[seemoAR]

I’m back. I felt the need to throw you a carrot just to see how high you would jump. I know I am just an old fool and am not nearly as educated as you seem to think you are. I am old enough to remember the treason that was unleashed on this Country in 1968. I remember the white hot anger that I felt when I learned of that act. I knew at that time the United States of America was getting into deep trouble. The enemies of this Nation were inside the gates. A large number were in our government. It has only gotten worse.

The enemies of this once free nation control the groups that loudly proclaim their support of gun owners. They boast and strut around claiming great deeds and loudly proclaim what a good job they are doing. They can print slick magazines and really spread a great line of bull. The gun owners are being subjected to the death of a thousand cuts. The gun control group know the free citizens of this Nation will not allow the the government to seize the guns now. They hope do it using small laws that individually mean very little. A wall is put up one brick at a time but it is still a wall when it is completed. They hope the peasants will not wake up and put an end to their plan. Just go back to sleep little sheepies, don’t look at the big bad wolf that is standing beside your bed.

I mentioned this is not England for a reason. England has many gun laws and I am very sure you would be very happy there.

I really wish you would learn some new words. “Ridiculous” is getting old.

You never did answer the question about an angry ex-spouse putting an ex-s name on that little black list. :0)

[spunkets]

"The enemies of this once free nation control the groups that loudly proclaim their support of gun owners."

I resent the allegation that myself and my fellow NRA members are controlled, especially when the allegation claims that we are controlled by enemies of the US, and freedom itself.

"England has many gun laws and I am very sure you would be very happy there."

Ridiculous.

"You never did answer the question about an angry ex-spouse putting an ex-s name on that little black list."

I never saw the question. There are 2 ways that could happen. A temp restraining order could be issued, and/or a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence could have occurred. The denial of rights that occurrs in both cases is unconstitutional. The power to issue a restraining order does not include the power to deny rights. The power is limited to issuing orders that are limited to prohibiting acts which the person the order applies to, has no inherent right to do. That means the order can prohibit contact, but it can not deny rights, or property. The fact that legislatures have created laws which deny specific rights and property in this case, is not justified, because it is simply prior restraint and a violation of equal protection under the law.

As far as Lautenberg goes, it is unconstitutional, because attainder does not apply and it therefore stands as a pure ex-post facto law for some. For new convictions, it stands as an unwarranted denial of right, because attainder still does not apply, a violation of equal protection, and prior restraint.

Regardless of the fact that the denial of right in restraining orders and Lautenberg are abominations, they do not effect the utility and validity of the background check. Those abominable laws can and should be addressed on their own.