Tag Archives: second amendment


This is the second article I am authoring in connection with where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton side on issues relating to how we, as American citizens, should choose to govern ourselves as a nation. Many thanks to the website, diffen.com for the following information.


Donald Trump: Trumps proposed new federal income tax brackets are as follows:  0% for individuals making less than $25K and couples making less than $50K. Then 10%, 20%, 25%. Eliminate AMT, lower corporate tax rate to 15%.

Hillary Clinton: Increase taxes on high-income earners. New tax bracket of 43.6% for incomes greater than $5mm.

The Economy

Donald Trump: Declare China a currency manipulator. A one-time repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at 10% tax rate, followed by an end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad.

Hillary Clinton: Higher minimum wage. Encourage corporate profit-sharing via a tax credit for two years.

Minimum Wage

Donald Trump: This past summer, he called for a federal minimum wage of $10 per hour, departing from his past positions and his own party.

Hillary Clinton: Proposes to increase the minimum wage to $12 nationwide.

The Environment

Donald Trump: Cut the EPA, leaving it smaller and less powerful. Never called global warming a hoax, but said he would re-negotiate America’s role and obligations under the U.N. global climate accord. Initially, Trump said he would approve the Keystone XL pipeline immediately. He has now said that he would reject the pipeline unless TransCanada Corp. gave the U.S. a big chunk of the profits, or even ownership rights.

Hillary Clinton: More stringent regulation on environmental issues like fracking and drinking water. Supports a mandatory cap-and trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Has called for more regulations on fracking, but not outright bans. Expressed doubts on drilling for oil in the Arctic, but not calling for stopping. With respect to Keystone XL pipeline, Hillary Clinton’s campaign said she had no position. However, her position now is that she doesn’t think we need to have a pipeline bringing in very dirty oil, and exploiting the tar sands in Western Canada, across our border.

Gun Rights – The Second Amendment

Donald J. Trump: Supports Second Amendment rights, opposes new gun control laws; instead, enforce the laws that now exist. He also supports fixing out broken mental health system. Defend the rights of law-abiding gun owners, allow military personnel to carry weapons on military bases and recruitment centers.

Hillary Clinton: Supports a stricter assault weapons ban, and background checks being required for a greater number of gun sales. Wants more legislation for gun safety.

Marijuana Legalization

Donald Trump: Has said that marijuana for medicinal purposes is okay, though he has criticized those states who have legalized marijuana. Decades ago, he also claimed that the DEA is a joke and all drugs should be legalized to take the profit away from drug dealers.

Hillary Clinton: Wants to reclassify marijuana to be a less restricted drug than it currently is, but do not legalize it. Medical marijuana should be available, but only in extreme conditions.

While the above only serves as a brief over-view, I encourage you to do some research of your own to determine where you align with each candidate on the campaign issues.



Every time there is an incident of gun violence in this nation, especially when the incident involves a white shooter, shooting blacks, the current President of the United States weighs in on the matter and indicates the need for more gun control laws. Surprise, Mr. President! We have Federal Firearms Laws. Also, each state has their own set of gun control laws. Of course, the President’s followers/worshippers holler out, “More gun control, more gun control.”

While I can’t possibly summarize the Federal gun control laws, I’ll briefly highlight a few of them in the following paragraphs.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution).

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment prohibits the Federal government from passing laws prohibiting an individual’s right to possess a hand gun in the home and requiring any firearms in the home to be inoperable during possession.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago, that the Second Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits States and political subdivisions from prohibiting an individual’s right to possess a hand gun in the house, but as in Heller, state laws may restrict the possession of firearms by felons, etc.

This section goes on the Define a firearm.

A person is entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from one state where his firearms’ possession is legal to another state where his firearms’ possession is legal. The firearms may not be seized by the local police if: The firearm the firearm is unloaded and the firearm or any ammo being transported is readily or directly accessible from the passenger compartment. In the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment, the firearm and ammo shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

Long Gun Possession (rifle or shotgun): a person of any age may possess a long gun.

Hand Gun Possession: A person under 18 years of age may not possess a handgun or handgun only ammo.

A person may not purchase a handgun from a licensed gun dealer whose premises are located in a state where the buyer does not reside. It is a felony violation to knowingly make a false statement or show false identification to a licensed gun dealer. A potential purchaser must state of Form 4473 his name, address, date of birth, place of birth, height, weight, gender, race, prohibited person status and sign it.

The licensed gun dealer must notify the FBI or state authorities of the purchaser’s identification so a criminal background check can be completed before the firearm is transferred.

Indictment or information for a felony: Such a person has restrictions paced on his firearms activity. He may continue to lawfully possess the firearms and ammunition he already has, but may not ship or take them across state lines and may not acquire more firearms or ammunition affecting interstate commerce.

The above showcases very few of our Federal gun laws. To thoroughly review Federal gun law, you can visit: http://www.fedcoplaw.com/html/federal_firearms_laws.html.

On top of the Federal gun laws, each state has its own set of gun laws. The following will summarize the gun laws for the state of Alabama, my state.

With some exceptions, the open carry of firearms is lawful. It is unlawful to carry a concealed pistol, firearm, or air gun without a permit. It is unlawful for a person to carry a pistol concealed about his person on premises not his own or under his control. It is unlawful to carry a rifle or shotgun walking cane.

No state permit is required to possess a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. It is unlawful for a drug addict, habitual drunkard, or one who has been convicted of a crime of violence to own or possess a handgun. Law enforcement authorities have advised that minors cannot carry or possess a handgun.

It is unlawful to sell, give, lend or deliver a handgun to any person under 18, or to a person whom the seller has reasonable cause to believe has been convicted of a crime of violence, is a drug addict, a habitual drunkard, or of unsound mind.

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley has signed comprehensive pro-gun legislation. As of May 26, 2015, the Alabama State Senate passed a bill that would allow gun owners to carry and transport loaded handguns in their vehicle without a concealed carry permit.

The following will summarize the gun laws for the state of Illinois. It is unlawful to carry or possess any firearm in any vehicle or concealed on or about the person, except on one’s land or in one’s abode or fixed place of business, without a license. It is unlawful to possess any firearm or ammunition without a valid FOID (Firearms Owner’s Identification Card).A buyer is required to show his FOID when purchasing any firearms or ammunition. The seller must retain for 10 years, a record of the transfer, including a description of the firearm, the identity of the buyer, and the buyer’s FOID number. It is unlawful to sell, manufacture, purchase, possess or carry any weapon from which more than one shat may be discharged by a single function of the trigger, including the frame or receiver of any such weapon.

As one can readily see, gun laws are substantially stricter in Illinois when compared to Alabama. In the city of Chicago, Illinois, guns are illegal and Chicago has some of the worst gun violence cases in the United States.

Whenever a shooting takes place such as the recent shooting in Charleston, S.C. of nine church members inside the Emanuel AME Church, liberals always blame guns and demand more gun control laws. Well, in Charleston, liberals also blamed the Confederate flag for that shooting. Last week, I was one of two or maybe three conservatives involved in a Facebook discussion on gun control where a liberal FB friend of a liberal FB friend posted a photo denigrating what they say is record profits by gun manufacturers. It’s certainly understandable why gun manufacturers are making record profits.

People want to get their guns while they still can. The liberals seemed to think that there were no gun control laws in the United States with the reason being that the current president has been blocked from instituting meaningful gun control legislation because the Republican-majority Congress will not pass gun control laws.

It’s really amazing what liberals say, isn’t it?

Thanks to nraila.org for the information about state gun control laws and to fedcoplaw.com for the information about Federal gun control legislation.



While I have never heard him say this, I have read many times where the current president has said he doesn’t believe that people should be able to own guns. It has also been documented that one of his frustrations in being president is that he has not been able to pass stricter gun control legislation.

I recently read an article on a conservative website where the author was speculating on measures that the current administration might take to further limit the second amendment rights of the American people, perhaps through executive orders. One such measure that was speculated upon was limiting those who had trouble handling their finances from purchasing guns. Another measure that was offered up was limiting those on Social Security/senior citizens from purchasing guns. Also, it has been speculated that gun ownership might preclude those who have been treated for common emotional maladies such as depression. The author felt that the president would do anything he could to limit gun ownership. A liberal reading the above would probably say these statements are idiotic.

Because this president has done so many bad things already, I don’t put anything past him. He promised to fundamentally change the United States of America and he has done it. While we haven’t reached the point to where folks are being taken from their beds in the middle of the night and transported to a gulag and tortured to death, could that be coming in the future? Before that happens, I certainly hope that the American people will wake up and take this country back.

So, he doesn’t want private citizens to have guns? Guns are dangerous and require a special kind of handling and respect. I remember the first time I shot a gun. I realized the power that I had in my two hands. I do own a handgun and while I don’t use it, I would feel vulnerable without it. Kind of like most of us do if we don’t have our seatbelts fastened.

I wonder why liberals are against gun ownership or feel that it should be severely restricted? Before the invention of gun powder, the physically weak did not have much power over the physically strong. If there was conflict, the physically strong usually prevailed over the physically weak. The invention of gun powder and guns changed all of that. Gun equalized the strong and the weak. Redistribution of power? With liberals so into redistribution of everything, how come they are so against gun ownership?

With liberals desiring to take our gun rights away, even if they are doing it a smidgen at a time, will they stop when all of us are defenseless? Have liberals ever stopped at anything? What about automobiles? Aren’t they dangerous, also? In fact, I’d say they’re more dangerous than guns. When you’re behind the wheel of an automobile, you have the power to run over people and destroy property. You have the power to ruin your life and the lives of others.

Yet, anyone who has the money or the credit can purchase an automobile. You’re not asked to show your driver’s license when test driving an automobile. However, you might have to show your driver’s license when arranging for financing. In other words, I don’t know of any requirements you have to meet to purchase a car, except to have insurance when you’re financing. I’ve known of situations where elderly people have purchased automobiles with no intention of driving them. They purchased the car so that their children could drive them wherever.

What’s my point, you ask. If liberals are successful in taking away our guns, do you think they might go after automobiles next? Do you think the government might try to limit the purchase of automobiles to those within a certain age range? Then could they limit you as to what type of vehicle you could purchase according to your age, sex, occupation, etc.?

There have been numerous instances when someone driving an automobile rammed onto a crowded sidewalk and crashed into a restaurant or other public place. However, “automobile control or violence” has never been discussed among liberals. If I were depressed enough or wanted to get even with someone who had wronged me, I could walk out to my enclosed garage, start up my vehicle, and open the windows. It wouldn’t take long.

As I said above, liberals will never stop. They will claim their policies are for your own good because you are not capable of looking out after yourself. They know best, but all they really want is as much control over your life as they can get.

In spite of the fact that we have a republican controlled Congress, we are losing freedoms and rights every day. I do believe, though, that the United States of America is an exceptional nation and at some point Americans will rise up against the tyrannical government that has been elected to power, not once, but twice. When will that be? I don’t know. How much of our freedoms and rights will we have to loose before it happens? Again, I don’t know. But it’s something that every American should be thinking about.



Tamir Rice, a twelve year old boy was shot to death by Cleveland police officer Timothy Loehman on November 22, 2014. Loehman and another officer, Frank Gamback, responded after receiving a dispatch call of a male sitting on a swing and pointing a gun at people in a city park. Supposedly, the caller indicated that the male was probably a juvenile and the gun was probably a fake. Upon their arrival, Tamir was said to have reached towards a gun in his waistband. Loehman fired two shots at Tamir, and the child died the following day. The gun was later determined to be fake.

While the two bullets that left Timothy Loehman’s gun entered Tamir’s body and ultimately caused his death, who is ultimately responsible for the death of Tamir Rice? Liberals/Democrats/progressives, the blood of Tamir Rice is on your hands.

On Thursday, June 11, a judge in Cleveland ruled that probably cause existed to charge the two police officers that were dispatched to the park where Tamir was fatally shot by one of them. I’m not going to take you through the details of the investigation, you can research and read them yourself.

Liberals, of course, rushed to judgment, disparaging the police officers without knowing any of the facts? What else is new? Liberals are not supporters of our police and start salivating anytime an incident involving white police officers and black individuals takes place. I don’t know what liberals hope to gain by disparaging our nation’s local law enforcement officers? Could they possibly want federal control of our local police? That’s a possibility.

In June 1962, the Supreme Court first ruled that government-endorsed prayer in public schools was unconstitutional. Since then liberals have worked toward taking God out of our society and unfortunately, they are succeeding. With the left’s assault on God and Christianity there are increases in crime, the number of babies born out of wedlock, the number of irresponsible fathers (and mothers), illegal drug use, alcohol abuse, etc. This country has also seen human lives devalued.

With the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, liberals rushed in and set up various programs to “help” blacks and other minorities affected by this legislation. While their intentions may have been good at the time, fifty years later, we are still being told that we must treat blacks differently from whites because of their history of oppression. It is even being suggested that blacks be given lenience for misbehavior because they are still an oppressed people and live in a country where institutional racism is rampant. In other words, you don’t have to meet the behavioral standards that white folks have to meet, we’ll give you a pass if you misbehave.

Ever since I can remember, the left has been at war with the second amendment. While they have not yet attempted to take our guns away from us, they have sought to discourage gun ownership by American citizens. An elementary school student can be suspended for just drawing a picture of a gun. Forget bring a toy gun to school and pointing it at other students…bang, bang, you’re dead. I grew up with boy cousins who were close in age to me. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been shot and killed. Fast forward to today and anything looking faintly like a gun, possessed by someone is shamed. Firearms have been excessively demonized by the “tolerant left” of this nation. Funny thing, though, ask an “anti-gun” person if they’re willing to put a sign outside their house reading “gun free zone,” and none of them say yes.

I dare say that twenty-five years ago, a child at a playground with a gun would attract very little attention and anyone witnessing a child playing with a gun on a playground wouldn’t feel the need to call the police. Little boys like guns and have them as toys.

It breaks my heart that Tamir had his young life stanched away from him by what appears to be an over-aggressive police officer. It makes me furious, though, that the environment surrounding this tragic event was totally and completed created by this country’s left. Liberals/democrats/progressives, you have the blood of Tamir Rice on your hands.