
Sweden is probably the worst example of a nation’s People being
bullied by their Leftist Ruling Elites into the deliberate destruction
of the Swedish People’s heritage…..their ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and their economic prosperity.
Sweden is a country with a small population which had been totally
homogeneous......where the population has been the same for the past
10,000 years, when people populated the Scandinavian peninsula after
the glaciers retreated at the end of the ice age.
The Leftist Elite Rulers of Sweden have been DELIBERATELY implementing
a Multi-Cultural policy of inviting in massive numbers of third world
migrants. They have been bringing in mainly Muslims from the Middle
East, Africans, and others, yet have NEVER asked for approval from the
Swedish People for this FORCED Multi–Cultural transformation of
Sweden. Amazingly, the ?Leftist Ruling Elites of Sweden have even
dictated an advisory message to the native Swedes, advising them that
they will become a minority in their own ancient land within 40 years.
Sweden has become, in places, a third world heII hole, where whole
sectors of cities are ‘No Go’ areas for Swedish police. Sweden has
been ‘transformed’ from a peaceable, homogenous, small nation where
crime was close to non-existent, into one of the rape capitals of the
world, where Swedish girls are hunted on the streets by gangs and
individuals of violent, Muslim (and other), foreign predator men of
military age. Swedish girls are beaten brutally into submission,
raped, and sometimes killed. Even children have been raped, and
general crime rates have skyrocketed due to the mass migration.
And, here’s the irony…...if a Swedish citizen speaks out publicly
against this Mass Migration and Multi-Cultural Agendas of the ?Leftist
Ruling Elites…...she or he can be charged with a Hate Crime, and be
sentenced to five years in prison. The Western Nations need TRUE FREE
SPEECH ….not the muzzle the ?Leftist Ruling Elites have been shutting
up the People with across the Western World ! " [. . .]
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4udf09/the_mass_migration_from_the_3rd_world_must_end/

We're not in complete agreement here, though I regard myself as
"leftists" and am also an "immigrant" (legal). I'm not however in
favour of free-for-all immigration, and am very much opposed to
San Francisco being a "refugee city" and California being a
"refugee state". Immigration, I feel, should be entirely under
control of the national government, and not of states or cities.
http://youtu.be/8I_u5fvB15Q

I think we're probably in complete agreement. I'm totally in favor of
the immigration law as it was until 1965, when Lyndon Johnson changed
it to allow mass immigration from third-world countries. In addition,
I don't believe that mass immigration is a leftist phenomenon. It's
actually a policy being implemented by The Establishment and I don't
think that we've actually had a true liberal in the white house since
Jimmy Carter. Modern day Democrats are what I would call Reagan
Democrats, for lack of a better word.

Meanwhile you, as a non-billionaire, are getting your lunch
stolen by Trump and the Republicans. And it's so easy!

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by mg
I think we're probably in complete agreement. I'm totally in favor of
the immigration law as it was until 1965, when Lyndon Johnson changed
it to allow mass immigration from third-world countries.

The 1965 law got rid of the national-origins quota system that favored
immigrants from Western and Northern Europe over the rest of the world,
replacing it with a system that gave everyone an equal shot.

[me]

See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/

This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’. But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers ‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.
http://www.endit.info/Costs.shtml

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

[mg]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

Yes.

[El Castor]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:27:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

Yes.

Am I correct that the feds could (if they chose) bar importation,
sale, manufacture, and even possession, using federal law enforcement
personnel, courts, and prisons?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:27:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

Yes.

Am I correct that the feds could (if they chose) bar importation,
sale, manufacture, and even possession, using federal law enforcement
personnel, courts, and prisons?

Per SCOTUS interpretation of the Second Amendment, neither the federal
government nor the states can ban all guns.

[El Castor]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 13:56:47 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:27:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

Yes.

Am I correct that the feds could (if they chose) bar importation,
sale, manufacture, and even possession, using federal law enforcement
personnel, courts, and prisons?

Per SCOTUS interpretation of the Second Amendment, neither the federal
government nor the states can ban all guns.

Not what I meant. Suppose the feds banned fully automatic weapons
(which I believe they have), couldn't they ban the import,
manufacture, or sale of fully automatic weapons in any state?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 13:56:47 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:27:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

Yes.

Am I correct that the feds could (if they chose) bar importation,
sale, manufacture, and even possession, using federal law enforcement
personnel, courts, and prisons?

Per SCOTUS interpretation of the Second Amendment, neither the federal
government nor the states can ban all guns.

Not what I meant. Suppose the feds banned fully automatic weapons
(which I believe they have), couldn't they ban the import,
manufacture, or sale of fully automatic weapons in any state?

Yes. But, they couldn't require the states to enforce these bans.

[El Castor]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:52:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 13:56:47 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:27:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

Yes.

Am I correct that the feds could (if they chose) bar importation,
sale, manufacture, and even possession, using federal law enforcement
personnel, courts, and prisons?

Per SCOTUS interpretation of the Second Amendment, neither the federal
government nor the states can ban all guns.

Not what I meant. Suppose the feds banned fully automatic weapons
(which I believe they have), couldn't they ban the import,
manufacture, or sale of fully automatic weapons in any state?

Yes. But, they couldn't require the states to enforce these bans.

OK, but the feds have law enforcement officers and federal prisons --
so they could enforce the law themselves -- right?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by El Castor
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:52:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 13:56:47 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:27:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

Yes.

Am I correct that the feds could (if they chose) bar importation,
sale, manufacture, and even possession, using federal law enforcement
personnel, courts, and prisons?

Per SCOTUS interpretation of the Second Amendment, neither the federal
government nor the states can ban all guns.

Not what I meant. Suppose the feds banned fully automatic weapons
(which I believe they have), couldn't they ban the import,
manufacture, or sale of fully automatic weapons in any state?

Yes. But, they couldn't require the states to enforce these bans.

OK, but the feds have law enforcement officers and federal prisons --
so they could enforce the law themselves -- right?

Yes.

[mg]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 12:56:58 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:27:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

Yes.

Am I correct that the feds could (if they chose) bar importation,
sale, manufacture, and even possession, using federal law enforcement
personnel, courts, and prisons?

My assumption is that the federal government could legally ban all
semi-automatic guns and all magazines with over ten rounds in
capacity. In fact, I think there are some states that have already
done that. There are at least a few problems, though:

1. Gangs in Chicago, and presumably in other cities, rarely use
semi-automatics. "The guns being used in Chicago for crime and murder
are by and large very ordinary pistols.” So, I doubt if banning
assault weapons will do much to lower the murder rate. In fact, I
think some people prefer non-semi-automatics because they think they
are more reliable.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/

2. Tough penalties for illegal gun possession are often seen as being
prejudicial against blacks and because the Democratic party now relies
heavily on blacks (and Mexicans) to win election, it's not likely that
there will be tough penalties for violating any new gun laws.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-08/news/ct-met-illinois-legislature-emanuel-guns-1108-20131108_1_gun-bill-gun-legislation-lawmakers

3. In my opinion, lack of progress on a federal ban against assault
weapons has been used by the politicians (or at least the Democrats)
for years as an excuse to do nothing to protect our children, with no
attempt to provide any sort of a "plan B". Trump, on the other hand,
has a plan that includes provisions to "harden schools".
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/03/11/Trump-gun-plan-to-include-provisions-hardening-schools/9161520804693/

[wolfbat359]

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 12:56:58 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:27:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

Yes.

Am I correct that the feds could (if they chose) bar importation,
sale, manufacture, and even possession, using federal law enforcement
personnel, courts, and prisons?

My assumption is that the federal government could legally ban all
semi-automatic guns and all magazines with over ten rounds in
capacity. In fact, I think there are some states that have already
1. Gangs in Chicago, and presumably in other cities, rarely use
semi-automatics. "The guns being used in Chicago for crime and murder
are by and large very ordinary pistols.” So, I doubt if banning
assault weapons will do much to lower the murder rate. In fact, I
think some people prefer non-semi-automatics because they think they
are more reliable.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/
2. Tough penalties for illegal gun possession are often seen as being
prejudicial against blacks and because the Democratic party now relies
heavily on blacks (and Mexicans) to win election, it's not likely that
there will be tough penalties for violating any new gun laws.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-08/news/ct-met-illinois-legislature-emanuel-guns-1108-20131108_1_gun-bill-gun-legislation-lawmakers
3. In my opinion, lack of progress on a federal ban against assault
weapons has been used by the politicians (or at least the Democrats)
for years as an excuse to do nothing to protect our children, with no
attempt to provide any sort of a "plan B". Trump, on the other hand,
has a plan that includes provisions to "harden schools".
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/03/11/Trump-gun-plan-to-include-provisions-hardening-schools/9161520804693/

Loading Image...

[mg]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:55:28 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 12:56:58 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:27:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

Yes.

Am I correct that the feds could (if they chose) bar importation,
sale, manufacture, and even possession, using federal law enforcement
personnel, courts, and prisons?

My assumption is that the federal government could legally ban all
semi-automatic guns and all magazines with over ten rounds in
capacity. In fact, I think there are some states that have already
1. Gangs in Chicago, and presumably in other cities, rarely use
semi-automatics. "The guns being used in Chicago for crime and murder
are by and large very ordinary pistols.” So, I doubt if banning
assault weapons will do much to lower the murder rate. In fact, I
think some people prefer non-semi-automatics because they think they
are more reliable.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/
2. Tough penalties for illegal gun possession are often seen as being
prejudicial against blacks and because the Democratic party now relies
heavily on blacks (and Mexicans) to win election, it's not likely that
there will be tough penalties for violating any new gun laws.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-08/news/ct-met-illinois-legislature-emanuel-guns-1108-20131108_1_gun-bill-gun-legislation-lawmakers
3. In my opinion, lack of progress on a federal ban against assault
weapons has been used by the politicians (or at least the Democrats)
for years as an excuse to do nothing to protect our children, with no
attempt to provide any sort of a "plan B". Trump, on the other hand,
has a plan that includes provisions to "harden schools".
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/03/11/Trump-gun-plan-to-include-provisions-hardening-schools/9161520804693/

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29067404_884101525103717_2072191535566290944_n.jpg?oh=eee59b365ea2770fe8d2f8aa00b1ea7f&oe=5B4464AC

As I've said many times on this newsgroup, most everything that's
wrong with America today can be traced to an indiscriminate
immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 12:56:58 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:27:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

Yes.

Am I correct that the feds could (if they chose) bar importation,
sale, manufacture, and even possession, using federal law enforcement
personnel, courts, and prisons?

My assumption is that the federal government could legally ban all
semi-automatic guns and all magazines with over ten rounds in
capacity. In fact, I think there are some states that have already
1. Gangs in Chicago, and presumably in other cities, rarely use
semi-automatics. "The guns being used in Chicago for crime and murder
are by and large very ordinary pistols.” So, I doubt if banning
assault weapons will do much to lower the murder rate. In fact, I
think some people prefer non-semi-automatics because they think they
are more reliable.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/
2. Tough penalties for illegal gun possession are often seen as being
prejudicial against blacks and because the Democratic party now relies
heavily on blacks (and Mexicans) to win election, it's not likely that
there will be tough penalties for violating any new gun laws.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-08/news/ct-met-illinois-legislature-emanuel-guns-1108-20131108_1_gun-bill-gun-legislation-lawmakers
3. In my opinion, lack of progress on a federal ban against assault
weapons has been used by the politicians (or at least the Democrats)
for years as an excuse to do nothing to protect our children, with no
attempt to provide any sort of a "plan B". Trump, on the other hand,
has a plan that includes provisions to "harden schools".
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/03/11/Trump-gun-plan-to-include-provisions-hardening-schools/9161520804693/

Banning semi-automatics and large clips would be better than doing
nothing at all. Gangs are always going to have weapons (for which they
might be prosecuted), but bans and better background checks would make
it more difficult for the nut jobs to get their hands on one. BTW --
serialized ammunition might make life a little tougher for the gangs.

[mg]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 02:29:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 12:56:58 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:27:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

Yes.

Am I correct that the feds could (if they chose) bar importation,
sale, manufacture, and even possession, using federal law enforcement
personnel, courts, and prisons?

My assumption is that the federal government could legally ban all
semi-automatic guns and all magazines with over ten rounds in
capacity. In fact, I think there are some states that have already
1. Gangs in Chicago, and presumably in other cities, rarely use
semi-automatics. "The guns being used in Chicago for crime and murder
are by and large very ordinary pistols.” So, I doubt if banning
assault weapons will do much to lower the murder rate. In fact, I
think some people prefer non-semi-automatics because they think they
are more reliable.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/
2. Tough penalties for illegal gun possession are often seen as being
prejudicial against blacks and because the Democratic party now relies
heavily on blacks (and Mexicans) to win election, it's not likely that
there will be tough penalties for violating any new gun laws.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-08/news/ct-met-illinois-legislature-emanuel-guns-1108-20131108_1_gun-bill-gun-legislation-lawmakers
3. In my opinion, lack of progress on a federal ban against assault
weapons has been used by the politicians (or at least the Democrats)
for years as an excuse to do nothing to protect our children, with no
attempt to provide any sort of a "plan B". Trump, on the other hand,
has a plan that includes provisions to "harden schools".
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/03/11/Trump-gun-plan-to-include-provisions-hardening-schools/9161520804693/

Banning semi-automatics and large clips would be better than doing
nothing at all.

Hardening schools would be better than doing nothing at all, which is
what Obama did for 8 years. Banning semi-automatics and large clips
would be better than doing nothing at all. However, I don't think that
there's a snowball's chance in hell that semi-automatic guns will be
banned on the federal level. So, it makes no sense to hold our
children hostage, and then watch them die, in an effort to convince
people to support it.

"Authoritarianism and secrecy breed incompetence;
the two feed on each other. It's a vicious cycle.
Governments with authoritarian tendencies point
to what is in fact their own incompetence as the
rationale for giving them yet more power."
-- Josh Marshall

Post by El Castor
Gangs are always going to have weapons (for which they
might be prosecuted), but bans and better background checks would make
it more difficult for the nut jobs to get their hands on one. BTW --
serialized ammunition might make life a little tougher for the gangs.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 02:29:01 -0700, El Castor

<snip>

Post by mg

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
My assumption is that the federal government could legally ban all
semi-automatic guns and all magazines with over ten rounds in
capacity. In fact, I think there are some states that have already
1. Gangs in Chicago, and presumably in other cities, rarely use
semi-automatics. "The guns being used in Chicago for crime and murder
are by and large very ordinary pistols.” So, I doubt if banning
assault weapons will do much to lower the murder rate. In fact, I
think some people prefer non-semi-automatics because they think they
are more reliable.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/
2. Tough penalties for illegal gun possession are often seen as being
prejudicial against blacks and because the Democratic party now relies
heavily on blacks (and Mexicans) to win election, it's not likely that
there will be tough penalties for violating any new gun laws.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-08/news/ct-met-illinois-legislature-emanuel-guns-1108-20131108_1_gun-bill-gun-legislation-lawmakers
3. In my opinion, lack of progress on a federal ban against assault
weapons has been used by the politicians (or at least the Democrats)
for years as an excuse to do nothing to protect our children, with no
attempt to provide any sort of a "plan B". Trump, on the other hand,
has a plan that includes provisions to "harden schools".
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/03/11/Trump-gun-plan-to-include-provisions-hardening-schools/9161520804693/

Banning semi-automatics and large clips would be better than doing
nothing at all.

Hardening schools would be better than doing nothing at all, which is
what Obama did for 8 years. Banning semi-automatics and large clips
would be better than doing nothing at all. However, I don't think that
there's a snowball's chance in hell that semi-automatic guns will be
banned on the federal level. So, it makes no sense to hold our
children hostage, and then watch them die, in an effort to convince
people to support it.
"Authoritarianism and secrecy breed incompetence;
the two feed on each other. It's a vicious cycle.
Governments with authoritarian tendencies point
to what is in fact their own incompetence as the
rationale for giving them yet more power."
-- Josh Marshall

After all the jibber-jabber, it looks now like Trump is leaning
toward knuckling under to the NRA, including armed teachers
in schools but they're still going to call it "gun control". There
will be an outcry against that, so we may still be several
waffles away from knowing what the government is going to do.

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
Gangs are always going to have weapons (for which they
might be prosecuted), but bans and better background checks would make
it more difficult for the nut jobs to get their hands on one. BTW --
serialized ammunition might make life a little tougher for the gangs.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 12:56:58 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:27:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

Yes.

Am I correct that the feds could (if they chose) bar importation,
sale, manufacture, and even possession, using federal law enforcement
personnel, courts, and prisons?

My assumption is that the federal government could legally ban all
semi-automatic guns and all magazines with over ten rounds in
capacity. In fact, I think there are some states that have already
1. Gangs in Chicago, and presumably in other cities, rarely use
semi-automatics. "The guns being used in Chicago for crime and murder
are by and large very ordinary pistols.” So, I doubt if banning
assault weapons will do much to lower the murder rate. In fact, I
think some people prefer non-semi-automatics because they think they
are more reliable.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/
2. Tough penalties for illegal gun possession are often seen as being
prejudicial against blacks and because the Democratic party now relies
heavily on blacks (and Mexicans) to win election, it's not likely that
there will be tough penalties for violating any new gun laws.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-08/news/ct-met-illinois-legislature-emanuel-guns-1108-20131108_1_gun-bill-gun-legislation-lawmakers
3. In my opinion, lack of progress on a federal ban against assault
weapons has been used by the politicians (or at least the Democrats)
for years as an excuse to do nothing to protect our children, with no
attempt to provide any sort of a "plan B". Trump, on the other hand,
has a plan that includes provisions to "harden schools".
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/03/11/Trump-gun-plan-to-include-provisions-hardening-schools/9161520804693/

Banning semi-automatics and large clips would be better than doing
nothing at all. Gangs are always going to have weapons (for which they
might be prosecuted), but bans and better background checks would make
it more difficult for the nut jobs to get their hands on one. BTW --
serialized ammunition might make life a little tougher for the gangs.

Serialized ammunition is a very good idea, but the NRA would oppose it.
That defies logic. I worked on a project to do this not long after I
retired, but the politics were all wrong at the time. I couldn't get
anyone to consider it. Perhaps it is time to bring it up again.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 12:56:58 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 10:27:34 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:55:13 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

So, does that mean that if the federal government created a new
gun-control law, the states wouldn't be required by law to enforce it?

Yes.

Am I correct that the feds could (if they chose) bar importation,
sale, manufacture, and even possession, using federal law enforcement
personnel, courts, and prisons?

My assumption is that the federal government could legally ban all
semi-automatic guns and all magazines with over ten rounds in
capacity. In fact, I think there are some states that have already
1. Gangs in Chicago, and presumably in other cities, rarely use
semi-automatics. "The guns being used in Chicago for crime and murder
are by and large very ordinary pistols.” So, I doubt if banning
assault weapons will do much to lower the murder rate. In fact, I
think some people prefer non-semi-automatics because they think they
are more reliable.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/
2. Tough penalties for illegal gun possession are often seen as being
prejudicial against blacks and because the Democratic party now relies
heavily on blacks (and Mexicans) to win election, it's not likely that
there will be tough penalties for violating any new gun laws.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-08/news/ct-met-illinois-legislature-emanuel-guns-1108-20131108_1_gun-bill-gun-legislation-lawmakers
3. In my opinion, lack of progress on a federal ban against assault
weapons has been used by the politicians (or at least the Democrats)
for years as an excuse to do nothing to protect our children, with no
attempt to provide any sort of a "plan B". Trump, on the other hand,
has a plan that includes provisions to "harden schools".
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/03/11/Trump-gun-plan-to-include-provisions-hardening-schools/9161520804693/

Banning semi-automatics and large clips would be better than doing
nothing at all. Gangs are always going to have weapons (for which they
might be prosecuted), but bans and better background checks would make
it more difficult for the nut jobs to get their hands on one. BTW --
serialized ammunition might make life a little tougher for the gangs.

Serialized ammunition is a very good idea, but the NRA would oppose it.
That defies logic. I worked on a project to do this not long after I
retired, but the politics were all wrong at the time. I couldn't get
anyone to consider it. Perhaps it is time to bring it up again.

Seems reasonable.

[Tell it like it is.]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by me
See
https://www.theamericanview.com/constitution-course-supplemental-assignments/what-authority-does-the-u-s-constitution-give-the-federal-government-regarding-immigration/
This looks to be a post Civil War SC re/misinterpretation of the US
Constitution away from state’s rights, thus expanding the ‘commons’.

Post civil war? The first federal immigration law was passed in 1790.

Post by me
But it is interesting how blue California suddenly rediscovers
‘states rights’ , except, of course, not in terms of federal funding
to support those state rights. So California needs to find SC
justices to tweak Court interpretations to keep its powers but not
its cost obligation. Look ‘rent seeking’.

It was a SCOTUS decision written by Scalia that established the federal
government cannot require the states to enforce federal law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

The year President Nixon lowered the national speed limit on the nation's highways to 55 mph, I got stopped in Texas driving 55 m.p.h. on the interstate.
Everyone was zipping pass me. I was pulled over for "obstructing traffic". I got back on doin' 80.

[GLOBALIST]

Post by mg
"The Mass Migration from the 3rd World Must End
(submitted 1 year ago by SwissT0E)
We cannot allow the Leftist Ruling Elites of the Western World to turn
our nations into the dumping grounds for the world's poor, due to
their idiotic Leftist agenda of OPEN BORDERS, for the purpose of
ballooning the Leftist voter rolls, and giving the Left a monopoly
over all political power.
The astronomical growth of the poor populations of the world
necessitates a strict immigration policy, similar to Japan's and South
Korea's, where they allow almost NO ONE to immigrate to and become
citizens of their nation, unless they are Japanese or Korean
descended.
Are the Japanese or South Koreans racists?.....or do they simply wish
to preserve the heritage, the essence, of their countries?
Africa will have four billion people in a few decades, as just one
example of rapid, unsustainable population growth of the poor of the
world.
How can any western nation preserve it's ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and economic prosperity if hundreds
of millions, or even a billion or more, of poor Muslims, Chinese,
Bangladeshis, Africans, Middle Easterners, South and Central
Americans, etc. are trying to crash the gates? . . .
Sweden is probably the worst example of a nation’s People being
bullied by their Leftist Ruling Elites into the deliberate destruction
of the Swedish People’s heritage…..their ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and their economic prosperity.
Sweden is a country with a small population which had been totally
homogeneous......where the population has been the same for the past
10,000 years, when people populated the Scandinavian peninsula after
the glaciers retreated at the end of the ice age.
The Leftist Elite Rulers of Sweden have been DELIBERATELY implementing
a Multi-Cultural policy of inviting in massive numbers of third world
migrants. They have been bringing in mainly Muslims from the Middle
East, Africans, and others, yet have NEVER asked for approval from the
Swedish People for this FORCED Multi–Cultural transformation of
Sweden. Amazingly, the ?Leftist Ruling Elites of Sweden have even
dictated an advisory message to the native Swedes, advising them that
they will become a minority in their own ancient land within 40 years.
Sweden has become, in places, a third world heII hole, where whole
sectors of cities are ‘No Go’ areas for Swedish police. Sweden has
been ‘transformed’ from a peaceable, homogenous, small nation where
crime was close to non-existent, into one of the rape capitals of the
world, where Swedish girls are hunted on the streets by gangs and
individuals of violent, Muslim (and other), foreign predator men of
military age. Swedish girls are beaten brutally into submission,
raped, and sometimes killed. Even children have been raped, and
general crime rates have skyrocketed due to the mass migration.
And, here’s the irony…...if a Swedish citizen speaks out publicly
against this Mass Migration and Multi-Cultural Agendas of the ?Leftist
Ruling Elites…...she or he can be charged with a Hate Crime, and be
sentenced to five years in prison. The Western Nations need TRUE FREE
SPEECH ….not the muzzle the ?Leftist Ruling Elites have been shutting
up the People with across the Western World ! " [. . .]
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4udf09/the_mass_migration_from_the_3rd_world_must_end/
--------------------------------------------
There is little value in insuring the
survival of our nation if our traditions
do not survive with it.
-- JFK

And the numbers show that alot of them are single males and
should have stayed and fought for their country, Syria.
Because European women dress casually, these guys think
they are all begging to be raped. They perceive it is
open season to hang out with loose women and deflower them

[Tell it like it is.]

Post by mg
"The Mass Migration from the 3rd World Must End
(submitted 1 year ago by SwissT0E)
We cannot allow the Leftist Ruling Elites of the Western World to turn
our nations into the dumping grounds for the world's poor, due to
their idiotic Leftist agenda of OPEN BORDERS, for the purpose of
ballooning the Leftist voter rolls, and giving the Left a monopoly
over all political power.
The astronomical growth of the poor populations of the world
necessitates a strict immigration policy, similar to Japan's and South
Korea's, where they allow almost NO ONE to immigrate to and become
citizens of their nation, unless they are Japanese or Korean
descended.
Are the Japanese or South Koreans racists?.....or do they simply wish
to preserve the heritage, the essence, of their countries?
Africa will have four billion people in a few decades, as just one
example of rapid, unsustainable population growth of the poor of the
world.
How can any western nation preserve it's ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and economic prosperity if hundreds
of millions, or even a billion or more, of poor Muslims, Chinese,
Bangladeshis, Africans, Middle Easterners, South and Central
Americans, etc. are trying to crash the gates? . . .
Sweden is probably the worst example of a nation’s People being
bullied by their Leftist Ruling Elites into the deliberate destruction
of the Swedish People’s heritage…..their ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and their economic prosperity.
Sweden is a country with a small population which had been totally
homogeneous......where the population has been the same for the past
10,000 years, when people populated the Scandinavian peninsula after
the glaciers retreated at the end of the ice age.
The Leftist Elite Rulers of Sweden have been DELIBERATELY implementing
a Multi-Cultural policy of inviting in massive numbers of third world
migrants. They have been bringing in mainly Muslims from the Middle
East, Africans, and others, yet have NEVER asked for approval from the
Swedish People for this FORCED Multi–Cultural transformation of
Sweden. Amazingly, the ?Leftist Ruling Elites of Sweden have even
dictated an advisory message to the native Swedes, advising them that
they will become a minority in their own ancient land within 40 years.
Sweden has become, in places, a third world heII hole, where whole
sectors of cities are ‘No Go’ areas for Swedish police. Sweden has
been ‘transformed’ from a peaceable, homogenous, small nation where
crime was close to non-existent, into one of the rape capitals of the
world, where Swedish girls are hunted on the streets by gangs and
individuals of violent, Muslim (and other), foreign predator men of
military age. Swedish girls are beaten brutally into submission,
raped, and sometimes killed. Even children have been raped, and
general crime rates have skyrocketed due to the mass migration.
And, here’s the irony…...if a Swedish citizen speaks out publicly
against this Mass Migration and Multi-Cultural Agendas of the ?Leftist
Ruling Elites…...she or he can be charged with a Hate Crime, and be
sentenced to five years in prison. The Western Nations need TRUE FREE
SPEECH ….not the muzzle the ?Leftist Ruling Elites have been shutting
up the People with across the Western World ! " [. . .]
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4udf09/the_mass_migration_from_the_3rd_world_must_end/
--------------------------------------------
There is little value in insuring the
survival of our nation if our traditions
do not survive with it.
-- JFK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

[Gary]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:38:36 -0700 (PDT), "Tell it like it is."

Post by mg
--------------------------------------------
There is little value in insuring the
survival of our nation if our traditions
do not survive with it.
-- JFK

Surprise ! Surprise ! Kennedy did say something intelligent. And
that I agree him.

[Tell it like it is.]

Post by mg
"The Mass Migration from the 3rd World Must End
(submitted 1 year ago by SwissT0E)
We cannot allow the Leftist Ruling Elites of the Western World to turn
our nations into the dumping grounds for the world's poor, due to
their idiotic Leftist agenda of OPEN BORDERS, for the purpose of
ballooning the Leftist voter rolls, and giving the Left a monopoly
over all political power.
The astronomical growth of the poor populations of the world
necessitates a strict immigration policy, similar to Japan's and South
Korea's, where they allow almost NO ONE to immigrate to and become
citizens of their nation, unless they are Japanese or Korean
descended.
Are the Japanese or South Koreans racists?.....or do they simply wish
to preserve the heritage, the essence, of their countries?
Africa will have four billion people in a few decades, as just one
example of rapid, unsustainable population growth of the poor of the
world.
How can any western nation preserve it's ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and economic prosperity if hundreds
of millions, or even a billion or more, of poor Muslims, Chinese,
Bangladeshis, Africans, Middle Easterners, South and Central
Americans, etc. are trying to crash the gates? . . .
Sweden is probably the worst example of a nation’s People being
bullied by their Leftist Ruling Elites into the deliberate destruction
of the Swedish People’s heritage…..their ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and their economic prosperity.
Sweden is a country with a small population which had been totally
homogeneous......where the population has been the same for the past
10,000 years, when people populated the Scandinavian peninsula after
the glaciers retreated at the end of the ice age.
The Leftist Elite Rulers of Sweden have been DELIBERATELY implementing
a Multi-Cultural policy of inviting in massive numbers of third world
migrants. They have been bringing in mainly Muslims from the Middle
East, Africans, and others, yet have NEVER asked for approval from the
Swedish People for this FORCED Multi–Cultural transformation of
Sweden. Amazingly, the ?Leftist Ruling Elites of Sweden have even
dictated an advisory message to the native Swedes, advising them that
they will become a minority in their own ancient land within 40 years.
Sweden has become, in places, a third world heII hole, where whole
sectors of cities are ‘No Go’ areas for Swedish police. Sweden has
been ‘transformed’ from a peaceable, homogenous, small nation where
crime was close to non-existent, into one of the rape capitals of the
world, where Swedish girls are hunted on the streets by gangs and
individuals of violent, Muslim (and other), foreign predator men of
military age. Swedish girls are beaten brutally into submission,
raped, and sometimes killed. Even children have been raped, and
general crime rates have skyrocketed due to the mass migration.
And, here’s the irony…...if a Swedish citizen speaks out publicly
against this Mass Migration and Multi-Cultural Agendas of the ?Leftist
Ruling Elites…...she or he can be charged with a Hate Crime, and be
sentenced to five years in prison. The Western Nations need TRUE FREE
SPEECH ….not the muzzle the ?Leftist Ruling Elites have been shutting
up the People with across the Western World ! " [. . .]
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4udf09/the_mass_migration_from_the_3rd_world_must_end/

http://adl.org
http://aipac.org
http://aljazeera.org

Post by mg
--------------------------------------------
There is little value in insuring the
survival of our nation if our traditions
do not survive with it.
-- JFK

[Tell it like it is.]

Post by mg
"The Mass Migration from the 3rd World Must End
(submitted 1 year ago by SwissT0E)
We cannot allow the Leftist Ruling Elites of the Western World to turn
our nations into the dumping grounds for the world's poor, due to
their idiotic Leftist agenda of OPEN BORDERS, for the purpose of
ballooning the Leftist voter rolls, and giving the Left a monopoly
over all political power.
The astronomical growth of the poor populations of the world
necessitates a strict immigration policy, similar to Japan's and South
Korea's, where they allow almost NO ONE to immigrate to and become
citizens of their nation, unless they are Japanese or Korean
descended.
Are the Japanese or South Koreans racists?.....or do they simply wish
to preserve the heritage, the essence, of their countries?
Africa will have four billion people in a few decades, as just one
example of rapid, unsustainable population growth of the poor of the
world.
How can any western nation preserve it's ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and economic prosperity if hundreds
of millions, or even a billion or more, of poor Muslims, Chinese,
Bangladeshis, Africans, Middle Easterners, South and Central
Americans, etc. are trying to crash the gates? . . .
Sweden is probably the worst example of a nation’s People being
bullied by their Leftist Ruling Elites into the deliberate destruction
of the Swedish People’s heritage…..their ethnic heritage, cultural
heritage, peaceable civil society, and their economic prosperity.
Sweden is a country with a small population which had been totally
homogeneous......where the population has been the same for the past
10,000 years, when people populated the Scandinavian peninsula after
the glaciers retreated at the end of the ice age.
The Leftist Elite Rulers of Sweden have been DELIBERATELY implementing
a Multi-Cultural policy of inviting in massive numbers of third world
migrants. They have been bringing in mainly Muslims from the Middle
East, Africans, and others, yet have NEVER asked for approval from the
Swedish People for this FORCED Multi–Cultural transformation of
Sweden. Amazingly, the ?Leftist Ruling Elites of Sweden have even
dictated an advisory message to the native Swedes, advising them that
they will become a minority in their own ancient land within 40 years.
Sweden has become, in places, a third world heII hole, where whole
sectors of cities are ‘No Go’ areas for Swedish police. Sweden has
been ‘transformed’ from a peaceable, homogenous, small nation where
crime was close to non-existent, into one of the rape capitals of the
world, where Swedish girls are hunted on the streets by gangs and
individuals of violent, Muslim (and other), foreign predator men of
military age. Swedish girls are beaten brutally into submission,
raped, and sometimes killed. Even children have been raped, and
general crime rates have skyrocketed due to the mass migration.
And, here’s the irony…...if a Swedish citizen speaks out publicly
against this Mass Migration and Multi-Cultural Agendas of the ?Leftist
Ruling Elites…...she or he can be charged with a Hate Crime, and be
sentenced to five years in prison. The Western Nations need TRUE FREE
SPEECH ….not the muzzle the ?Leftist Ruling Elites have been shutting
up the People with across the Western World ! " [. . .]
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4udf09/the_mass_migration_from_the_3rd_world_must_end/

http://adl.org
http://aipac.org
http://aljazeera.com

Post by mg
--------------------------------------------
There is little value in insuring the
survival of our nation if our traditions
do not survive with it.
-- JFK