Home Invites Members Groups Events Careers Videos News Photos Blogs Polls Singles Forums Chat
Home > Blogs > Post Content

Texas Loosening Gun Laws Weeks After Mass Shooting (704 hits)

Texas Loosening Gun Laws Weeks After Mass Shooting | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

Posted By: Deacon Ron Gray
Friday, August 30th 2019 at 10:45PM
You can also click here to view all posts by this author...

Report obscenity | post comment
Share |
Please Login To Post Comments...
Email:
Password:

 
Texas is changing its gun laws just weeks after the deadly mass shooting in El Paso, but it’s how the laws are changing that’s raising eyebrows. Ali Velshi and Giffords Senior Policy Advisor David Chipman break down what we know about the new laws.


Friday, August 30th 2019 at 10:46PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Texas changed the law months BEFORE the El Paso shooting. They were changed in response to the Santa Fe, TX and Sutherland Springs, TX mass shootings in 2017 and 2018.

Friday, August 30th 2019 at 10:55PM
Steve Williams
If that is true then, Texas lawmakers have learned nothiing. Steve, these new Gun Laws go into effect on Sept 1, pay attention to the report.



Friday, August 30th 2019 at 11:24PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Right, that's when they go into effect. We also learned that the Texas legislature meets only every other year.


Friday, August 30th 2019 at 11:46PM
Steve Williams
All of this happen just weeks after the shooting massacre in El Paso Texas Gun laws changed there according to this report. So, I don't know where you got your information from but lets refer to the info in this report. These gun will take effect Set 1 it's will be easier to carry and store guns in Texas.

Now check this out, During a national disasters, Texans will be permittted to carry a concealed weapon without a license for a week after a state of a natural disasted is declared or if a person is evacuting from or returing to a disaster. INTERESTING.


Saturday, August 31st 2019 at 9:16AM
Deacon Ron Gray
What's the point of bringing up El Paso Ron? These laws have nothing to do with El Paso.

Saturday, August 31st 2019 at 11:25AM
Steve Williams
Let me ask you this question: Is El Paso in Texas?


Saturday, August 31st 2019 at 12:07PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Yeah, so what?

Saturday, August 31st 2019 at 5:11PM
Steve Williams
Now you can carry your gun to church in Texas.


Saturday, August 31st 2019 at 5:39PM
Deacon Ron Gray
I can't believe what is happening in Texas as Breaking News right now as we speak. The Police is reporting multiple people shot in Texas and they believe there are at least TWO shooters.

These Gun heathen in Odessa, Texas have now Hy-jacked a U.S. Mail Truck, can you believe this BULL💩. All this is madness is happening on the eve of Texas relaxing their Gun Laws. WOW!!!!


Saturday, August 31st 2019 at 6:03PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Now the Odessa Police are now reporting 10 people are injured by GUN shots and 1 dead.




Saturday, August 31st 2019 at 6:18PM
Deacon Ron Gray
A update from three law enforcement officers say at least one dead and 20 people injured in west Texas. One local Law enforcement office was shot. Good news, Police comfirms that ONE of those Heathens is now DEAD in Odessa.

Steve, these mass shootings must stop.


Saturday, August 31st 2019 at 6:41PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Now we have at least 5 dead, 21 injured in Texas shootings. The Good News about this Heathen, the suspect is dead. This is a report is from Odessa's Police Department.


Saturday, August 31st 2019 at 7:10PM
Deacon Ron Gray
No comments on this subject of a white male in his 30's, I see.

Saturday, August 31st 2019 at 9:19PM
Deacon Ron Gray
It seems this guy was some kind of criminal. The shooting started with a traffic stop.

Saturday, August 31st 2019 at 9:22PM
Steve Williams
That is right Steve. This is more reason why Texas is heading in the wrong direction with easing there GUN CONTROL LAWS in there state. All the people who think Gun lobbiest and the goverment of Texas is heading in the right direction, now have more innocent American blood on there hands and that is a FACT.


Saturday, August 31st 2019 at 10:13PM
Deacon Ron Gray
If people carry guns they have a chance to fight back, like in Sutherland Springs. You don't live in Texas Ron and it's none of your business.


Sunday, September 1st 2019 at 9:32AM
Steve Williams
Look at El paso Steve, the police was on the scene in less then a minute after that heathen opened up his military style weapon and people was killed. If we are to play out your foolish logic, then arm the mexicans so they can fight back as well, OK!

So Steve, you don't care if you have more innocent American blood on your hands from these Heathens set on killing Black and Brown people, here in the U.S. because of some twisted ideology?

OH!!! By the way Steve, when I served my country, The United States of America, I made it my business to serve all 50 States including Texas, so don't you ever tell me what is or what is not my business aagain, do you understand that?

Sunday, September 1st 2019 at 4:15PM
Deacon Ron Gray
The same thing could have been done in El Paso with a handgun Ron. Oh, and who did you vote for in Texas?

Sunday, September 1st 2019 at 4:20PM
Steve Williams
And Seth Ator, shooting and driving at the same time, probably used an AR pistol.

Sunday, September 1st 2019 at 4:24PM
Steve Williams
YOUR WORDS: The same thing could have been done in El Paso with a handgun Ron.

Stop your BULL💩 Steve, the weapon used in El Paso to kill 22 people with the police present with in less then a minute was Semi-automatic Kalashnikov-style rifle which was acquired legally and not some hand weapon.

Now in Dayton Ohio, That heathen had opened fire with this AR-style pistol Military Style weapon, Modified to act as a rifle with a Drum magazine that can hold up to 100 rounds that killed Nine people were killed within 30 seconds, now what can a hand pistol do in that case? Now this weapon was also acquired legally.

We must make laws to make these kind of weapons Illegal and much harder for these sick heathens to get, I 'am sure you can agree with that, Steve?

Sunday, September 1st 2019 at 5:49PM
Deacon Ron Gray
What do you mean Ron, you want a ban on the AR-15? A Glock with 15 round magazines can kill as many people in as little time.

Monday, September 2nd 2019 at 1:09AM
Steve Williams
What don't you understand about making laws to make these kind of weapons Illegal and much harder for these sick heathens to get, I 'am sure you can agree with that, Steve?
AR-style pistol Military Style weapon, Modified to act as a rifle with a Drum magazine that can hold up to 100 rounds is a weapon of mass destruction and the choice weapon for these sick heathen thugs to use.


Monday, September 2nd 2019 at 9:41AM
Deacon Ron Gray
You need to think about the "justice" system. Criminals aren't punished. We need bring back the death penalty. We need these perpetrators to be punished swiftly and harshly.

Monday, September 2nd 2019 at 10:25AM
Steve Williams
Seth Ator is dead and that's just as it should be.

Monday, September 2nd 2019 at 10:27AM
Steve Williams
The "justice" system is a after thought Steve, thorough comprehensive background checks is needed before these Heathen Thugs can buy those weapons.legally.


Monday, September 2nd 2019 at 11:18AM
Deacon Ron Gray
You can't stop gun violence through background checks Ron. It's lax punishment that exacerbates gun murders. Artison Manalastas murdered my son Andrew over 2 years ago and he has yet to be brought to trial. This heathen as you call him committed his first crime, armed robbery, with a gun. Soon, he was on the streets again and sent to the federal slammer this time for illegal possession of a firearm by a felon. Soon he was ON THE STREETS AGAIN!! and murdered my son with a point blank shot to the face. The .40 caliber slug entered just under my son's nose and took off the back of his head when it exited. He was a big Oakland A's fan so we covered his head with an A's cap for his funeral. We won't see the photos from the autopsy until the trial. They wouldn't let us see him in the morgue. Hopefully I'll live long enough to see the trial, this is California after all, home of all those effective gun laws. Tell me again what you would do to prevent THIS from happening again????

Monday, September 2nd 2019 at 11:41AM
Steve Williams
I' am very sorry for your loss but this subject is not about those heathens committing one murder. This blog this about mass murders committed with military style weapons bought legally by sick as* heathen thugs and what we can do to prevent them from getting them.

Now comprehensive background checks is just one step in keeping those weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of those sick as* heathens hands. Are you against taking that first step Steve?




Monday, September 2nd 2019 at 3:20PM
Deacon Ron Gray
We already talked about that Ron. I haven't changed my mind.

Monday, September 2nd 2019 at 3:36PM
Steve Williams
I'm a much stronger advocate of the death penalty. Kill all those motherF ucking Heathens.

Monday, September 2nd 2019 at 3:42PM
Steve Williams
You still talking after the FACTS, let talk about prevention Steve.

Monday, September 2nd 2019 at 3:57PM
Deacon Ron Gray
If those heathens knew they'd be swiftly executed they'd be deterred for sure Ron. I'd be happy to string them up myself.

Monday, September 2nd 2019 at 4:12PM
Steve Williams
WATCH: Officials say Texas gunman was fired from his job, called 911 before shooting

Nation Sep 2, 2019 3:57 PM EDT
ODESSA, Texas (AP) — The gunman in a spate of violence after a routine traffic stop in West Texas had just been fired from his job and called both police and the FBI before the shooting began, authorities said Monday.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-officials-say-texas-gunman-was-fired-from-his-job-called-911-before-shooting

Tuesday, September 3rd 2019 at 4:38PM
Steve Williams
'We were afraid of him': Neighbor of Texas gunman describes his strange behavior
by Zachary Halaschak
| September 03, 2019 10:45 AM

The gunman lived in a metal shack on a dirt road surrounded by trailers and mobile homes. One of Ator’s neighbors, Rocio Gutierrez, described Ator as a “violent, aggressive person.” Gutierrez said he would fire off guns at all hours of the night, shooting at rabbits.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/we-were-afraid-of-him-neighbor-of-texas-gunman-describes-his-strange-behavior

Tuesday, September 3rd 2019 at 4:51PM
Steve Williams
If you see something, say something. The Odessa Police screwed up too, and all the Chief could do was make some sorry ass excuse.

Tuesday, September 3rd 2019 at 4:55PM
Steve Williams
They are alreadt DEAD, that is what a HEATHEN is.

Tuesday, September 3rd 2019 at 6:11PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Do you any ideas why it's so quiet in Odessa Ron, in comparison with El Paso and especially Dayton?

Tuesday, September 3rd 2019 at 6:16PM
Steve Williams
Hey Ron, any ideas on a Constitutional basis for universal background checks?

Friday, September 6th 2019 at 10:54AM
Steve Williams
1. What is more Constitutional then Expanding background checks, which remains popular with the U.S. people, with about 90 percent, including eight in ten Republicans, in support. Remember Steve The Constitution is for and made by the people of The United States of America.

2. As you already know well that ordinary murderers, who take far more American lives, then foreign terrorists — from acquiring and using high-powered weapons and this war on Americacns must STOP.

3. I want to keep and strengthen this law enacted in 1968, the federal Gun Control Act prohibits the transfer of handguns to, among others, convicted felons and anyone under 21.


Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 10:13AM
Deacon Ron Gray
You didn't answer the question Ron. Here's my idea for a Constitutional basis for both universal background checks AND semi-auto rifle regulation.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 15
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 16
SECOND AMENDMENT

Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 11:03AM
Steve Williams
Meaning to say what Steve?


Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 11:32AM
Deacon Ron Gray
Ron, the referenced Article 1 clauses give Congress certain powers related to the militia, and the Second Amendment makes clear the militia depends on the armed citizenry.

Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 11:52AM
Steve Williams
1. What is more Constitutional then Expanding background checks, which remains popular with the U.S. people, with about 90 percent, including eight in ten Republicans, in support? Remember Steve The Constitution is for and made by the people of The United States of America.


Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 12:58PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Ron, any legislation brought before the House needs to cite the specific sections(s) of the Constitution that provide(s) the basis for the legislation. My citations pass muster, yours does not.

Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 2:44PM
Steve Williams
I talking about Chairman Thompson Personally Appeals to the President for a Vote on Bipartisan Gun Violence Prevention Legislation, H.R.8 - Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, now what are you talking about Steve?


Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 3:03PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Ron, that is the very problem with H.R. 8. It cites Article 1 which is just plain IDIOTIC. That's why H.R. 8 is dead, dead, dead. DEAD AS A DOORNAIL.

From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. THOMPSON of California:
H.R. 8.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Article I
[Page H284]

Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 3:20PM
Steve Williams
Let Moscow Mitch bring that bill to the floor of the Senate and let the law markers have a vote up or down on that bill.


Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 3:24PM
Deacon Ron Gray
That will never happen. The Senate, if anything, will base their bill on Manchin-Toomey. Any bill will take compromise and that means YOU have to give US something. That has a chance of being the case if it's based on the militia.

Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 5:28PM
Steve Williams
Based on the militia you say, "WHAT MILITIA, STEVE?"




Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 6:28PM
Deacon Ron Gray
The Militia is the armed citizenry Ron. That fact is established by the Second Amendment. The two Article 1 clauses give to Congress certain powers over the Militia.

Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 8:00PM
Steve Williams
Based on the militia you say, "WHAT MILITIA, STEVE?" Do we have a MILITIA in this country today? If so, point it out to us, can you do that in your next reply?


Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 8:23PM
Deacon Ron Gray
If you would acknowledge the militia then you would have a reason to keep AR-15s out of the hands of the wrong people. Think about it Ron.

Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 8:41PM
Steve Williams
I asked you to point out a MILITIA and I see that you can’t even do that, WOW!!!


Saturday, September 7th 2019 at 11:22PM
Deacon Ron Gray
I'm one of the militia Ron.

Sunday, September 8th 2019 at 12:50AM
Steve Williams
YOUR WORDS: I'm one of the militia Ron.

You don't fit the definition of a militia, you are looking like and sounding like that Heathen with the bomb making material in his house.

According to Wikipedia

Militia: A militia is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of a warrior nobility class. Generally unable to hold ground against regular forces, it is common for militias to be used for aiding regular troops by skirmishing, holding fortifications, or irregular warfare, instead of being used in offensive campaigns by themselves. Militia are often limited by local civilian laws to serve only in their home region, and to serve only for a limited time; this further reduces their use in long military campaigns.

Your ass could not come to the aid of your country when it needed you for service and now, with your old ass is now talking this BULL💩 I'm one of the militia Ron. WOW!!!


Sunday, September 8th 2019 at 10:52AM
Deacon Ron Gray
That's what the Second Amendment says Ron, the militia = armed citizens. I'm a citizen and I'm armed with as close as I can get to a military rifle.

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.

It's that simple Ron.

Sunday, September 8th 2019 at 1:55PM
Steve Williams
Now all you need to do is recognize that simple fact and make use of the militia powers granted to Congress by Clauses 15 and 16 of Article 1.

Sunday, September 8th 2019 at 2:00PM
Steve Williams
So you are saying The definition of a militia According to Wikipedia

“Militia: A militia is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of a warrior nobility class. Generally unable to hold ground against regular forces, it is common for militias to be used for aiding regular troops by skirmishing, holding fortifications, or irregular warfare, instead of being used in offensive campaigns by themselves. Militia are often limited by local civilian laws to serve only in their home region, and to serve only for a limited time; this further reduces their use in long military campaigns.” Is not accurate?


Sunday, September 8th 2019 at 5:34PM
Deacon Ron Gray
I'm not using the Wikipedia definition. I'm referring to the intent of our founding laws Ron.

Sunday, September 8th 2019 at 10:03PM
Steve Williams
Clauses 15 and 16. The Militia Clause 15

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

This is the act of February 28, 1795, before The U.S. made the greatest and most powerful Army in the world. What congressman or woman, what govener will call on a now de-funked Militia, when they have in their power to call for back up, The State run National Guard Steve?


Monday, September 9th 2019 at 9:08AM
Deacon Ron Gray
The militia, long a staple of republican thought, loomed large in the deliberations of the Framers, many of whom were troubled by the prospect of a standing army in times of peace. For the Founders, a militia, composed of a "people numerous and armed," was the ultimate guardian of liberty. It was a means to enable citizens not only to protect themselves against their fellows but also, particularly for the Anti-Federalists, to protect themselves from an oppressive government. "The militia is our ultimate safety," said Patrick Henry during the Virginia ratifying convention. "We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed....Every one who is able may have a gun." Both the Pennsylvania and Vermont constitutions asserted that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state...."

The Anti-Federalists feared that Congress would permit the militia to atrophy, leaving the states defenseless against the central government. In the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason, while advocating a stronger central control over the militia, nevertheless argued that there was a danger that Congress could render the militia useless "by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them &c." The desire to prevent enfeebling state militias, which provided a check to a standing army, prompted the ratifying conventions to call for an amendment guaranteeing the right of citizens to bear arms. The First Congress responded, but the Second Amendment did not remove national control over armed forces or the state militias.

Federal preemption of state-militia legislation commenced very early in the history of the Republic. In Houston v. Moore (1820), the Supreme Court stated that the federal government's power over the militia "may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress."

Despite the generally poor performance of the militia during the Revolution, Federalists recognized that without a militia, there would be no United States military establishment. They believed, however, that they could minimize the weaknesses of the militia by creating a select militia corps in each state and establishing federal control over officership and training. The ultimate Federalist goal was to turn the militia into a national reserve of uniform, interchangeable units. In 1792, Congress passed the Uniform Militia Act, which remained the basic militia law of the United States until the twentieth century. This act established an "obligated" militia, based on universal military service. All able-bodied white men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five were required to enroll. But the act fell far short of Federalist goals. It did not create select state corps and, most importantly, did not impose penalties on the states or individuals for noncompliance. For the most part, the states ignored the provisions of the act. The abysmal performance of the militia during the War of 1812 ensured the demise of the obligated reserve as established by the Founding generation.

The obligated militia was succeeded by the "uniformed" militia, local volunteer units generally equipped and supported by their own members. In addition, the states continued to provide volunteer citizen-soldiers when the regular U.S. Army had to be expanded, as was the case during the Mexican War and the Civil War. After the Civil War, the uniformed militia reemerged as the National Guard, but, unhappy with their largely domestic constabulary role, guardsmen lobbied for the mission of a national reserve. In the Militia Act of 1903 (the **** Act), amended and expanded in 1908, Congress divided the eligible male population into an "organized militia" (the National Guard of the several states) and a "reserve," or "unorganized," militia.

In response to an opinion by the Attorney General that the Militia Clause and the **** Act precluded the employment of guardsmen outside of United States borders, Congress included in the National Security Act of 1916 (amended in 1920 and 1933) provisions that explicitly "federalized" the National Guard. This act, as amended, has continued to govern federal-state military relations. By giving the United States Army extensive control of National Guard officers and units, and by making state forces available for duty overseas, the National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers. It effectively repealed the power of the states to appoint officers by limiting such appointments to those who "shall have successfully passed such tests as to...physical, moral and professional fitness as the President shall prescribe." The law stated that the army of the United States now included both the regular army and "the National Guard while in the service of the United States." In Cox v. Wood (1918), the Supreme Court validated the action of Congress, holding that the plenary power to raise armies was "not qualified or restricted by the provisions of the Militia Clause."

The World War I draft completely preempted state sovereignty regarding the militia by drafting individual guardsmen directly into the United States Army. In The Selective Draft Law Cases (1918), the Court held that the states held sway over the militia only "to the extent that such actual control was not taken away by the exercise by Congress of its power to raise armies."

The transition of the National Guard into a national reserve reached its completion during the Cold War. Despite the existence of a large regular army, Guard units were included in most war plans. But with federal funding, which covered about ninety-five percent of the costs, came federal control. While governors continued to call up the Guard to quell domestic disturbances and to aid in disaster relief, they discovered that their control was trumped by federal demands. For instance, in protest against United States actions in Central America during the 1980s, several governors attempted to prevent units from their states from deploying to Honduras and El Salvador for training. In response, Congress passed a law "prohibiting a governor from withholding consent to a unit of the National Guard's being ordered to active duty outside the United States on the ground that the governor objects to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of that duty." In such cases as Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990), the Court supported Congress's position.

With the end of the Cold War, the National Guard's role as a national reserve was called into question. As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, some observers believed that the Guard could return to a domestic constabulary role. On the other hand, extensive military commitments abroad have required the Guard to remain an active element in the United States armed forces.

Monday, September 9th 2019 at 9:22AM
Steve Williams
Thanks for the history Steve. I like the highlight this sentence: "This act, as amended, has continued to govern federal-state military relations. By giving the United States Army extensive control of National Guard officers and units, and by making state forces available for duty overseas, the National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers."

Do you understand what this sentence means Steve?





Monday, September 9th 2019 at 10:03AM
Deacon Ron Gray
I don't know that that sentence is true Ron. Does the unorganized militia still exist? And a separate question, does Congress still have the Constitutional power to arm the militia?

Monday, September 9th 2019 at 10:45AM
Steve Williams
Steve, that line is directly from your history that you just posted. Now keep in mind, that it was you, who presented this as your proof. Now you want to play stupid, all of a sudden, now back to my question:

"This act, as amended, has continued to govern federal-state military relations. By giving the United States Army extensive control of National Guard officers and units, and by making state forces available for duty overseas, the National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers."

Do you understand what this sentence means Steve?


Monday, September 9th 2019 at 3:22PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Ron, I didn't post that short history to prove anything, I posted it for the sake of conversation. Where it says, "In the Militia Act of 1903 (the **** Act), amended and expanded in 1908, Congress divided the eligible male population into an "organized militia" (the National Guard of the several states) and a "reserve," or "unorganized," militia.", my question is, does the unorganized militia still exist?

Monday, September 9th 2019 at 4:40PM
Steve Williams
It seems to be current law.

10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

Monday, September 9th 2019 at 4:56PM
Steve Williams
The conversation is this Steve: "This act, as amended, has continued to govern federal-state military relations. By giving the United States Army extensive control of National Guard officers and units, and by making state forces available for duty overseas, the National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers."

Do you understand what this sentence means Steve?

Monday, September 9th 2019 at 5:39PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Ron, that sentence doesn't help me to find out what I want to know. If the founders' intention for the militia has not been too terribly mucked up, it may provide the means to regulate what you carelessly call, "assault weapons". Here's another article that explains the modern mucked up militia a little better

https://constitutionalmilitia.org/oxymoronic-unorganized-militia/

Monday, September 9th 2019 at 6:44PM
Steve Williams
“[T]he Militia of the several States” are the constitutional institutions which, properly organized, would secure WE THE PEOPLE’S “right to keep and bear Arms” and maximize its political significance and practical efficacy. Yet next to no Americans know anything about them today. The reason for this Justice Story pinpointed long ago:

“[T]hough * * * the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised that, among the American people, there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by th[e Second Amendment] of our national bill of rights.” (footnote 4).

Story wrote in the mid-1800s. Unfortunately, his insight into the “growing indifference” among Americans has proven all to prophetic. For what he recorded only in its beginnings has come to pass in full in modern times: both with respect to the Second Amendment—as evidenced by the plethora of plainly unconstitutional “gun control” statutes on the books at the National, State, and Local levels; and also, to an even greater degree, with respect to the Militia Clauses of the Constitution (footnote 5)—as evidenced by the way the General Government and the States have cordoned off as impotent and useless in the so-called “unorganized militia” a huge portion of the population, with next to no complaints from anyone.

Monday, September 9th 2019 at 6:54PM
Steve Williams
Before you run off looking for other 💩 to divert this conversation too, instead of answering my simple question: This act, as amended, has continued to govern federal-state military relations. By giving the United States Army extensive control of National Guard officers and units, and by making state forces available for duty overseas, the National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers."

Do you understand what this sentence means Steve?
Monday, September 9th 2019 at 7:22PM
Deacon Ron Gray
I do not believe that any law has "essentially stripped" the Constitution of its provisions regarding the militia and the guarantee of an armed citizenry. But I do believe that small thinkers like you Ron, have ****ed up so severely the concept of a militia that you have screwed yourselves out of a chance to "regulate" (as in "a well regulated militia"), rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47.

Tuesday, September 10th 2019 at 6:38AM
Steve Williams
This paragraph is proof that you gave as history of the militia and you see this line in that paragraph:

"This act, as amended, has continued to govern federal-state military relations. By giving the United States Army extensive control of National Guard officers and units, and by making state forces available for duty overseas, the National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers."

In response to an opinion by the Attorney General that the Militia Clause and the **** Act precluded the employment of guardsmen outside of United States borders, Congress included in the National Security Act of 1916 (amended in 1920 and 1933) provisions that explicitly "federalized" the National Guard. This act, as amended, has continued to govern federal-state military relations. By giving the United States Army extensive control of National Guard officers and units, and by making state forces available for duty overseas, the National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers. It effectively repealed the power of the states to appoint officers by limiting such appointments to those who "shall have successfully passed such tests as to...physical, moral and professional fitness as the President shall prescribe." The law stated that the army of the United States now included both the regular army and "the National Guard while in the service of the United States." In Cox v. Wood (1918), the Supreme Court validated the action of Congress, holding that the plenary power to raise armies was "not qualified or restricted by the provisions of the Militia Clause."

Monday, September 9th 2019 at 9:22AM
Steve Williams | delete | block member

Do you believe what you wrote?




Tuesday, September 10th 2019 at 9:07AM
Deacon Ron Gray
Sorry for the confusion Ron, I see that I neglected to give a link for that article, that I posted to see if it would facilitate a discussion of effective and appropriate gun control. I see that I was mistaken but here is the link for the record.

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/56/organizing-the-militia

Tuesday, September 10th 2019 at 9:20AM
Steve Williams
The AR-15 and The AK-47 are military stlye weapons with high capacity magazine, have no business on the streets in a democracy and this is what the people are saying at a tune of 85%. Why do you want the people's voice to be heard?



Tuesday, September 10th 2019 at 9:29AM
Deacon Ron Gray
The AR-15 is America's rifle. It's an absolute necessity for us modern militiamen Ron. The polls you cite are rubbish. That's why you can't get even a simple law like background checks passed.

Tuesday, September 10th 2019 at 2:40PM
Steve Williams
Plus, as you proved in the case of the militia, you have no capacity for compromise.

Tuesday, September 10th 2019 at 2:42PM
Steve Williams
This act, as amended, has continued to govern federal-state military relations. By giving the United States Army extensive control of National Guard officers and units, and by making state forces available for duty overseas, the National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers."

Do you understand what this sentence means Steve?

Tuesday, September 10th 2019 at 3:00PM
Deacon Ron Gray
I understand it Ron. Did you expect I wouldn't? That's rude, don't you think?

Tuesday, September 10th 2019 at 6:17PM
Steve Williams
I've also learned that the sentence is FALSE.

Tuesday, September 10th 2019 at 6:45PM
Steve Williams
Steve, you have dodged this question so many times, I don't know what you understand.

Now since you said that you understood this question: "This act, as amended, has continued to govern federal-state military relations. By giving the United States Army extensive control of National Guard officers and units, and by making state forces available for duty overseas, the National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers."

"In your very own words, tell me and the people here on Black In America of The National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers means?"





Tuesday, September 10th 2019 at 6:49PM
Deacon Ron Gray
I told you it was false Ron. Look up "state militias".

Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 6:46AM
Steve Williams
61]

Reserve militia
Edit
All able bodied men, 17 to 45 of age, are ultimately eligible to be called up into military service and belong to the class known as the reserve militia, also known as the unorganized militia (10 USC). Able bodied men who are not eligible for inclusion in the reserve militia pool are those aliens not having declared their intent to become citizens of the United States (10 USC 246) and former regular component veterans of the armed forces who have reached the age of 64 (32 USC 313). All female citizens who are members of National Guard units are also included in the reserve militia pool (10 U.S.C. § 246).

Other persons who are exempt from call to duty (10 U.S.C. § 247) and are not therefore in the reserve militia pool include:

The Vice President (also constitutionally the President of the Senate, that body which confirms the appointment of senior armed forces officers made by the Commander in Chief).
The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.
Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
Customhouse clerks.
Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
Pilots on navigable waters.
Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
Many individual states have additional statutes describing their residents as part of the state militia; for example Washington law specifies all able-bodied citizens or intended citizens over the age of eighteen as members of the state militia, as explicitly distinct from the National Guard and Washington State Guard.[62]

Modern citizen-militia organizations
Edit
Main article: Militia organizations in the United States
Within the United States, since approximately 1992, there have been a number of private organizations that call themselves militia or unorganized militia.[63] In states such as Texas, the state constitution classifies male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45 to belong to the "Unorganized Reserve Militia".[64] The Texas constitution also grants the county sheriff and the governor of the state the authority to call upon the unorganized reserve militia to uphold the peace, repel invasion, and suppress rebellion, similar to the early "Texas Rangers".

Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 6:49AM
Steve Williams
So, you are saying that The National Security Act of 1916 is FALSE?

Steve, show me what makes you say that a bill, signed into law by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson signs The National Defense Act is FALSE, can you do that on your next reply Steve?

Steve, Did you see this: there have been a number of private organizations that call themselves militia or unorganized militia and then it goes on to say, "Such as Texas." which is a third line of defense by the states.

Steve, in your life time, was a militia ever called into service?




Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 10:08AM
Deacon Ron Gray
Ron, if you go to the link I provided you will see the author of the article. The words you quote are his words, his opinion.

Did you miss this?

Many individual states have additional statutes describing their residents as part of the state militia; for example Washington law specifies all able-bodied citizens or intended citizens over the age of eighteen as members of the state militia, as explicitly distinct from the National Guard and Washington State Guard.[62]

Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 10:42AM
Steve Williams
Answer these questions for me and the people here on Black in America, in your words Steve, thanks.

So, you are saying that The National Security Act of 1916 is FALSE?

Steve, show me what makes you say that a bill, signed into law by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson signs The National Defense Act is FALSE, can you do that on your next reply Steve?

Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 11:32AM
Deacon Ron Gray
This is FALSE ron: "essentially stripped."

Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 12:39PM
Steve Williams
The Pennsylvania State Guard (originally known as the Pennsylvania Reserve Defense Corps) is the currently inactive official state defense force of the state of Pennsylvania, which was active during World War II and the Korean War. The unit was organized as a home guard composed of volunteers who were trained and organized as parallel to the state’s National Guard. As a part of Pennsylvania's official militia, the Pennsylvania State Guard was trained, organized, and funded by the state of Pennsylvania, answered to the governor, and could not be federalized or deployed abroad.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_State_Guard

Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 1:00PM
Steve Williams
Come on man, you can do better than that, Direct your answers to the question that I asked you.

So, you are saying that The National Security Act of 1916 is FALSE?

Steve, show me what makes you say that a bill, signed into law by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson signs The National Defense Act is FALSE, can you do that on your next reply Steve?

Use your own words and define what you’re talking about.

Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 3:16PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Ron, if I said "The National Security Act of 1916 is FALSE." show me where.

Legal status
Edit

State defense forces are permitted by the federal government under Title 32, Section 109 of the United States Code.[6] Pennsylvania law also recognizes the authority of the Governor of Pennsylvania to create and maintain a state defense force.[7] Currently, 23 states and the territory of Puerto Rico take advantage of this legislation by maintaining active state defense forces.[8] Therefore, the state of Pennsylvania could reestablish a state defense force either through a legislative act or an executive order.

Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 5:14PM
Steve Williams
Steve, are you using some obscured definition To defy the law of the land signed in the law by President of the United States?

I asked you to try to use your own words to describe what you talking about but yet you failed to do that, WHY?

Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 7:21PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Again Ron, my interest is to find the Constitutional basis for universal background checks and AR-15 style rifle regulation.

Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 7:34PM
Steve Williams
My interest is to understand what you mean by you saying that The National Security Act of 1916 is FALSE, in your own words?

Steve, show me what makes you say that a bill, signed into law by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson signs The National Defense Act of 1916 is FALSE, can you do that on your next reply Steve?

So far Steve, you still have not backed-up a thing you have said yet. You have nothing to fear Steve, nothing.




Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 9:13PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Is the National Defense Act of 1916 FALSE Ron? Why do you say that?

Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 9:27PM
Steve Williams
Ron, did you know Seth Ator'a rifle was built from an 80% receiver?

Thursday, September 12th 2019 at 9:29AM
Steve Williams
My interest is to understand what you mean by you saying that The National Security Act of 1916 is FALSE, please explain using your own words?

Focus your attention to answering the question Steve.


Thursday, September 12th 2019 at 10:27AM
Deacon Ron Gray
I never said what you say I said.

Thursday, September 12th 2019 at 11:01AM
Steve Williams
This is why you won't get a new background check law Ron, because you approach the problem with such frivolity.

Thursday, September 12th 2019 at 11:12AM
Steve Williams

Steve, you have dodged this question so many times, I don't know what you understand.

Now since you said that you understood this question: "This act, as amended, has continued to govern federal-state military relations. By giving the United States Army extensive control of National Guard officers and units, and by making state forces available for duty overseas, the National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers."

"In your very own words, tell me and the people here on Black In America of The National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers means?"

Tuesday, September 10th 2019 at 6:49PM
Deacon Ron Gray | delete


YOUR REPLY: I told you it was false Ron. Look up "state militias".

Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 6:46AM
Steve Williams | delete | block member

Now you are saying this: YOUR WORDS: I never said what you say I said.

Thursday, September 12th 2019 at 11:01AM
Steve Williams | delete | block member

Steve, are these your words: " I told you it was false Ron. Look up "state militias".

Wednesday, September 11th 2019 at 6:46AM
Steve Williams | delete | block member


Thursday, September 12th 2019 at 11:28AM
Deacon Ron Gray
32 U.S. Code § 109. Maintenance of other troops
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) In time of peace, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may maintain no troops other than those of its National Guard and defense forces authorized by subsection (c).
(b) Nothing in this title limits the right of a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands to use its National Guard or its defense forces authorized by subsection (c) within its borders in time of peace, or prevents it from organizing and maintaining police or constabulary.
(c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.
(d) A member of a defense force established under subsection (c) is not, because of that membership, exempt from service in the armed forces, nor is he entitled to pay, allowances, subsistence, transportation, or medical care or treatment, from funds of the United States.
(e) A person may not become a member of a defense force established under subsection (c) if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 600; Pub. L. 85–861, § 2(2), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1542; Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title XII, § 1234(b)(1), Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 2059; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, § 1057(b)(3), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3441; Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title X, § 1075(h)(4)(B), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4377.)

Thursday, September 12th 2019 at 5:45PM
Steve Williams
Nope, why are you trying this heathen like BULL💩, which I plainly asked you to state the meaning of this sentence: "This act, as amended, has continued to govern federal-state military relations. By giving the United States Army extensive control of National Guard officers and units, and by making state forces available for duty overseas, the National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers."

"In your very own words, tell me and the people here on Black In America of The National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers means?"

The key is "IN YOUR OWN WORDS" and you can't do that!!! WOW!!!




Thursday, September 12th 2019 at 7:04PM
Deacon Ron Gray
As you can plainly see Ron, the states have not been stripped of ANY of their militia powers,

Thursday, September 12th 2019 at 9:32PM
Steve Williams
What I can see Steve is that The National Security Act of 1916 incorporated the Militias into the United States Army under the division of The National Guard.


Steve, in your life time, when was a militia ever called into service?




Thursday, September 12th 2019 at 9:59PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Lots of times Ron but you're missing the point. The right to keep and bear arms is inseparable from the militia. You might as well make use of that fact when it comes to your attempts to federalize gun laws.


Thursday, September 12th 2019 at 11:06PM
Steve Williams
If I missed the point, then answer this Steve, in your life time, when was a militia ever called into service?



Friday, September 13th 2019 at 12:01AM
Deacon Ron Gray
That question is irrelevant Ron. The militias are a given, Constitutionally. Federal as well as state laws define the unorganized militia and if don't want to declare the basis for federalizing background checks, YOU WILL LOSE. FINE BY ME.

Friday, September 13th 2019 at 7:46AM
Steve Williams
Just what I thought, you can't sight one case in your life time, when was a militia ever called into service by anybody, that is the reason why you call my question irrelevant is because YOU can't prove a damn thing about a militia you have said in this blog conversation YET!!!

Steve, I keep telling you, you can't prove a LIE. What a MAROON!!! You have been GASLIGHTED. You have been in a persistent denial, you tried to use the heathens tool of misdirection, you are in a contradiction of a state of mind, and you have been caught lying on several occasions and you can't prove a thing you have said yet, WOW!!!

You have come to the strongest people, with the weakest of BULL💩, WOW, what a shame.

Steve Go, get out of my face, I am disappointed in you. All I asked was a few simple questions and all I get from you is more BULL💩 and no proof. GO, get out of my face Steve.



Friday, September 13th 2019 at 10:30AM
Deacon Ron Gray
Ron, in my life time I've never seen the militia called out.

Friday, September 13th 2019 at 11:54AM
Steve Williams
Thank You Steve. Nor have I.


Friday, September 13th 2019 at 4:32PM
Deacon Ron Gray
So what's it mean Ron? It means nothing.

Friday, September 13th 2019 at 7:30PM
Steve Williams
It means, there is no such thing as a militia, its called The National Guard now.


Saturday, September 14th 2019 at 12:26AM
Deacon Ron Gray
Then how do you explain THIS Ron???

The Texas State Guard (TXSG) is the state military force of Texas, and one of three branches of the Texas Military Forces. Along with the other two branches, the TXSG falls under the command of the Governor of Texas and is administered by the Adjutant General of Texas an appointee of the Governor. The other two branches of the Texas Military Forces are the Texas Army National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard. Members of the Texas State Guard are not members of the United States Armed Forces.

The mission of the Texas State Guard (TXSG) is to provide mission-ready military forces to assist state and local authorities in times of state emergencies, to conduct homeland security and mission support activities under the umbrella of Defense Support to Civil Authorities, and to augment the Texas Army National Guard and Texas Air National Guard as required.

Headquartered at Camp Mabry in Austin, Texas, the TXSG functions as an organized state militia under the authority of Title 32 of the U.S. Code and Chapter 431 of the Texas Government Code. The Governor of Texas has sole control over the Texas State Guard, because it is not subject to federal activation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Guard

Saturday, September 14th 2019 at 12:52AM
Steve Williams
Don't you see right in the first sentence

"The Texas State Guard (TXSG) is the state military force of Texas, and one of three branches of the Texas Military Forces. Along with the other two branches. Let me highlight this: "The Texas State Guard (TXSG) is the state military force of Texas and not a rag tag group of untrained, unsophisticated, Texas Good Old Boy's militia, but a highly trained professional that falls under the jurisdiction of the Governor of Texas as a member of Texas State Guard.

You remember this don't you Steve:


It means, there is no such thing as a militia, its called The National Guard now.


Saturday, September 14th 2019 at 12:26AM
Deacon Ron Gray | delete


(b) A member of the reserve militia while in active service is a member of the state military forces under Section 432.001(16), and is subject to the punitive provisions of Chapter 432.

GOVERNMENT CODE TITLE 4. EXECUTIVE BRANCH SUBTITLE C. STATE MILITARY FORCES AND VETERANS CHAPTER 431. STATE MILITIA SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.431.htm



Saturday, September 14th 2019 at 9:55AM
Deacon Ron Gray
This is what caught my attention Ron, and no one but you is talking about "a rag tag group of untrained, unsophisticated, Texas Good Old Boy's militia."

"...the TXSG functions as an organized state militia under the authority of Title 32 of the U.S. Code and Chapter 431 of the Texas Government Code."


Saturday, September 14th 2019 at 12:49PM
Steve Williams
I see that the name of TXSG is something that your EYE missed. Can you say “The Texas State Guard?” I ‘am sure, when soldier Report to duty I’m sure that they, don’t have to pay for their weapons. I know I didn’t.
Saturday, September 14th 2019 at 2:46PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Here's what I'm interested in Ron, the reserve militia, which I think means all able-bodied persons within the age range defined for the military.

(1) "Reserve militia" means the persons liable to serve, but not serving, in the state military forces.
Saturday, September 14th 2019 at 4:38PM
Steve Williams
Now you are talking Steve and those men and women don't have to paid for these weapons. I' am all in for The Second Amendment and all of it's rights. I think the gun loop holes need to be closed and comprehensive background checks needs to be strengthen to prevent another such heathen from buying a AR15 and driving some 600 miles to indiscriminately shoot up another shopping mall. We can stop that from happening.




Saturday, September 14th 2019 at 5:12PM
Deacon Ron Gray
So I think Mike Thompson could cite Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 as the Constitutional authority for H.R. 8.

Sunday, September 15th 2019 at 1:58AM
Steve Williams
Now once you do that, lets get back to the topic.


Sunday, September 15th 2019 at 12:57PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Neither you nor I Ron can do anything about Texas. Our concern is federal background check legislation.

Sunday, September 15th 2019 at 1:06PM
Steve Williams
Steve, As you know Just hours at least five people were killed in a shooting near Odessa and Midland, Texas, the state will loosen restrictions on its gun law, who benefits from this move?

Do you still think a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with I gun myth?


Sunday, September 15th 2019 at 1:28PM
Deacon Ron Gray
"Texas loosening gun laws" has nothing to do with Seth Ator. Which do you want to talk about Ron?

Sunday, September 15th 2019 at 1:48PM
Steve Williams
Steve, I am sure that you have not forgot that some of the most deadly mass shootings happened in the State of Texas. In 2017 26 Americans shot to death at the Sutherland Spring Baptist Church. In 2018 10 kids was shot to death at Santa Fe High School and now in El Paso 22 was shot to death by a White Thug, who drove some 600 miles to do that one.

Now you are saying this: "Texas loosening gun laws" has nothing to do with Se** A***, now if a strong comprehensive background check would have been in place, that THUG would not have had a chance to buy a AR 15 in the first place.

Do you want to see more mass shootings Steve?





Sunday, September 15th 2019 at 2:25PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Yes Ron, stronger background checks might have stopped Seth Ator. That's why Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 gives Congress the authority to enact stronger background checks.

Sunday, September 15th 2019 at 2:53PM
Steve Williams
I agree. I just don’t understand why some people are against A strong comprehensive background check for gun ownership. Do you understand their point, Steve?



Sunday, September 15th 2019 at 5:57PM
Deacon Ron Gray
It's because people are too vague about what kind of background checks they are talking about. There's a big difference between Toomey-Manchin and H.R. 8.

Sunday, September 15th 2019 at 6:37PM
Steve Williams
I see our legislators have their hands full.


Sunday, September 15th 2019 at 11:04PM
Deacon Ron Gray
Please Login To Post Comments...
Email:
Password:

 
More From This Author
House Investigator Confronts Trump Aide Under Oath For Lying On MSNBC | The Beat With Ari Melber
Politico: John Bolton Unloads On Trump’s Foreign Policy | Hardball | MSNBC
President Donald Trump Directly Involved In Whistleblower Complaint | The Last Word | MSNBC
WaPo: Trump Call With Foreign Leader Prompted Intel Whistleblower | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC
Bad News For Trump's Reelection
Elizabeth Warren Narrows Gap With Joe Biden In New Polling | Morning Joe | MSNBC
Mike Pence: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
Corey Lewandowski 'Was Talking Directly To Donald Trump'
Forward This Blog Entry!
Blogs Home

(Advertise Here)
Who's Online
>> more | invite 
Black America Resources
100 Black Men of America
www.100blackmen.org

Black America's Political Action Committee (BAMPAC)
www.bampac.org

Black America Study
www.blackamericastudy.com

Black America Web
www.blackamericaweb.com

CNN Black In America Special
www.cnn.com/blackinamerica

NUL State of Black America Report
www.nul.org

Most Popular Bloggers
deacon ron gray has logged 116394 blog subscribers!
elly moss has logged 55692 blog subscribers!
agnes levine has logged 38268 blog subscribers!
tanisha laverne grant has logged 36133 blog subscribers!
brother marcus! has logged 21167 blog subscribers!
>> more | add 
Latest Jobs
Nursing Faculty, Graduate (F405) with Azusa Pacific University in Azusa, CA.
Nursing Faculty (F429) with Azusa Pacific University in Azusa, CA.
Regional Recruiter (Illinois) with University of Tennessee in Chicago, IL.
Supply Chain Excellence Process Lead with Nestle in Solon, OH.
Environmental Specialist - Manufacturing with Nestle in Solon, OH.
>> more | add