You cannot make this up

[riderrick65]

Stop And Think About It!

 

[bushmaster1313]

Perhaps Ithaca forgot to make the proper campaign contribution

The Ithaca 87 is on the list

 

[bushmaster1313]

Feinstein's Bill



The Second Amendment


They aren't either bothering anymore to try to reconcile their intentions with the Constitution. So they have chosen to ignore it, despite their oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. In other words, they have declared open war on the Constitution.

At any other time in history, the term "treason" would be openly applied.

Once the Second Amendment goes, so will the rest of the Bill of Rights. Destroying the citizens' ability to protect the Constitution by disarming them assures a much less painless transition to tyranny. Not much of a choice for anyone who loves freedom and liberty for themselves, their children, grandchildren and their future generations - stand together now as citizens, or hang separately later as subjects.

IMHO, the problem is not the desire to regulate firearms, because reasonable regulation is clearly allowed by the Constitution.

The problem is the wording I highlighted in the original post, which appeals to those who believe the Second Amendment is the problem.

 

[asheepdog]

Sadly, I think that they will be able to get a watered down version thorugh and will slowly keep pecking away until they get their ban on most firearms in general. It is much easier to control unarmed subjects than it is armed citizens.

 

[Xtasy]

What really frustrates me is that nobody, neither politicians nor the NRA are standing up and try to proof that Feinstein is wrong..

Just listen what she tells people about bump fire...

Dianne Feinstein-Face The Nation 1/27/2013 - YouTube

 

[Nightowl]

As things stand, the only "form" of her bill that could PASS would have NOTHING in it that she wants.

Right now, her bill has almost as little chance of passage as there is of a lucid thought entering Joe Biden's head.

Now if we WANT to hand her a victory, we need to fall into defeatism.

The worst thing we can do is assume that the gun bill will not pass. We must send letters, contribute money, and fight to defeat anything that is introduced. We need no more gun laws. The bills that have been introduced will do nothing to stop the senseless killing by demented souls that have been at the heart of these incidents.

 

[Xtasy]

The worst thing we can do is assume that the gun bill will not pass. We must send letters, contribute money, and fight to defeat anything that is introduced. We need no more gun laws. The bills that have been introduced will do nothing to stop the senseless killing by demented souls that have been at the heart of these incidents.

It is actually very sad that you have to use money to defend your freedom

 

[zip777]

What really frustrates me is that nobody, neither politicians nor the NRA are standing up and try to proof that Feinstein is wrong..

Just listen what she tells people about bump fire...

Dianne Feinstein-Face The Nation 1/27/2013 - YouTube

Not debating right or wrong when it comes to bump firing but IMO being a responsible gun owner means NOT going on YouTube to demonstrate non-standard practices. Those who do make truly responsible owners look bad in the publics eye. Like it or not we have to starting thinking more about what we do...say and especially put up on the net. Being in poorly lighted public opinion will not help us preserve our freedoms.

This will become a war of opinions as time progresses. We need to represent in a positive fashion.

 

[Travis15R]

For anyone that doesn't for a minute think this is a well orchestrated, long conceived, agenda-driven, blatant, gun grab...I give you New York. It can happen!

We are one Supreme Court appointment away from a full blown "reinterpretation" of the Second Amendment and gun ownership as we know it. Plan for it.

I think this is the pathway they are going to use to change how the 2A is interpreted. We already have DIFI quote saying the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. This is just a small talking point that they will hammer again and again over time. They will repeat this over and over and over again like Obama has done on aspects of so many other issues. They throw out these talking points so that it becomes main stream idea's and not so radical b/c we have heard it over and over again.

I dont know what will result from her AWB bill, what compromise will be made but I think they know they wont get the whole lot in this shot. What they will do is Obama will appoint another supreme court judge who is left leaning and when the next mass shooing occurs we will be right back at where we are now and the talking point of the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited will be common place by then and a different interpretation of the 2A will be possible by the supreme court.

Obama is not going to take any of this heat himself. That is why he has biden heading the task force b/c he knows biden has no chance of becoming the next POTUS b/c he is such an idiot. He is not heading the task force b/c it will bring heat on him. He just makes statements regarding the issues but gives no details. He will let the supreme court make the big choice on the details of the 2A. He wants all of this to roll off his back and nothing to stick b/c what a big goal for him is who he will support to replace him. Not many of us here voted for him, not enough to matter so he does not care about pissing us off but he wants to keep that base intact. He wants to come out squeaky clean and who ever he supports everyone will swoon and be so excited to vote for. He is insuring his party's control past 2016 by letting biden and the supreme court do the heavy lifting. Anything biden says he will not take responsibly for....I just headed him to run the task force to try and save lives of innocents, hes the one that said "confiscation" not me. Its very easy for him to deflect anything.

 

[Cordite]

IMHO, the problem is not the desire to regulate firearms, because reasonable regulation is clearly allowed by the Constitution.

The problem is the wording I highlighted in the original post, which appeals to those who believe the Second Amendment is the problem.

Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for "regulation" of a right. Rights have been subject to limitations by the Supreme Court, but only to the extent that the exercise of those rights infringes on the rights of others. For example, the right to free speech does not include yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, where doing so would endanger the life of others.

But, you do not limit the entire populations rights to achieve that goal. In the theater example, you can make it unlawful for an individual to cause panic or incite riot by their speech. Note that you do not outlaw theaters, or impose limits on other forms of speech.

Those seem like severe restrictions on government's ability, and they are intended to be severe. Our Constitution embraces the belief that rights do not come from government, they come from the Creator. And as such are inalienable, not to be infringed by government.

We already make it unlawful to use firearms to hurt or harm other people other than in self defense. Those limits pertain to the individual who would do the harm.

What these new "regulations" attempt to do is punish everyone - to infringe on every citizens right to bear arms to address the exception, rather than imposing restrictions on the individual.

Regulations, by the way, that have no correlation to protecting the public. In fact, they have been shown to by wholly ineffective.

Could we envision imposing similar regulations in the area of speech? Wholesale banning of types of communication or media use? Or limiting the number of minutes one is allowed to speak? Reporters no longer allowed to be on the air for 30 minutes under a new 10 minute capacity rule? Or banning say internet communication outright because it allows the speaker to quickly impact many people at one time?

The area of constitutional rights is a "goose/gander" situation - what is good for any one right is good for another. The restrictions you allow for the Second Amendment can be used to restrict all other rights. News programming cut back to a 10 capacity limit? Church services over 10 minutes unlawful? Assembly of people in groups of over 10 a felony?

The gun control proponents are and have been remiss in looking at second, third and fourth degree consequences of their actions. Or maybe they have. Remember that the goal of tyranny is to eliminate the notion of anything inalienable coming from any source other than the government. And the way to attack that from within a free society is to gain acceptance of a reasonableness standard in the area of rights, and then achieve the power to to dictate what is or is not reasonable to the people.

I beleive that in the future, history will look back and define out battle now as a watershed event. Not merely for Second Amendment rights, but for rights, freedom and out Constitution. If we fail to stand up now, it is only a matter of time before we attain the status of subject, forfeiting our rights as citizens.

 

[M29since14]

...And the way to attack that from within a free society is to gain acceptance of a reasonableness standard in the area of rights, and then achieve the power to to dictate what is or is not reasonable to the people.

Excellent post and this part bears repeating. It's precisely the method these enemies of freedom plan to use. They will use the "reasonableness" card all they can. It is a diversion, and they will press it. They know if they can make that topical it will make defense really tough, but only IF we are willing to let them confine the debate to target shooting and hunting.

Naturally, their favored hussar's trick is to completely ignore the actual reason for the Second Amendment, since a "reasonableness standard" is impossible to apply to the fact that the 2A is about resisting tyranny, not duck hunting or home defense.

 

[Cordite]

I just remembered this: The Supreme Court in 1995 ruled that Congressional term limits via legislation were unconstitutional because those limits were not set forth in the Constitution. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779(1995) The Court reasoned that the election of representatives was not a right of the state to regulate but an individual right of the people. Thus, unless specifically limited in the Constitution, there was no power or authority for state-imposed limits on Congressional representatives.

So there is no power to limit Congressional terms outside of the Constitution because the Constitution imposes no such limits regarding an individual right of the people, but those same protected members of Congress argue that there should be limits on the Second Amendment not set forth in the Constitution?

 

[M29since14]

...but those same protected members of Congress argue that there should be limits on the Second Amendment not set forth in the Constitution?

So, at the risk of repeating myself, I ask again - how does one spell elitist hypocrite?

It is high time these ne'erdowells start to be thought of for what they are. Kudos to the NRA for pointing that out, whether Gov. Christie and those like him care for it or not. Grow up and take your reality pill, Governor.

 

[SteelHorse]

Death By A Thousand Cuts can refer to:
Creeping normalcy, the way a major negative change, which happens slowly in many unnoticed increments, is not perceived as objectionable