Jump to content

Frick'in Liberals/Democrats


Recommended Posts

view the web version of this email
NRA-ILA: Institute for Legislative Action

 

Wisconsin: Governor Evers Starts Session with Gun Control Push

wisconsin-flag.jpg?width=600&quality=70&

With the 2019 Wisconsin Legislative Session convened, Governor Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul are already working with legislators to pass sweeping gun control.  Among them is likely to be a bill that would allow Second Amendment rights to be stripped away without due process.  Please contact your legislators and remind them to OPPOSE any gun control schemes backed by Gov. Evers and Attorney General Kaul, especially legislation that would violate fundamental due process rights.  Click the “Take Action” button below to contact your legislators.  

click-here-take-action.gif

Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates on legislation and issues affecting our Second Amendment rights in Wisconsin.

 

NRA-ILA: Institute for Legislative Action
FOLLOW NRA-ILA
Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram
© 2018 National Rifle Association of America, Institute For Legislative Action. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683. Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030.
Please do not reply to this email.
Unsubscribe from this email list | Manage your email preferences
Thank you!
1.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think this is a "librul" thing?  Bruce Rauner was a republican and signed off and same stuff on IL this past year.  Other states have the same thing.  If somebody poses an immediate threat and there's enough evidence for a judge to sign off, it makes sense to temporarily take their gun away.  Hell, Trump said "maybe we take the guns away first."  Is Trump a librul now? 

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/02/28/trump-says-take-guns-early-without-due-process.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, XC.Morrison said:

Why do you think this is a "librul" thing?  Bruce Rauner was a republican and signed off and same stuff on IL this past year.  Other states have the same thing.  If somebody poses an immediate threat and there's enough evidence for a judge to sign off, it makes sense to temporarily take their gun away.  Hell, Trump said "maybe we take the guns away first."  Is Trump a librul now? 

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/02/28/trump-says-take-guns-early-without-due-process.html

Trump was a liberal for 50 yrs a lot of his shit is still  liberal crap 

bad to start taking shit before proven guilty .

what is your stance on the Fed grabbing all your assets before you are even charged ? 

yeah that is what I thought 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

Trump was a liberal for 50 yrs a lot of his shit is still  liberal crap 

bad to start taking shit before proven guilty .

what is your stance on the Fed grabbing all your assets before you are even charged ? 

yeah that is what I thought 

You support siezing land from private citizens through “eminent domain” to build the wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
10 hours ago, Ez ryder said:

there is a fucking easement of all borders think it was posted 50ish feet 

to search

The Roosevelt Reservation is a 60-foot (18 m) strip of land on the United States side of the United States-Mexico Border under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Government. It was established in a 1907 Presidential Proclamation (35 Stat. 2136) by Theodore Roosevelt in order to keep the land "free from obstruction as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United States and Mexico"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, steve from amherst said:

to search

The Roosevelt Reservation is a 60-foot (18 m) strip of land on the United States side of the United States-Mexico Border under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Government. It was established in a 1907 Presidential Proclamation (35 Stat. 2136) by Theodore Roosevelt in order to keep the land "free from obstruction as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United States and Mexico"

That settles that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, XC.Morrison said:

You support siezing land from private citizens through “eminent domain” to build the wall.

 

9 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

to search

The Roosevelt Reservation is a 60-foot (18 m) strip of land on the United States side of the United States-Mexico Border under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Government. It was established in a 1907 Presidential Proclamation (35 Stat. 2136) by Theodore Roosevelt in order to keep the land "free from obstruction as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United States and Mexico"

57fe59fd56c5ace4a3c621ffc9e5b532.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

to search

The Roosevelt Reservation is a 60-foot (18 m) strip of land on the United States side of the United States-Mexico Border under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Government. It was established in a 1907 Presidential Proclamation (35 Stat. 2136) by Theodore Roosevelt in order to keep the land "free from obstruction as a protection against the smuggling of goods between the United States and Mexico"

How does that mean that no land would be seized?  Why are they paying money for land you say they already own, albeit screwing people over in the process?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Cop Watch said:

 

57fe59fd56c5ace4a3c621ffc9e5b532.jpg

“Texas is perhaps the most daunting obstacle for the Trump administration thanks to President Theodore Roosevelt, who signed the "Reservation" in 1907. The reservation designated a public reservation of all public lands within 60 feet of the U.S.-Mexico border in California, New Mexico and Arizona. Texas, however, retained title to all its public lands within the state. Fast forward over a century later, and the state has sold off most of the land to ranchers, farmers, developers and homeowners along the Texas-Mexico border.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/347912-forget-funding-the-wall-trump-needs-the-land-first%3Famp

Edited by XC.Morrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
11 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said:

How does that mean that no land would be seized?  Why are they paying money for land you say they already own, albeit screwing people over in the process?

 

That's quite the story. Except when one looks at google maps OK ave is about 10 blocks north of the border and there is no fence there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, steve from amherst said:

That's quite the story. Except when one looks at google maps OK ave is about 10 blocks north of the border and there is no fence there.

Librulz don’t know why easements are.  LOL!  They all build their homes 2 feet from their street.

Cuts down on snow removal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steve from amherst said:

That's quite the story. Except when one looks at google maps OK ave is about 10 blocks north of the border and there is no fence there.

It's amazing that two people can look at a map and see something different.  Here is what I am seeing.  As you can see, the border is essentially the squiggly line known as the Rio Grande river, right?  Well, you can't build a fence in a river, plus it would have to be a much longer fence if you built it to hug the shore vs. going in a straight line, yes?  So to save cost, they built the fence in a straight line.  The maps below show the border fence just to the east of Oklahoma Ave, not "10 blocks north with no border fence" as you claim.

 

 

brownsville_fence.jpg

Brownsville_map.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

Why didn't they just put gaiters in the river?

I’m just not sure how they would stop crossings - seems like they could even aid crossers.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gaiter&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS592US592&hl=en-US&prmd=sinv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiW4uDrkfDfAhVhjoMKHRjtBXEQ_AUoAnoECA0QAg&biw=320&bih=452

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said:

FFS, they pay for the land.....say it to yourself.  Just like when they build highways and railroads.  Did you know this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, XC.Morrison said:

How does that mean that no land would be seized?  Why are they paying money for land you say they already own, albeit screwing people over in the process?

 

a easement is just that.   just like the one in your front yard . if they are paying it is prob for more land for a new easement I am not sure .

but buying  property in certain locals can be risky and buying price usually reflects that risk .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...