Have you read the Arizona “anti-gay” bill? I learned the bill was a total of two pages, so I figured I would go and read the legislation. I’m not going to copy and paste it here since it would take me 20 minutes to format it properly, so click here, read the legislation and come right back. I’ll wait.
Elizabeth Larkin, a spokeswoman for the state Democratic party was quoted in The Hartford Courant yesterday, and I’m trying to figure out what the heck she is talking about.
Sixteen pieces of legislation. All of them passed by the US House of Representatives and waiting for action in the Democrat-controlled Senate. All of them associated with economic and job growth here in the United States.
As far as I can tell, President Obama’s newest federal stimulus boondoggle job-killing bill relies exclusively on a 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires. Supporters and the CBO are telling us the surtax will pay for the $447 billion in spending in 10 years. These are the numbers you need to look at … these are the questions that should be asked.
That’s right, a North Carolina legislative panel actually had a discussion that concerned the “extra cost” to the state if a woman elected to have a baby as compared to the cost of an abortion. What do you say to this?
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution is clear concerning ex post facto laws, but that won’t stop the anti-gun left in Connecticut from making possession of high-capacity gun magazines – previously completely legal to buy and own – a felony unless you turn in the ones you own within 90 days.
When Democrats “win” and get a judge to toss out legislation or a state referendum because the judge says it is unconstitutional, everything stops. Democrats demand things immediately change and people either stop what they were doing, or they should be allowed to do what they want to do. But when a judge rules ObamaCare unconstitutional …
In Connecticut, after you serve your time in jail and complete your probation for killing a person with a knife, there is no requirement – or current suggestion by lawmakers – to require you “register” as a knife offender. Heck, there is no requirement you register with the state even if you are a convicted murderer. But if you commit your crime with a gun, you’re a different class of scumbag.
This is a great piece of legislation from our friends in South Dakota. Click here for the full article.
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”
Obviously this is not going to (or even meant to) pass. This proposed South Dakota bill emphasizes that setting a precedent of mandated purchases is dangerous! Even if you think that mandating health care is a good idea I am sure you can connect the dots with this metaphorical legislation and recognize that this notion of mandated purchases is a poor one.