someone should create an anti gun policing force that gets rented by cities/states

More lies.

 

The Federal workers don't be obtuse.

He was hated by his home city and state meaning he did them wrong

 

And trump didn't hold them hostage, that would be a federal crime but I guess you don't understand the meaning of the word hostage.

Quite the opposite he has many well paid and happy people working for him, however as a Republican he could never win an election in New York the same as any major urban s-hole being run into the ground by tax and spend Democratic leadership.

 

You should realise that nit picking technicalities does not help your case for Trump being good for workers as you have made no rebuttal against what you know I am referring to. If the only way you can defend him is by being literal in wording then maybe he is not that good of a guy.

So you have heard no stories of him stiffing contractors?

 

Cooperation is a two-way street. No one individual can do it alone. The democrat party knew full well that if it did not reach a budget agreement, the federal workers would be denied pay. Yet they stubbornly refused to do anything to even address the matter until long after the damage was done. They chose to be uncooperative, despite knowing the federal workers were depending upon them.

 

You mean like falsely claiming Trump committed the crime of holding 800K people hostage, when that never happened and blaming him for a shutdown caused by Congress refusing to pay for a wall, a wall they agreed to pay for when a Democrat was in the Oval Office?

That will happen when a contractor fails to complete a job per the contract he agreed to going in, which is clear they didn't, for had they done so, they could have placed a contractors lien against the building they worked on. However that was not done because they knew in doing so they would place their state issued license in jeopardy for filing a false lien, a lien which they would be required attest to in writing was filed in good faith.

I have done work for some very high profile people and learned early on the work must be done as I agreed to it or I will not get my final draw and will end up in court and probably loose my company in the process.

I'm a state licensed electrical contractor and I can assure you the only way a contractor gets "stiffed" is if he didn't do the work properly, otherwise he always collects sooner or later, most of the time sooner because all a contractor needs to do is not call for a final inspection on the work which prevents the owner from obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy meaning the building cannot be used for any purpose and if the work involves electrical or plumbing those utilities cannot be turned on until the contractor is paid the finals signed off by the AHJ and a CO issued.

Powerful people have excellent attorneys and can tie a contractor up in knots for failing to do what was agreed to be done in writing, do the work properly and get the final draw and maybe another well paying contract, screw up and one can go out of business, that's the world of construction, either like or get out of it.

But you don't understand that because you don't understand how contracting and sub-contracting works, which I do, because I have had owners attempt to stiff me which ended up costing those owners thousands because they could not open their business on time to be able to pay off their high interest construction loans on time.

 

Except for the fact that there was a veto proof majority in both houses but Mitch was to busy sucking Trumps ween, to bring the vote to the floor. Those 2 have been the greatest threat to democracy in this countries history. Neither the dems or reps wanted to pay for that wall. His own staff didn't want to pay for it. The only reason it was an issue is due to Trump acting like a toddler. Oh also funny how he didn't ask for money in 2017 or 2018 when the republicans controlled both houses. hmmm

 

Incorrect again, the only reason Congress didn't want to pay for a wall is it would allow Trump to complete another campaign promise and neither side wants that to become a precedence, because that is something the Democrats nor the Republicans ever want to happen, as they might be expected to do the same when trying to get reelected.

 

Troglodytes?

That is a violation of established forum rules if ever there were one. The very fact it is not possible for yourself to go more than two posts without engaging in petty insults and degradation is very telling.

 

The anti gun states should put a fund together government sanctioned that matches 5 to 1 money donated to the NRA and give it to a new lobbiest called Americans Against Guns AAG to lobby for anti gun judges on the bench

 

Yet another seriously dumb idea on your part, those blue states are already struggling to make ends meet, they don't have a dime to spare for such a program, nor are they allowed to do so legally.

 

And by the way, calling it Americans Against Guns (AAG) would be false advertising, real Americans are not against guns, they support the Second, it's only a small but very noisy minority and media who programs them, who supports suppressing the Second.

 

I'm it's the blue states that are at a serplus

These Americans are pro gun ban so it's true

 

False.

Only in your mind, the reality is they are a minority in the larger picture.

 

So we want individual states to decided so it will not affect you.

 

I have no frigging clue what you are talking about and I doubt you do either.

 

They are deciding... many are rolling back restrictive gun laws, a number going Constitutional carry (more coming) and others becoming ‘shall issue’.

 

Right and why do the courts stay out of no restriction laws but then get involved in states that ban them. Especially when we are the super majority even Larry Hogan a rep is going along with MD gun restrictions

 

Reversing the gun cases and letting cities and states ban guns

 

There have been no "vailed threats", nor veiled threats. There are those on this forum demanding people like me be stripped of our Constitutional rights and liberties without due process. We will not accept such. Ever.

You want to strip me of my right to life, and I won't let that happen. If that intimidates you, that's your problem; not mine.

 

Seek to enact the correct Constitutional Amendment to make your agenda possible... and get ready for a fight.

 

Not much of a fight these days... not the count of states that would ratify a repeal of the 2a... GCAs missed their chance 30 years ago.

 

I would just fight to have this part of the 14th amendment repealed

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Section 1- The clause in the 14th amendment stating No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; is hereby repealed

Section 2- Due process shall be defined as the 5th amendment, and not be construed by the federal government to mean anything more.

Section 3- This amendment goes into effect 24 hours after ratification.

Have to do a round about way, cant shoot straight for it or it would never pass

 

Actually this would make more sense

Section 1- The privilages and immunities in the 14th amendment refers to the privilages and immunities clause of the original constitution and shall not be construed by the federal govenrment to mean anything more.

Section 2- Due process shall be defined as the 5th amendment, and not be construed by the federal government to mean anything more.

Section 3- This amendment goes into effect 24 hours after ratification.

 

If it gets bad enough, any of the sovereign states can simply exit the union. Then your constitutional text means nothing.