Senate Introducer'S Signature: Fill & Download for Free

They do. But they fail. Because as a general rule, the states with the laxer gun laws are the states with fewer people like these billionaires, and more people - both Democrat and Republican - who are pro gun.Your best example would be the Colorado Recall Election of 2013.Post Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings, the Colorado state senate had forced through various gun controls, including a limit on magazine size (under 15 rounds). They also previously introduced a fee for a background check.Under state law, if enough signatures are collected then an election is triggered to recall a senator, which was exactly what happened to Democrat State Senate President John Morse and Democrat State Senator Angela Giron.Both sides then began raising money and campaigning in the election.The NRA raised $108 000 of the eventual $500 000 spent by the recall side.The anti-gun side, backed by billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Eli Broad, raised $ 3 000 000, of which $600 000 was contributed by Broad and BloombergThe gun control side spent more than 5 times the amount spent by the recall side - and still lost.Both senators were recalled and were replaced with more gun-friendly Republican Senators.If the Democrats become too anti-gun, they will lose enough blue states they cannot afford to lose (Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada) which all lean Democrat, but are all gun friendly.They would also lose swing states like Florida, North Carolina and Ohio, all of which are gun friendly.They would also have no hope, even for senators, in “unlikely” states like Heidi Heidtkamp in North Dakota. She goes against party lines and votes against gun control, which she has to do in order to win in these states.That, in short, is your answer. It’s been tried and it doesn’t work. And enough Democrats who live in rural states value their firearms enough that they will not vote for anti-gun candidates.Outside money shows national interest in Colorado recall electionsStunning Victory For NRA In State ElectionColorado recall becoming referendum on guns

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.The least you can do is sign the below petition.Congressman Ted Poe, the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, along with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher introduced the Pakistan State Sponsor of Terrorism Designation Act.Image source: http://www.newsx.com/sites/default/files/field/imageThis petition is tabled at the US Senate and is urging the US Government to declare pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism. This petition needed 1,00,000 signatures to be considered by October 21, 2016 to get a response from the White House. This petition has till now received 313,753 signatures and has been accepted.Still all Indians should support this cause and show your solidarity towards URI attacks. Let us show the world who has the more global advantage.Please find below what Chairman Ted Poe had to say about this.EXCERPT STARTS*Chairman Poe: “Not only is Pakistan an untrustworthy ally, Islamabad has also aided and abetted enemies of the United States for years. From harboring Osama bin Laden to its cozy relationship with the Haqqani network, there is more than enough evidence to determine whose side Pakistan is on in the War on Terror. And it’s not America’s. This bill will require the Administration to formally answer this question. The President must issue a report within 90 days of passage detailing whether or not Pakistan has provided support for international terrorism. Thirty days after that, the Secretary of State must issue a follow-up report containing either a determination that Pakistan is State Sponsor of Terrorism or a detailed justification as to why Pakistan does not meet the legal criteria for designation. It is time we stop paying Pakistan for its betrayal and designate it for what it is: a State Sponsor of Terrorism.”EXCERPTS ENDEXCERPT SOURCE: CHAIRMAN POE INTRODUCES THE PAKISTAN STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM DESIGNATION ACTBelow is the link for the petition. All Indians should give their weight behind it.We the People ask the Administration to declare Pakistan, State Sponsor of Terrorism (H.R.6069)

It is being used and has been enforced on several occasions in contemporary times.First lets look at the Second Amendment (2A):A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Simple and very easy to understand. Looking at the “prefatory phrase” or the beginning we can read “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” this does not grant anything, only qualifies a reason, not the only reason, but an important one. Now further Prefatory is: “The right of the people to keep and near arms” again nothing is granted here, the statement is referencing a right that is granted elsewhere, thus the words THE RIGHT. Now we get to the operative phrase: “Shall not be infringed”. Those 4 words are what the 2A is all about. Simple in its meaning and whom it applies to. No body, no government no Agency no one Period! shall infringe upon THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.The right in fact is granted elsewhere in the constitution, not in the 2A.The 2A was placed to make sure the US Governments in the future understood that this right is not subject to regulation. Sacrosanct as it were and was necessary to be specified in an amendment.So again yes it has been used and abused, and will continue.The anti Gun segment of the population would have to have the 2A repealed, this takes the House, Senate and the current sitting president. Once that is done, they will have to get the Senate to introduce on the floor a Bill that would achieve the regulation they would want. Of course then on to the House, and the Supreme court who will rule if it is constitutional, its not so then it would go back. Ok so now they will have to change the Constitution itself which is a bit harder as it would involve the States to weigh in. So say that does happen and the right is now modified to some degree after the entire process of changing the constitution goes through along with term limits and a whole plethora of new stuff. So now again the Senate introduces a bill to ban and confiscate all civil owned firearms except for xxx they deem ok, votes and approves. This now goes to the House who will modify or just approved depending on the Houses opinion. Say its approved then on to the supreme court for final review, boom to the presidents desk for final signature. Remember 38% population (125 million) in america are gun owners and by definition Voters(over 18, non criminals, citizens). see the odds?Slim to none I say and I think I just saw Slim leavin town…..327 Million population less 38% 125 Million Voting age, Gun owning, Gun supporters(who own 250–350 million guns, Less 24% 78 million under 18, non voting unlawful gun owners, less 8% 26 million Convicted felons non voting unlawful gun owners, Less 3% 9 million voting age, non gun owning folks who support the right but do not choose to own, equals 89 million voting age non gun owning anti gun folks who wish to limit 125 million people rights because of what 3% 9 million (active criminals) non voting, unlawful gun users/owners are doing.Not fair or just.Those are FBI CDC Pew research, and the general consensus of both sides numbers.