<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mark Levin&#8217;s &#8216;The Liberty Amendments&#8217;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 05:48:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: GMBurns</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5386782</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[GMBurns]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5386782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No, Mr.Butkowski, please read the article again, or better yet, Article V:: the convention does not have the power to &#039;approve&#039;, only &#039;propose&#039;. Whatever is proposed THEN has to be ratified by 3/4s of the states to be incorporated into the Constitution. That provides plenty of time for public review and rejection.
The Articles of Confederation were not scrapped and replaced under these rules because Article V didn&#039;t exist until it was done.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, Mr.Butkowski, please read the article again, or better yet, Article V:: the convention does not have the power to &#8216;approve&#8217;, only &#8216;propose&#8217;. Whatever is proposed THEN has to be ratified by 3/4s of the states to be incorporated into the Constitution. That provides plenty of time for public review and rejection.<br />
The Articles of Confederation were not scrapped and replaced under these rules because Article V didn&#8217;t exist until it was done.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5346149</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Don]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2014 02:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5346149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It will be a miracle if delegates will agree on one amendment, so I doubt fears of a runaway convention are grounded in reality.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It will be a miracle if delegates will agree on one amendment, so I doubt fears of a runaway convention are grounded in reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nabuquduriuzhur</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5345057</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nabuquduriuzhur]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5345057</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why would Madeline Allbright write about the loss of representative government in Czechoslovakia, when she was helping a would-be communist like W.J. Clinton?

We live in an age of hypocrisy, that much is certain. Persons playing a role, not believing in that role.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why would Madeline Allbright write about the loss of representative government in Czechoslovakia, when she was helping a would-be communist like W.J. Clinton?</p>
<p>We live in an age of hypocrisy, that much is certain. Persons playing a role, not believing in that role.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patriot077</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344338</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patriot077]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 11:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344338</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t know about your Senators and Congressional Reps, but mine don&#039;t even answer specific issues. Canned responses. They aren&#039;t going to fix DC. Neither party has enough combined who care more for the country than their own egos.
That isn&#039;t to say that we shouldn&#039;t continue to collect all the evidence and do what we can in other arenas, but the Article 5 Convention of States is the backstop provided by the framers and should be heartily endorsed by constitutionalists who will protect that process.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know about your Senators and Congressional Reps, but mine don&#8217;t even answer specific issues. Canned responses. They aren&#8217;t going to fix DC. Neither party has enough combined who care more for the country than their own egos.<br />
That isn&#8217;t to say that we shouldn&#8217;t continue to collect all the evidence and do what we can in other arenas, but the Article 5 Convention of States is the backstop provided by the framers and should be heartily endorsed by constitutionalists who will protect that process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344325</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joe]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 08:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344325</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Unfortunately, it will take a full Revolution to restore this country.  The People have no other viable recourse.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately, it will take a full Revolution to restore this country.  The People have no other viable recourse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: davidfarrar</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344297</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[davidfarrar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 06:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344297</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Article V &quot;state convention&quot; is definitely the way forward. To take the first step, voters must vote for only those Congressional candidates who support an Article V convention. Now is the time to take a stand!


ex animo
davidfarrar]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An Article V &#8220;state convention&#8221; is definitely the way forward. To take the first step, voters must vote for only those Congressional candidates who support an Article V convention. Now is the time to take a stand!</p>
<p>ex animo<br />
davidfarrar</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Liberty_Clinger</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344279</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Liberty_Clinger]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 04:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[State nullification is the overthrowing of un-Constitutional Federal laws within that particular State - it is not the overthrowing of Constitution-compliant Federal laws. Federal laws which are un-Constitutional (which probably means half of all Federal Laws, regulations and SC decisions) represent Federal nullification of the Constitution, so State nullification of Federal nullification of the Constitution represents State affirmation of the Constitution. This is not rocket science.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>State nullification is the overthrowing of un-Constitutional Federal laws within that particular State &#8211; it is not the overthrowing of Constitution-compliant Federal laws. Federal laws which are un-Constitutional (which probably means half of all Federal Laws, regulations and SC decisions) represent Federal nullification of the Constitution, so State nullification of Federal nullification of the Constitution represents State affirmation of the Constitution. This is not rocket science.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NAHALKIDES</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344258</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[NAHALKIDES]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 02:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344258</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;nullification&quot; refers to the nullification of unconstitutional acts of Congress.  It does not mean nullifying the Constitution.  It would certainly be appropriate for the 26 or more states that hate Obamacare to nullify it, but the state governors weren&#039;t ready to take that action.  It would have killed Obamacare, because Obama would have been helpless to force compliance.

I&#039;m pretty well read up on Constitutional matters, by the way, I just haven&#039;t read Levin&#039;s book - lack of time and, in the age of Obama, money.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;nullification&#8221; refers to the nullification of unconstitutional acts of Congress.  It does not mean nullifying the Constitution.  It would certainly be appropriate for the 26 or more states that hate Obamacare to nullify it, but the state governors weren&#8217;t ready to take that action.  It would have killed Obamacare, because Obama would have been helpless to force compliance.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m pretty well read up on Constitutional matters, by the way, I just haven&#8217;t read Levin&#8217;s book &#8211; lack of time and, in the age of Obama, money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FL10th</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344247</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[FL10th]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 02:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344247</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nullification has nothing to do with &quot;breaking up the Union.&quot; Mr. Levin is very quick to label supporters of this rightful remedy as &quot;neo confederates&quot; or &quot;whackos.&quot; Nullification would actually maintain union since unconstitutional federal actions are ignored or subject to non compliance. Nullification by the way is not a willy nilly &quot;we don&#039;t like this&quot; choosing of what to nullify. It is applicable to those items where the federal government has overstepped its bounds beyond what is enumerated to it. As for nullification not being accepted, it has been accepted in every state with medical marijuana and two with recreational marijuana. It has been accepted in every state (there are more than 25) that have rejected REAL ID. There are three states, VA,CA and MI that have signed non compliance with NDAA indefinite detention into law. Non compliance with ACA has been filed in SC and GA, non compliance with NSA filed in KS and AZ. A convention of states and nullification are not either or choices. They do not cancel each other out. Nullification is quicker,particular the non compliance variant. Those of us in the nullification camp are not enemies of a convention of states, nor are we neo confederates or left wing wack jobs. Nullification worked in the early 19th century against the Embargo Acts, it worked in the 1850&#039;s against the Fugitive Slave Acts and it is working today.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nullification has nothing to do with &#8220;breaking up the Union.&#8221; Mr. Levin is very quick to label supporters of this rightful remedy as &#8220;neo confederates&#8221; or &#8220;whackos.&#8221; Nullification would actually maintain union since unconstitutional federal actions are ignored or subject to non compliance. Nullification by the way is not a willy nilly &#8220;we don&#8217;t like this&#8221; choosing of what to nullify. It is applicable to those items where the federal government has overstepped its bounds beyond what is enumerated to it. As for nullification not being accepted, it has been accepted in every state with medical marijuana and two with recreational marijuana. It has been accepted in every state (there are more than 25) that have rejected REAL ID. There are three states, VA,CA and MI that have signed non compliance with NDAA indefinite detention into law. Non compliance with ACA has been filed in SC and GA, non compliance with NSA filed in KS and AZ. A convention of states and nullification are not either or choices. They do not cancel each other out. Nullification is quicker,particular the non compliance variant. Those of us in the nullification camp are not enemies of a convention of states, nor are we neo confederates or left wing wack jobs. Nullification worked in the early 19th century against the Embargo Acts, it worked in the 1850&#8242;s against the Fugitive Slave Acts and it is working today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: reader</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344244</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[reader]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 02:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344244</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Right, but, unless you&#039;re keen on breaking up the Union, why would you want to nullify the Constitution at all? The point is that the Constitution has been breached by the runaway feds, and Article V is the backstop put in there by the founders. For restoring the constitutional order, not for completely dismantling it. Again, it helps to read up something first you&#039;re keen to critique.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right, but, unless you&#8217;re keen on breaking up the Union, why would you want to nullify the Constitution at all? The point is that the Constitution has been breached by the runaway feds, and Article V is the backstop put in there by the founders. For restoring the constitutional order, not for completely dismantling it. Again, it helps to read up something first you&#8217;re keen to critique.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WackoTurds</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344243</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WackoTurds]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 02:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344243</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is NOT a Constitutional convention, it is a Convention of States to propose Amendments. I get so tired of good people on my side, those who bristled with me at Pelosi&#039;s juvenile &quot;We have to pass it so we can see what is in it,&quot; but cannot discern Levin and his suggestion at Article V provisions to changing the government. At least go on Amazon and read the inside of the book jacket before saying &quot;We don&#039;t need a Constitutional Convention.&quot;  Sheeeeeeeeesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is NOT a Constitutional convention, it is a Convention of States to propose Amendments. I get so tired of good people on my side, those who bristled with me at Pelosi&#8217;s juvenile &#8220;We have to pass it so we can see what is in it,&#8221; but cannot discern Levin and his suggestion at Article V provisions to changing the government. At least go on Amazon and read the inside of the book jacket before saying &#8220;We don&#8217;t need a Constitutional Convention.&#8221;  Sheeeeeeeeesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: reader</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344241</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[reader]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 02:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344241</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s in the book that you did not read, pal. I don&#039;t pretend to do any better in trying explaining it to you better than Levin did. I can send it to you if you can&#039;t afford to spare a few bucks.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s in the book that you did not read, pal. I don&#8217;t pretend to do any better in trying explaining it to you better than Levin did. I can send it to you if you can&#8217;t afford to spare a few bucks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WackoTurds</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344240</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WackoTurds]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 02:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344240</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ How else to stop our runaway government? The Congress? Jurists? Liar and Chief? Some supposedly solid people caved as soon as they had access to all of the candy and attention upon arrival in DC. Time to reshuffle the deck and you must understand it is NOT a Constitutional Convention. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> How else to stop our runaway government? The Congress? Jurists? Liar and Chief? Some supposedly solid people caved as soon as they had access to all of the candy and attention upon arrival in DC. Time to reshuffle the deck and you must understand it is NOT a Constitutional Convention. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Al Dunaway</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344190</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Al Dunaway]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344190</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama issues new executive actions on
background checks for gun purchases

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

By Katie Pavlich. January 3rd, 2014
Article Source

 

President Obama has released two new executive actions on background checks for gun purchases. The actions were posted on WhiteHouse.gov Friday afternoon and according to the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services, will make it easier for states to submit mental health information to the federal background check system known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS.

&quot;Today, the Administration is announcing two new executive actions that will help strengthen the federal background check system and keep guns out of the wrong hands. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is proposing a regulation to clarify who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law for reasons related to mental health, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing a proposed regulation to address barriers preventing states from submitting limited information on those persons to the federal background check system,&quot; the executive action announcement states. &quot;The Administration&#039;s two new executive actions will help ensure that better and more reliable information makes its way into the background check system. The Administration also continues to call on Congress to pass common-sense gun safety legislation and to expand funding to increase access to mental health services.&quot;

The actions:

-Some states have noted that the terminology used by federal law to prohibit people from purchasing a firearm for certain mental health reasons is ambiguous. Today, DOJ is issuing a proposed rule to make several clarifications. For example, DOJ is proposing to clarify that the statutory term &quot;committed to a mental institution&quot; includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments. In addition to providing general guidance on federal law, these clarifications will help states determine what information should be made accessible to the federal background check system, which will, in turn, strengthen the system&#039;s reliability and effectiveness.

    -Some states have also said that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act&#039;s (HIPAA) privacy provisions may be preventing them from making relevant information available to the background check system regarding individuals prohibited from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons. In April 2013, HHS began to identify the scope and extent of the problem, and based on public comments is now issuing a proposed rule to eliminate this barrier by giving certain HIPAA covered entities an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands. The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm. Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules. 

While it is important states are easily able to submit mental health information to the federal background check system, changes in HIPAA should come with extreme scrutiny and thought due to a high risk of changes in the law resulting in major privacy violations. Many doctors are already asking patients (and not just those with mental health problems) about whether or not they have a gun in their home, a fine line to walk.

In the executive action announcement, the White House also urged Congress to pass more gun control measures, some of which Democrats voted no on early last year.

-While the President and the Vice President continue to do everything they can to reduce gun violence, Congress must also act. Passing common-sense gun safety legislation – including expanding background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime – remains the most important step we can take to reduce gun violence.The vast majority of Americans support these critical measures, which would protect our children and our communities without infringing on anyone&#039;s Second Amendment rights. 

Always be wary of the phrase &quot;common-sense gun safety,&quot; especially when it comes from gun control advocates. No &quot;common-sense&quot; gun control law has ever reduced crime or mass shootings. If advocates have to tell you they aren&#039;t infringing on your Second Amendment rights, they are probably infringing on your Second Amendment rights. Further, gun trafficking is already a federal offense]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obama issues new executive actions on<br />
background checks for gun purchases</p>
<p>By Katie Pavlich. January 3rd, 2014<br />
Article Source</p>
<p>President Obama has released two new executive actions on background checks for gun purchases. The actions were posted on WhiteHouse.gov Friday afternoon and according to the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services, will make it easier for states to submit mental health information to the federal background check system known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS.</p>
<p>&#8220;Today, the Administration is announcing two new executive actions that will help strengthen the federal background check system and keep guns out of the wrong hands. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is proposing a regulation to clarify who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law for reasons related to mental health, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing a proposed regulation to address barriers preventing states from submitting limited information on those persons to the federal background check system,&#8221; the executive action announcement states. &#8220;The Administration&#8217;s two new executive actions will help ensure that better and more reliable information makes its way into the background check system. The Administration also continues to call on Congress to pass common-sense gun safety legislation and to expand funding to increase access to mental health services.&#8221;</p>
<p>The actions:</p>
<p>-Some states have noted that the terminology used by federal law to prohibit people from purchasing a firearm for certain mental health reasons is ambiguous. Today, DOJ is issuing a proposed rule to make several clarifications. For example, DOJ is proposing to clarify that the statutory term &#8220;committed to a mental institution&#8221; includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments. In addition to providing general guidance on federal law, these clarifications will help states determine what information should be made accessible to the federal background check system, which will, in turn, strengthen the system&#8217;s reliability and effectiveness.</p>
<p>    -Some states have also said that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act&#8217;s (HIPAA) privacy provisions may be preventing them from making relevant information available to the background check system regarding individuals prohibited from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons. In April 2013, HHS began to identify the scope and extent of the problem, and based on public comments is now issuing a proposed rule to eliminate this barrier by giving certain HIPAA covered entities an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands. The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm. Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules. </p>
<p>While it is important states are easily able to submit mental health information to the federal background check system, changes in HIPAA should come with extreme scrutiny and thought due to a high risk of changes in the law resulting in major privacy violations. Many doctors are already asking patients (and not just those with mental health problems) about whether or not they have a gun in their home, a fine line to walk.</p>
<p>In the executive action announcement, the White House also urged Congress to pass more gun control measures, some of which Democrats voted no on early last year.</p>
<p>-While the President and the Vice President continue to do everything they can to reduce gun violence, Congress must also act. Passing common-sense gun safety legislation – including expanding background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime – remains the most important step we can take to reduce gun violence.The vast majority of Americans support these critical measures, which would protect our children and our communities without infringing on anyone&#8217;s Second Amendment rights. </p>
<p>Always be wary of the phrase &#8220;common-sense gun safety,&#8221; especially when it comes from gun control advocates. No &#8220;common-sense&#8221; gun control law has ever reduced crime or mass shootings. If advocates have to tell you they aren&#8217;t infringing on your Second Amendment rights, they are probably infringing on your Second Amendment rights. Further, gun trafficking is already a federal offense</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Al Dunaway</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344189</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Al Dunaway]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344189</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[They understand it fine, it just doesn&#039;t fit their agenda to follow it. Much like Adolf Hitler in the 30s. Just like Obama has bypassed Congress with EOs. And any new version will be written by lawyers, doesn&#039;t that give you a warm fuzzy feeling?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They understand it fine, it just doesn&#8217;t fit their agenda to follow it. Much like Adolf Hitler in the 30s. Just like Obama has bypassed Congress with EOs. And any new version will be written by lawyers, doesn&#8217;t that give you a warm fuzzy feeling?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Al Dunaway</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344188</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Al Dunaway]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344188</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You have not answered one question I asked, and I don&#039;t figure you will. Not one of them is covered in this article. I guess you think we should let who ever Soros and Bloomberg buys change our Constitution. You also have not answered how to get these clowns to comply with a new one when they won&#039;t comply with the one we have.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You have not answered one question I asked, and I don&#8217;t figure you will. Not one of them is covered in this article. I guess you think we should let who ever Soros and Bloomberg buys change our Constitution. You also have not answered how to get these clowns to comply with a new one when they won&#8217;t comply with the one we have.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NAHALKIDES</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344145</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[NAHALKIDES]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 21:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344145</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Our nation&#039;s history shows that the Constitution does in fact need amending, using language so clear that even Supreme Court Justices can understand it.  For example, we have four justices who don&#039;t understand the language of the second Amendment; why not change the language so that even they can&#039;t deny an individual right to bear arms:  &quot;Neither the United States or any State shall infringe upon the private citizen&#039;s right to own arms and to use them for his defense, including but not limited to the type of rifles and pistols used by the Armed Forces of the United States, nor shall any criminal background checks be required, nor special identification cards required, nor shall the capacity of ammunition magazines be limited, nor shall any record or registration be kept of gun ownership.&quot;

Also, we need to have some way to remove Supreme Court Justices who refuse to obey the Constitution - I would suggest that upon being impeached by the House, the people themselves decide the issue in the next election.  This is how we make them follow the new version.  And if they still won&#039;t obey, it&#039;s time for organized resistance leading to the removal from office, by force if necessary, of the offending politicians.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Our nation&#8217;s history shows that the Constitution does in fact need amending, using language so clear that even Supreme Court Justices can understand it.  For example, we have four justices who don&#8217;t understand the language of the second Amendment; why not change the language so that even they can&#8217;t deny an individual right to bear arms:  &#8220;Neither the United States or any State shall infringe upon the private citizen&#8217;s right to own arms and to use them for his defense, including but not limited to the type of rifles and pistols used by the Armed Forces of the United States, nor shall any criminal background checks be required, nor special identification cards required, nor shall the capacity of ammunition magazines be limited, nor shall any record or registration be kept of gun ownership.&#8221;</p>
<p>Also, we need to have some way to remove Supreme Court Justices who refuse to obey the Constitution &#8211; I would suggest that upon being impeached by the House, the people themselves decide the issue in the next election.  This is how we make them follow the new version.  And if they still won&#8217;t obey, it&#8217;s time for organized resistance leading to the removal from office, by force if necessary, of the offending politicians.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NAHALKIDES</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344140</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[NAHALKIDES]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 21:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nullification certainly could work, but it wouldn&#039;t be accepted at the present time.  I haven&#039;t read Levin&#039;s book, but I would suggest that since 3/4 of the states are required to amend the Constitution, 1/4 of the states plus 1 should logically be able to nullify any Congressional act as unconstitutional.  That would be an additional, much-needed check on Congress until we can figure out how to fix the Federal judiciary, which all too often acquiesces to each new power-grab by Congress.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nullification certainly could work, but it wouldn&#8217;t be accepted at the present time.  I haven&#8217;t read Levin&#8217;s book, but I would suggest that since 3/4 of the states are required to amend the Constitution, 1/4 of the states plus 1 should logically be able to nullify any Congressional act as unconstitutional.  That would be an additional, much-needed check on Congress until we can figure out how to fix the Federal judiciary, which all too often acquiesces to each new power-grab by Congress.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jack Moran</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344112</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jack Moran]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 20:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344112</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You get it Pat.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You get it Pat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: reader</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/spyridon-mitsotakis/mark-levins-the-liberty-amendments/comment-page-1/#comment-5344109</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[reader]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 20:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214703#comment-5344109</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t think you did, cause all of this runaway nonsense has been addressed right in there. Just turning pages without understanding the content does not count as reading up on it, you know.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think you did, cause all of this runaway nonsense has been addressed right in there. Just turning pages without understanding the content does not count as reading up on it, you know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 708/744 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 00:51:28 by W3 Total Cache -->