noharleyyet
Well-known member
....carry on.
The 2nd Amendment, Gun Control, and Mass Murder
- Thread starter The Hedgehog
- Start date
....carry on.
RobG
Well-known member
noharleyyet
Well-known member
RobG
Well-known member
Yes, and Arthur disarmed the Black Knight, then he dislegged him.The black knight had an illegal assault weapon?
Arthur signifying gov't of course.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
....egregious. Very egregious.
Last edited:
what's bizarre is someone still talking about a ban that went away back in 2004.
"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the House floor for a vote."
so, guess the firearms that were on the list, are now legal since it has not come back for a vote.
"most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994."
sounds legal to me. bizarre. very bizarre.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
^
Outstanding
Outstanding
RobG
Well-known member
Sorry if I was confusing. I gave that example (along with others) to PROVE that the Constitution does not protect your right to own these small arms. If the Constitution did protect your right, the law would have been overturned by SCOTUS.
rhomas
Banned
Rob, I believe the point that was being made, was that the Second Amendment simply restates what is in the Constitution as to what areas of law are retained by the states as far as firearms ownership, and reinforces the law against Federal intrusion on those states rights issues.
As we all know, the issue of states rights has already created one civil war in this country, and apparently that is the direction Obama wishes to lead us. He requires a civil insurrection in order to declare martial law, and his attempts to create such insurrection through his other agendas has, so far, failed. Gun control may in fact, provide the catalyst he has sought on his path for establishing his dictatorship. What other reasons can justify FEMA camps designed to keep people inside of them, the emergency powers he's granted to all of the Federal agencies, as well as the massive amounts of ammunition purchased by agencies that in the past had no enforcement arm??
The ultimate and true goal of the gun control debate, isn't actually about guns, as much as it's about control of the country by one egomaniacle socialist and his followers. Eerily reminiscent of one Adolph Hitler.
As we all know, the issue of states rights has already created one civil war in this country, and apparently that is the direction Obama wishes to lead us. He requires a civil insurrection in order to declare martial law, and his attempts to create such insurrection through his other agendas has, so far, failed. Gun control may in fact, provide the catalyst he has sought on his path for establishing his dictatorship. What other reasons can justify FEMA camps designed to keep people inside of them, the emergency powers he's granted to all of the Federal agencies, as well as the massive amounts of ammunition purchased by agencies that in the past had no enforcement arm??
The ultimate and true goal of the gun control debate, isn't actually about guns, as much as it's about control of the country by one egomaniacle socialist and his followers. Eerily reminiscent of one Adolph Hitler.
well, would agree with you, but there is one point that you fail to bring up. the law was never brought up to the supreme court. so, your opinions PROVE nothing.
"Challenges to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state and city assault
weapon bans have never made it to the Supreme Court. It took 22 years for
Washington DC's Firearms Control Regulations Act to make it to the Supreme Court
in the well publicized District of Columbia v Heller case. None the less D.C. v
Heller affirmed, or rather reaffirmed the individual right to own firearms."
having a sunset date in it, there would have been no reason, due to the length of time it takes to get into the supreme court, to challenge it. so your arguement that it would have been overturned, is conjecture since the court never heard a case, right?
and it looks like the heller case proves the exact opposite of what you keep trying to say, right? "D.C. v Heller affirmed, or rather reaffirmed the individual right to own firearms."
RobG
Well-known member
If that is what you think, then there are much bigger issues leading us down that path. Most importantly is the increasing amount of power being given to the executive branch (esp Dept Homeland Security) through Patriot Act, NDAA, etc. Originally these programs were "bipartison" because GWB declared if you weren't with him you were with the terrorist and any dissent was fiercely shouted down. Now things have moved to where the NRA approved conservatives are the ones largely increasing the power given to DHS in the name of border control or preventing terrorist attacks (which have killed less people than hammers, btw). Madison warned that liberty would be lost under the guise of protecting us from a foreign threat and that is exactly what is happening, yet some only become concerned if a new gun law is on the books.
Hitler gained control using spies to seek out the opposition leaders so they could be executed. It really didn't matter if they had guns or not since with proper info you can always get the drop on someone (e.g. OBL). Hitler was ultimately defeated by bad intelligence info on the allied invasion, etc. In other words, obtaining private information is far more important than disarming your opponent. If you know his next move you can figure out a way to take him out. Before you think you are defending the Constitution or the U.S. from tyranny by voting for the NRA guy, make sure you look at his stance on NDAA, Patriot Act, FISA, Border Control, etc. Chances are that they are throwing away far more important rights than restricting a class of weapons.
Along those lines, I see the NRA is now calling for regulating people with metal health problems. Now that is brilliant: hand over your medical records to the feds; I'm sure that has no potential for abuse! Furthermore, while being paranoid that lawmakers will take all your weapons away one gun type at a time, the NRA is willing to let lawmakers take all your weapons away one disease at a time. And where will that end? You have a creepy kid so you aren't allowed to have guns in the house? People who were bullied as children can't have guns? Eliminating classes of people who can't have guns and increasing the authority concentrated in DHS are far more dangerous paths to start down if you are worried about tyranny.
Southwind
New member
The right of the citizen to be armed is not granted by the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment recognizes that inalienable right as divine or natural law and the 2nd amendment states that inherent right shall not be infringed. These laws transcend government and were thus recognized by the founders as such.
Similar threads
