General Categories > Laws and Legislation

New assault weapons ban submitted

<< < (2/2)

GreyGeek:

--- Quote from: RobertH on December 25, 2015, 03:40:21 PM ---i find this quite interesting.... "To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes."  (emphasis mine)  i guess they never read the last part of the Second Amendment.

".... Shall Not be Infringed."

--- End quote ---

And because their bill infringes that which "Shall not be Infringed" the following Democrats and RINOs are in violation of their oath of office:
Mr. Cicilline (for himself, Ms. Adams, Mr. Aguilar, Ms. Bass, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Beyer, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Brown of Florida, Ms. Brownley of California, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Cárdenas, Mr. Carney, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Delaney, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Engel, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Esty, Mr. Farr, Mr. Foster, Ms. Frankel of Florida, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Gutiérrez, Ms. Hahn, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Himes, Mr. Honda, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Israel, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Keating, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mrs. Lawrence, Ms. Lee, Mr. Levin, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Lowenthal, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, Mr. Lynch, Mr. McDermott, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Ms. Matsui, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Ms. Moore, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Neal, Mr. Norcross, Ms. Norton, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Pingree, Ms. Plaskett, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Rangel, Miss Rice of New York, Mr. Richmond, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Rush, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Sires, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Speier, Mr. Swalwell of California, Mr. Takano, Mr. Tonko, Mrs. Torres, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Veasey, Ms. Velázquez, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Ms. Wilson of Florida, and Mr. Yarmuth) introduced the following bill...

depserv:
Since the Heller and McDonald decisions the biggest threats to our 2nd Amendment rights will be those that use the reasonable restrictions lie.  If anti-gun bigots have their way there will be no restriction deemed unreasonable, and the right to keep and bear arms will be restricted out of existence.  The current Court does not seem interested in addressing this matter, and until the Court consists of a higher proportion of loyal Americans, it's probably better that it stays out of it.  The poor wording of the Heller decision makes the problem even worse.  So that leaves the various legislatures the ones to decide, since inactivity by the High Court on the matter allows whatever laws are passed to stand. 

To counter the onslaught this situation leads to, patriots need to answer two questions:
1. Can there be any such thing as a reasonable restriction on the right?
2. If so, how is reasonableness determined?

If patriots don't get together and answer these questions they will be answered by the enemy.  So I suggest we discuss the matter among ourselves and come up with some answers, so we have something to counter their lies with.

Here's my opinion on the matter:
1. There can be such a thing as a reasonable restriction, but all of the laws being proposed now, and most of the laws currently on the books, are very far onto the unreasonable side of any realistic definition of the word reasonable.  So in order for gun laws to be truly reasonable, there need to be less, not more.
2. Reasonable, knowledgeable, and honorable men can determine what truly is reasonable, but such men are rarely the ones who write gun control laws.  Those whose purpose is to destroy the right (or downgrade it to the point that it might as well have been destroyed) can not play a role in determining what is reasonable, because the only effect they have is to make the law as unreasonable as they are able.  Reasonable restrictions do not come from such men; they come from those whose purpose is to preserve the right.
3. Any restriction has to begin from the foundation that keeping and bearing arms is a right, not a privilege.  One way to determine if this is being done is to compare how this right is being restricted to how other rights are or are not being restricted.  For example, how much better could police do their jobs if the 4th and 5th Amendments were restricted as much as the 2nd?  But we live with criminals among us rather than degrade those rights, because they are rights and we want our rights preserved.  Since the 2nd Amendment is a right too, it should not be restricted any more than the others.  This argument will be countered by the enemy claiming it's an apples and oranges comparison but it really is no such thing, because all of it is based in the same question: how much freedom are we willing to give up in order to be better protected.

I could go on, and there are good details that could be used to determine what is reasonable, but what I'm hoping to do is get a discussion going.  Because as I said, if we don't answer these questions the enemy will.  Us having a better answer than the enemy, and being able to explain why our answer is better, is the critical path to defending the right.

I know the current threat is not serious because there are enough loyal Americans in Congress to stop it.  But the make-up of Congress changes.  We all hope it changes for the better and maybe it will.  But either way, we should as a community have an answer to these questions.   

m morton:
the trouble has never been a gun of any kind ! yes a gun can kill but so can a hammer, case in point the girl that was killed when a person jumped over a chain link fence and put a hammer in her head as she was sunbathing in her back yard... this happened to a gal going to the same school as me back in the 80's. no law can stop a person full of pure evil.

the trouble we have is and always will be those that don't obey the law! and our **** legal system . then add to that  the revolving door on our jails, and the PC goody two shoes "the death penalty is not humane." 

how can we as citizens ever be safe from those who don't obey and don't care to obey laws of any kind. those of us with reasonable minds know there is no gun law that will protect us but it seems after a mass shooting the far left seem to think doing something is better then doing nothing "at least as far as making a new gun law goes" 

IMO if we had a Federal level death penalty for repeat felons IE for aggravated assault , assault with a deadly weapon "any weapon" , rape , murder,  and other crimes like these we would have fewer criminals killing people , and fewer people killing others would go a long way in insuring the rest of us our 2nd amendment rights .  other then this our only other resource is to get the politicians like the ones trying to make laws like this VOTED OUT OF OFFICE!

ya a crazy person can slip thew and get a gun legally or even take one and do a mass shooting but all the other evil the legal system can AND SHOULD protect us from "but don't".. it's a crime that the criminals have more rights then those they pray on ...

00BUCK:
"those that use the reasonable restrictions lie." AKA The NRA.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page