10 Apr

Unbelievable….Republican Senators Supporting Intrusion Into Our 2nd Amendment Rights

                                       

constitution-fire

So it appears a Republican lawmaker has been bought off to put his stamp on the new gun bill headed for the Senate.

Yesterday:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns is on the air in Pennsylvania Tuesday with a TV spot targeting Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who is in talks to sign on to a proposal that would require background checks for all commercial gun purchases.

Today:

Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns is pulling its ads in Pennsylvania, citing Toomey’s work on compromise bill.

Sure appears to me that in exchange for the attack ads to stop he signed on with the Democrats.

What does this new gun ban do?

The proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient he or she has been added.

There would be no due process requirement. Not all doctors will be able to do it with the same ease, but many will. Knowing a doctor could add him to a federal database as mentally ill without his knowledge could potentially dissuade a patient from going to the doctor in the first place to get help.

Worse, if the doctor does so and makes a mistake, the patient would have to actively work through the system to get himself removed — guilty before being proven innocent. In some states, should a doctor flag you as having mental illness without your knowledge, you may very well see the state come collect your previously purchased guns.

It doesn’t stop there.

Toomey and Manchin will claim that their bill only covers “gun show sales” and Internet sales. But if you’ve ever talked about your gun and /or let it be known you’d like to sell or buy a gun on the Internet, this language covers you. If you advertise your gun in the church bulletin and the bulletin is put on the Internet, you’re covered.

The only exemption is for sales that are sold exclusively by word of mouth. The increased number of background checks would likely exacerbate the system breakdowns (inherent to NICS) which have shut down gun shows over and over again. It would mean that Americans who were illegally denied firearms because their names were similar to other people’s would effectively be barred from owning a gun. (We would never tolerate such delays for voting rights or other freedoms that we are guaranteed.)

And for those Republicans who think they’re going to be able to offer their useless amendments, guess what? Reid is reportedly going to use a procedure to block out all amendments (called an “amendment tree”). And there are plenty of Senators standing in line to make sure that the Senate doesn’t give “unanimous consent” to let those Republicans offer their amendments.

And not one of these intrusions into your 2nd Amendment rights would of stopped Newton….NOT ONE.

But maybe this is how health care costs will be reduced by Obama, prevent people from going to their doctor in the first place.

Meanwhile Obama and pals insist they won’t confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens.

Lies:

John Doe, an upstanding professional with no outstanding criminal convictions and no history of violent action received a letter from the Pistol Permit Department informing him that his license was immediately revoked upon information that he was seeing a therapist for anxiety and had been prescribed an anxiety drug. He was never suicidal, never violent, and has no criminal history. The New York State Department of Health is apparently conducting a search of medical records to determine who is being treated for anxiety drugs and using this as a basis for handgun license revocation.

That’s in New York where everyone now knows your rights as a citizen of the United States are suspended once you cross city lines but with this new bill this kind of thing will go on in every state.

Any Republican that supports ANY kind of bill like this needs to hear from us, and that includes Senators who gives implied approval by not opposing it, for example Sen. Mike Lee. (Update-just heard Sen. Mike Lee say on Mike Levin’s show that he will invoke a 60 vote rule to get this bill out of the Senate)

Call senators immediately at 202-224-3121 and click here to send pre-written or free-form emails to senators about the Toomey/Manchin “compromise” (scroll to bottom to send).

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Congress, Conservatism, Constitution, Law, Law Enforcement, Liberal Idiots, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 at 5:27 pm
| 1,030 views

50 Responses to Unbelievable….Republican Senators Supporting Intrusion Into Our 2nd Amendment Rights

  1. Larry Sheldon says: 1

    When the University of Nebraska implemented their new system, during a telephone pre-surgery interview I was asked about the diagnosis of dementia in my record.

    I have never been diagnosed with dementia.

    When I visited with my GP, I found that the record showed that I was diabetic. I am not. But if I had not already turned in my CDL (could not afford the new rules), I think I would have lost it then.

    There were several more and I have been assured that they are all corrected.

    OH! Another of the really fun ones.

    One I got a prescription shipment from the mail-order house I have to use to be able to afford medicines. It is my habit when I order a refill to leave the empty bottle on the corner of my desk to remind me to be sure the replacement arrives. New prescriptions obviously don’t have an empty so I put a yellow sticky on the matter in the same area.

    Unpacking the shipment I looked–no bottle and no yellow sticky!

    Looking at the new arrival. I found that it was for Synthroid AT A DOSAGE I NO LONGER USE! Prescribed by the assisting Ophthalmologist in the then-recent surgery. Ophthalmologists do not prescribe Synthroid.

    Long story short (omitting several hours of telephone work with people at the pharmacy, with my GP–who does prescribe Synthroid–and the lead Ophthalmologist) my guess and conjecture is that while the Ophthalmologist was legitimately entering surgery-connected medications that I brought home with. the system popped up a window that said “Would you like to renew…..” and she–not being familiar with the system–Ophthalmology doesn’t use it yet except in the OR environment to get to the pharmacy there–replied “yes” and went on here way.

    And I and my insurance carrier (this was before I was forced onto Medicare D) got to pay for a ninety-day supply of Synthroid which was destroyed.

    The system is scary–all I see iis people’s back-sides, and the screen that is doing Google searches most of the time.

    ReplyReply
  2. Karen says: 2

    So I guess the millions of men and women on anti-depressants shd now go off their meds so they won’t be flagged? I’m all for taking care of our mentally unstable citizens. They shdn’t be kicked out in the cold when their insurance runs out or because there are no more beds. Also families in desperate need of helping their loved ones shd get that help asap. BUT this flagging stuff will get out of hand in a hurry and Obama knows it full well.

    ReplyReply
  3. Larry Sheldon says: 3

    I’m guessing that having ever been so diagnosed is permanent.

    My record said I have been diagnosed with dementia–but I have not.

    ReplyReply
  4. Smorgasbord says: 4

    I lived in Pennsylvania when Toomey got elected. Right away he showed he was not a true republican, and voted for democrat legislation several times. I don’t know if he is a democrat plant, or what his agenda is.

    As for those who say they have things on their medical records that aren’t true, if the democrats had their way, all conservatives would be declared mentally unstable.

    ReplyReply
  5. clayusmcret says: 5

    Manchin lied to West Virginians about how he’d serve as a conservative and, unlike most democrats in office, support and defend the Constitution. Now he and Toomey have climbed into bed with one of America’s most ardent liberals. What’s that smell around you two now? Schumer, sight unseen.

    ReplyReply
  6. Pingback: Up or Down Vote on Rights Threatens Every American | YouViewed/Editorial

  7. john says: 6

    The 2nd Amendment has ALWAYS been restricted. 4000 vets kill themselves each year with guns. I would like to see that number reduced.

    ReplyReply
  8. johngalt says: 7

    Anytime you start compiling lists on people that display data, even if it is done with good intentions, it invariably ends with people deciding to use those lists in ways that inhibit and dissolve your freedoms, liberties, and privacy. ‘Universal background checks’ is nothing more than a codeword for the gun-control crowd for universal registration. With universal registration comes a list. With a list comes a means of limiting freedom by denying or hindering access to it. When the denial or hindrance of access is deemed useless, or at the end of it’s usefulness, at that point comes confiscation.

    And when the proposed ‘universal background checks’ would not have stopped the act that spurred this most recent round of gun-control “debates”, then it is asinine to suggest that We, the People, should accept such a limitation upon our freedoms and liberties.

    ReplyReply
  9. Smorgasbord says: 8

    @johngalt: #7
    I agree with you 100%.

    ReplyReply
  10. John says: 9

    SCOTUS has ruled this is not an infringement of the Second Amendment.

    ReplyReply
  11. Larry Sheldon says: 10

    I have a claim to being a part of a rich tradition of disagreeing with SCOTUS going back at least to the Warren Court personally, and in readings of history, at least as far back as the 16th Amendment arguments.

    ReplyReply
  12. Bobachek says: 11

    When the vote was taken this morning, the following Republican senators joined with the Democrats to betray gun owners and this nation:
    Graham (S.C.), McCain (Ariz.), Ayotte (N.H.), Collins (Maine), Toomey (Pa.), Corker (Tenn.), Alexander (Tenn.), Coburn (Okla.), Burr (N.C.), Isakson (Ga.), Chambliss (Ga.), Kirk (Ill.), Flake (Ariz.), Heller (Nev.), Hoeven (N.D.), and Wicker (Miss.).

    If you have any doubt as to who needs to be taken out of office, this list is a very good place to start.

    ReplyReply
  13. Brian Miller says: 12

    Why do our 2nd Amendment rights end at the airplane door? Shouldn’ the NRA be fighting to allow guns on any flight? Why the surrender on this issue?

    ReplyReply
  14. Smorgasbord says: 13

    Is the law written so that the SCOTUS has to decide “Yes” or “No” on each case. Aren’t there situations that they should say, “There is no U.S. law covering this issue.”, and refer it to congress to come up with a law or laws that cover the issue?

    One example would be the gay marriage issue. I lived in Massachusetts when the issue came up. Some were saying the state allows gay marriage. One radio talk show host said the reason they are saying this is that the state constitution doesn’t mention marriage. Something that isn’t written in a state’s constitution isn’t illegal.

    Aren’t some of the issues that come before the SCOTUS like this. If there is no federal law covering the issue, it should be referred back to congress to settle. I don’t like the idea that when laws don’t cover an issue, 9 people in the whole USA get to decide it. Is this the way the law is written, or is it just how SCOTUS does it? Please give a link to the info. I am after answers, not opinions.

    ReplyReply
  15. Smorgasbord says: 14

    I sent the below request to my three federal reps. I suggest to those who are tired of the SCOTUS deciding things that are not written into federal law, ask their federal reps to do the same.

    I recommend a law be written that says that if the SCOTUS accepts a case, they have to mention the part of the U.S. Constitution or other federal law the issue is relevant to. If they can’t show such reference, then they have to sent it to congress to settle. This would end the SCOTUS deciding things that no law refers to. This way, 435 people would decide the issue, instead of 9.

    ReplyReply
  16. clayusmcret says: 15

    @Brian Miller:

    What chance does the 2nd Amendment right stand when we’ve also given up our 4th Amendment right to fly? …so I stopped flying.

    ReplyReply
  17. Smorgasbord says: 16

    @Brian Miller: #12
    If I had the choice of riding in a plane where passengers are banned from carrying guns, and one where guns were allowed, I would choose the no gun plane. That’s one place I think they should be banned. Think of all of the incidences that have happened on planes, and imagine a shootout starting.

    ReplyReply
  18. clayusmcret says: 17

    @Smorgasbord:

    Won’t happen. Congress was presented with similar legislation for themselves (several years in a row) to have to do the same – identify the portion of the Constitution a new law would be covered by – and it never got passed committee. They won’t even do it for themselves.

    All three branches are on unrestrained power trips.

    ReplyReply
  19. Smorgasbord says: 18

    @clayusmcret: #17
    Please let me live in my dream world for a while. I understand that the incumbents in congress won’t want things changed FOR THE PEOPLE. They have spent too many years changing it to how they want it. The only way I see any changes being made for WE THE PEOPLE are the non-politicians who will run for office. The problem with this philosophy is that they will become politicians eventually, or they won’t get their reelection money.

    The first thing that needs to be done is get rid of ALL of the incumbents. We won’t be dumping any babies out with the bath water either.

    ReplyReply
  20. Dc says: 19

    I personally don’t have a problem with background check that is done by a qualified retail gun store for the purpose of cross checking a no buy list. The way that’s handled is…any info or data they use for that check cannot be retained by the feds. The local gun store “can” keep those records…and the police gets warrants for it when they are trying to track a gun used in a crime.

    There are a couple of bills floating around that focus in this area…trying to improve the accuracy of the background checks, while limiting the scope of the bill to gun transfers. The problem is Schumer and others who continually try and add/tack on gun “bans” based in their own misunderstanding of the technology, etc.

    I’ve let my senator know in no uncertain terms…that while I would support improvements in background checks up to and including using retail stores for “all” gun transfers (private and otherwise) with exceptions for family, hunting, or shooting ranges, etc…..but that I would NOT support “any” attempts to “ban” firearms or magazines to the otherwise law abiding public.

    However you feel, find your senator’s webpage…and let them know. At least they’ll know they are being watched.

    ReplyReply
  21. John
    the vets who kill themselves is because there is constant WAR going on
    and they are fatigue and don’t see no way out,
    the COMMANDER IN CHIEF is the responsible one for their fatigue, he is the culprit for their desperation, and he is the one who should be shooting himself,
    because he has failed to make a war a non combatant war,
    that is too bad to hear the desperation going to that extreme,
    but the MILITARY don’t see a way out of their situation, except this ultimate action,
    they are push to think they are no more human, but a machine to have the COMMANDER play war with, not win war.
    and when they see it clearly, they loose hope to someday return to a normal life,
    they have hit their limits as human and they no more can play the mechanical role which is force on them.
    that COLONEL said one day, the WAR is on nonstop since the WW II,
    the military are relegate to the last to come back to their family now.
    even that they are extenuated, they must continue, they don’t see no exit, from HELL
    they cannot even be SOLDIER WHO KILL THE ENEMIES,
    because their commander is trying to make a deal with the enemies,

    ReplyReply
  22. Nan G says: 21

    “If You Have Nothing To Hide, You Have Nothing To Fear”

    That’s the motto of the NSA’s Domestic Surveillance Directorate.
    Read all about it.

    http://nsa.gov1.info/index.html
    Their version.

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/
    The web talk about it.

    A project of immense secrecy……
    Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.”

    ReplyReply
  23. Dc says: 22

    Yes, Nan. This is the fear people have…that the gov will find a way….like it always does…to get any data used for this into other databases, or others have access to it.

    As far as your NSA example…you don’t have to go even that far. The IRS has decided that communications on the internet (ie., your email) that are over 180 days old are exempt from 4th amendment constitutional protections.

    ReplyReply
  24. johngalt says: 23

    @Dc:

    The way that’s handled is…any info or data they use for that check cannot be retained by the feds.

    The way the law reads, the feds cannot compile the data for use in one central databank. They get around this by having individual districts compile and keep data for future use. Now, in many cases, that data is useful and ends up serving a good purpose, up to and including saving innocent lives. However, it is still a list and whether or not it is kept in a centralized location is quite beside the point, when the government is not following the intent of the law it created.

    This brings up an important point of difference between the people who support gun-control and those who support the 2nd amendment. Both groups are advocating for protection for We, the People. The difference comes in what they want to protect. The gun-control crowd wants to protect people’s lives, while the 2nd Amendment supporters want to protect people’s freedoms and liberties. Which leads to the following quote;

    Those who would give up essential liberty for a little safety and security, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin

    Of course, when people are honest about the facts regarding gun-control, it is readily apparent that the way the gun-control crowd goes about protecting people leaves a lot to be desired, especially when gun-control measures are shown to have the opposite effect of what was intended. One need look no further than Chicago to see the failure of such gun-control laws.

    ReplyReply
  25. retire05 says: 24

    And what do 15,000 law enforcement officers think of the gun debate? Do they think more control will equate to less crime?

    http://www.policeone.com

    Read the survey results of law enforcement officers. Game, set, match.

    ReplyReply
  26. Smorgasbord says: 25

    @Dc: #22
    I have yet to understand how my emails that are 181 days old are automatically less private than my 180 day old emails. Of course, I never have understood much about how our government works. I do know that the politicians (even the republicans) care less about my privacy than they did a few years ago.

    ReplyReply
  27. Smorgasbord says: 26

    @Nan G: #21
    Anyone who reads my complete history will probably fall asleep from boredom. I’m like Ziggy when he said, “Anyone who says history doesn’t repeat itself, hasn’t read my diary.” Ziggy could be my IDENTICAL twin brother.

    ReplyReply
  28. Smorgasbord says: 27

    @retire05: #24
    When you post a link, please post the ACTUAL link to the article you refer to, not the home page that has it SOMEWHERE, if we can find it.

    ReplyReply
  29. Smorgasbord
    hi,
    I would not say boring, there is some juicy stuff in there to find,
    some goodies recipies I mean. and some good advices,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  30. justme95 says: 29

    I don’t think it’s unbelievable at all. Look at the past 2 candidates the RNC chose to run for president. The fact is – if the RNC backs a candidate, he/she must be a democrat-in-waiting.

    ReplyReply
  31. Smorgasbord says: 30

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #28
    There are no recipes in my life. I hate to cook, but do the best I can. I am going to try to cook a turkey in one of those bags that let you put the turkey in and not have to do anything else during the baking. The people at the local restaurant know me very well.

    ReplyReply
  32. Ditto says: 31

    @Nan G:

    On a related note: EPA acknowledges releasing personal details on farmers, senator slams agency

    According to a document obtained by FoxNews.com, the EPA said “some of the personal information that could have been protected … was released.” Though the EPA has already sent out the documents, the agency now says it has since redacted sensitive details and asked the environmental groups to “return the information.”

    But Sen. John Thune, who originally complained about the release, slammed the EPA for trying to retroactively recover the sensitive data.

    “It is inexcusable for the EPA to release the personal information of American families and then call for it back, knowing full well that the erroneously released information will never be fully returned,” he said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “While EPA acknowledging that it erred is a first step, more must be done to protect the personal information of our farmers and ranchers now and in the future. I will continue to demand answers from the EPA on how this information was collected and why it is still being distributed to extreme environmental groups to the detriment of our farm and ranch families.”

    ReplyReply
  33. Smorgasboerd
    hi,,
    just to say RECIPES are not only to eat but also to digest by the brain,
    as we do for good words and good point of views, it feed the brain always hungry for more of it.
    bye
    oh your turkey? just cover it with any sauce you find in your fridge, on the regular almost empty bottle you’re anxious to get rid of, like ketchup, or mustard or other,
    just put butter in the bottom of the pan onions if you like and carrots under the turkey,
    cover it with a lid or alluminium paper to keep the juice inside, salt pepper inside the turkey
    is a must.
    and in the oven 400 for 10 minutes and down to 300 for a couple of hours or more , to be check
    with a fork, or if the turkey start to dismember itself it’s a sign that he want out,
    remove the cover and give it 10 minutes more,
    same for chicken,with less cooking times,
    you will never go to the restaurent again for a turkey
    or chicken
    bye

    ReplyReply
  34. Smorgasbord says: 34

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #33
    Think of something you REALLY HATE to do. You are going to do it the easiest way you can. I really HATE to cook. I will follow the mush simpler directions on the box the plastic bags came in. When I do cook, I use frozen vegetables, IDAHO POTATOES, and some kind of meat I can cook in the microwave.

    ReplyReply
  35. Smorgasbord
    think of how good and healthier it would be using my even simpler way no bag needed,
    you don’t want to eat plastic particules from bags, and on the other comment ,I should have mention to remove the little bag on the neck side, containing the gizard, the liver and the neck,
    which you boil with salt pepper and rice or noodle and any herbs you got, for a good soup
    adding some of the juice of the turkey once it’s cooked add the carrots onions and your frozen veggies,
    or fresh one,
    my way is a lot eazier,
    don’t be a lazy …., move your …. and cook your … turkey like I told you, or starve until you cannot take it and start cooking
    and come back to tell me, hey microwave are for rewarming your cooked food,
    once your turkey is cook,
    you won’t eat all so you divide the pieces and freeze it each separatly, and you can re- heat it in your microwave, 2 to 3 minutes depending on the size of the piece.

    ReplyReply
  36. how will they go about the nut case with an exacto knife slicing 14 people neck and face?
    there is their gun protecting agenda on the garbage can,
    one student was wishing he had a gun,
    so how does it look for OBAMA gun control?
    not so good hey

    ReplyReply
  37. Ditto
    how about the FELONS who did their time for an error in their youth years ,
    which never phyisicaly hurt any one, and had no intent either,
    they are still label felons and have a family to protect after years pass which
    they never did any error or commit any crimes
    will they be still entitle to purchase a gun to protect their family and themselves,
    which is the justified thing to do.
    and on a different issue, who will be worthy enough to give the name of a person to be call unfit
    to have a gun permit, which is very troubling if it happen
    to ruin the reputation on a word of mouth, be it a doctor or anyone is UN-AMERICAN, are the DEMOCRATES trying to push the people in a desperate mode situation? yes
    is AMERICA regressing to become so low,
    yes

    ReplyReply
  38. Dc says: 38

    I’d be glad to clarify the difference between retailers retaining records of sales/transactions within their respective states vs having a gov data base that can be accessed. The difference is that one needs a warrant to obtain the private information from the seller. A warrant usually issued as result of probable cause in a criminal case/investigation. Whereas, a gov database, your private information can be accessed at anytime, by any agency. Now, they may “say”, they will abide and not look at it without a warrant. But, that would be taking them (gov) at their word.

    The information that is used for a background check is not supposed to be retained for more than 90 days. That’s how my state does it. The “sell” retail information is retained by the gun shop (if you bought from one) and those records are retained and can be accessed…..with a warrant.

    The point I was making is that there are things we can do to make the check more effective without compromising basic privacy or having some gov official willy nilly decide who’s guilty or innocent or needs to be checked up on without a warrant. And I think if “all” gun transactions (private and otherwise) with exceptions for family, hunting, etc…went through a gun shop…and treated just like a retail sale in regards to the background check, etc…that it would close “all” the legal loopholes which we currently have where guns can be transacted between people privately without a check.

    From there, it’s entirely up to the feds and powers that be to actually prosecute those cases for it to be effective. But, it’s a balanced approached in regards to how much you ask of a private citizen exercising a fundamental right in my opinion. Others may differ. But, I just don’t see the issue in having every gun transaction where it changes possession handled through a gun shop authorized and already setup to do the background check. SO LONG as the data used for the “check” is not retained for more than 90 days, and a warrant would be required to obtain the transaction information from the retailer.

    ReplyReply
  39. what’s wrong with PAT TOOMEY, to switch like that?
    is it because of his son? he think he can have a better deal with the DEMOCRATES?

    ReplyReply
  40. the DEMOCRATES will protect their own followers, check the book they have names and address of their followers,
    and will pick on the who they call far right ,or middle right or right wing or
    other party than their own and those they fear will take their jobs in the next election,
    by spying every move , every words,
    we know that’s who they are.
    PAT TOOMEY you had a wrong intent by making your rally with the DEMOCRATES,
    your decision should not count as valid for a SENATOR like you. you are suppose to work for the CONSERVATIVES,
    you where elect by them, and you know their views,
    you can undo what you did

    ReplyReply
  41. Dc
    hi,
    you are right on, and the choice is definitly to have the dealer do a background check
    that he keep in a secret protected file as oppose to the GOVERNMENT which don’t need
    the background of law abiding citizens, they want background check of criminals, but they don’t need it either because the police has them, why duplicate on the AMERICAN PEOPLE,,
    they have it upside down, the start is on a study on mental behaviour to prevent a target person to kill,
    they should take the time and one thing at the time,
    because they are making laws and are not sure it will work,
    when the time come to make a law such as this, you dam well better be sure, because the consequences are big and dangerous, more than the law you try to bring to the PEOPLE which you say is to protect,
    right now we don’t see a protection of the PEOPLE, we see a pain on the neck.

    ReplyReply
  42. Smorgasbord says: 42

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #35
    You don’t understand how much I HATE to cook. When I make something, I like to make enough it will last for more than one meal. I’m still eating as reasonably as I can.

    ReplyReply
  43. Smorgasbord says: 43

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #39
    Pat Toomey didn’t switch. I lived in Pennsylvania when he got elected, and he started voting for democratic stuff right away. I don’t know if he is just a moderate, or a democrat who pretended to be a republican to get elected.

    ReplyReply
  44. Smorgasbord
    hi
    so PAT TOOMEY is an infiltrator.
    so now to change subject;
    I do the same thing to make more meal out of one, and the secret is to separate it into small containers,
    and freeze until you have a taste for it, you know never to put a plastic container in the microwave,
    what you do is take the plastic container keep it cover, full and frozen, turn on the water on the frozen container upside down and one minute, uncover, and let it fall in a glass bowl and microwave the bowl 2 or 3 minutes or until hot,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  45. Ditto says: 45

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    The goal of far-left Democrats is to completely disarm the public. To use whatever means possible to disqualify as many people as possible from being able to exercise their 2nd amendment constitutional rights by turning it into a privilege easily denied by any “reasonable” excuse the government can cook up, while claiming to support the second amendment. Even through a double-secret conspiracy between our health care providers and the bureaucracy, whereby without due process or ability to confront your accuser, you can be declared “mentally unfit to bear arms. All with the support of Republican RINOs who, in the name of compromise, will violate their oath of office to avoid being labeled “obstructionists” by their fellow progressives. This is tyranny by constitutionally faithless progressives that can and will lead to either civil war or total enslavement.

    ReplyReply
  46. Smorgasbord says: 46

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #44
    Most people don’t know that if you use plastic containers in a microwave, some of the toxic chemicals used to make the plastic leaches out into the food.

    Thanks for the info, but I have a way of doing things that works for me.

    ReplyReply
  47. Ditto
    I believe that you are absolutely right,
    there is too much signs, in the whole pieces put together,
    from the begining,of constant laws, constant impositions, constant breakage of the freedom of the people
    nonstop warning of cliffs of bottom sinking, of sequestration
    scaring all the people, he keep hiring for government jobs on the pocket of the citizens workers,
    if he succeed
    on that law, and next come the immigration law, he want to force on the Americans,
    while there is no jobs for the citizens, no way out of misery,
    it will be his minset
    for him of success, no matter
    what is the sinking economy, plus he want an unlimit spending card.
    and no solution to stop it. is this a power left to the people,or is that a hands tied for the People,
    that would mean too late.

    ReplyReply
  48. Ditto
    beside the people for many don’t have the money to fight the right taken of
    from them to carry a gun,
    and if you happen to get into an argument in public and someone call the police you can be branded and denied the second amendment right,
    I recall the story of another vet friend who got angry and said to his son ; no wonder some get shot in an office government license for his son motor cycle,
    they had made them go to different offices who kept sending them somewhere else and the clerk called the police
    who arrest him, now he has a charge on his background which is not good for a gun ownership, the clerk intervene when he said that to his son, and he told her to mind her own business. it tell us that any government clerk can get you in trouble just by exasperate you, maybe wishfully to obey an Obama rule of revenge
    and get you impatient enough to say a remark which will brand you as felon for life.cutting your second amendment right,
    like it’s the case of many of our blogger in the Post
    on the same name,

    ReplyReply
  49. Larry Sheldon
    ON 3, yes this is tragic to have an error like that on your file which would need the hiring a lawyer to work on correcting it which demand a lot of money,
    but those who made the error are protected from liability by the GOVERNMENT who pay them from your pocket, is in it arrogant to see,
    and you have that lie on you for job seeking and insurance without being able to prove it,
    that is really anger a person, yes and rightly so,
    bye

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>