When I’m arguing with my mother about gun control (she, being a stereotypical Westchester county New York Democrat) there’s a normal progression of events. First, she hears something on the news (like Bloomberg pontificating on civilian disarmament) and then asks me how I could possibly be opposed to such “common sense” proposals. Naturally, I reply with a well thought out and rational argument about how taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens won’t stop criminals, would probably result in an increase in crime, and is both unconstitutional and immoral. Her natural fall-back position is to snark that “no one is taking your guns” and refuses to hear any arguments to the contrary. But the fact is, whenever she says that, its a complete and total lie . . .
Let’s start with the easy rebuttal to that statement: Dianne Feinstein.
In 1995, Senator Feinstein stated very clearly that she would have liked to require full confiscation of all “assault weapons” in the United States under the provisions of her original AWB.
Dan Agin over at the Huffington Post has a similar opinion on guns. His plan was to have every American turn in all of their guns, not just the scary black ones DiFi has been advocating. No, only complete and total disarmament (except for the sacred police officers) is Dan’s position.
And don’t tell me that’s only one or two people who want to grab my guns. That isn’t good enough. Democrats crucify the entire Republican party whenever a single Republican opens their yap and lets something stupid like “legitimate rape” slip out. But the same logic apparently doesn’t apply for their party. So we need to beat them into submission instead. For the best example of the drive for civilian disarmament, let’s look at New York State.
The Empire State had an “Assault Weapons Ban” in place since the original was enacted in 1994. As a former resident of that awful place, I had fun a terrible time dealing with those laws while attempting to exercise my second amendment rights. And while the law was extremely restrictive to the newer generation of gun owners, the older folks weren’t all that bothered. Their existing guns were grandfathered in — indeed, no one was taking them.
The new law, just enacted, removes the grandfather clause. Every single firearm in the state of New York that meets the extremely broad criteria set forth under the new “SAFE Act” is illegal. And since they are illegal, people who were legal owners of those firearms are being forced to sell them, destroy them or move them out of the state. And those new criteria make just about every popular rifle and shotgun designed and sold in the last 70 years illegal in New York State.
The only exception is that those who register their firearms are exempt from the mandatory disarmament, an exception that was only added to appease the Republicans. The original bill apparently had no such provisions. But even then, the guns cannot be sold within the state, transferred, or otherwise disposed except to be destroyed. While before such commonly available guns would be capable of being handed down to the next generation, the plan appears to be to wait for the owners to die, and then confiscating the firearms.
They literally want to take your gun from your cold dead hands.
And given New York’s history, its not unlikely that such registration is simply a precursor to a complete and total door-to-door confiscation down the road. Since they now have a convenient list of gun owners.
The picture is even worse for shotguns. Since the new law requires ALL guns capable of accepting more than seven rounds to be disposed and prohibits their sale (with NO exemption for pump action shotguns), guns like the Remington 870 and Mossberg 500 are about to become illegal in New York State. Their fixed magazines accept 5 rounds of “normal” sized 12 gauge ammunition, but the commonly available 1.75 inch rounds make the legal capacity of those guns somewhere around 10. Due to the inability of New York State legislators to even read the law before it was passed, no one realized that fact until it was too late.
So yes, the venerable pump action shotgun that “no one wants to ban” is now banned.
In other states, like California, the push is to pass a similar law but without the registration exception. Complete and total disarmament of modern firearms is the stated goal, and those pushing the laws are intent on getting their way.
Here comes the semantic argument. “There’s no door to door inspections right now . . . no one is physically taking away the actual objects.” But the fact remains that the objects are no longer legally in our possession. Through force of law, our guns are indeed being taken away within the state. We can no longer use them, and we can no longer legally possess them. We can neither keep nor bear those arms, which are the most popular firearms in the United States. I’d say that qualifies pretty well as having them “taken away.” To take guns out of law abiding citizens’ hands in the hopes that making everyone a victim will somehow make everyone safer.
The line people like my mother use — that no one is coming for your guns — used to be true. With the 1994 “assault weapons” ban, the Democrats successfully split the gun owners of America down the middle by trying to isolate hunters. Only the “evil black rifles” were being banned, and the traditional hunting rifles of the time were exempt.
“No one is coming for your guns” was used to great effect to pacify hunters and keep them from rising up in opposition to the law. It was a brilliant piece of propoganda, that Democrats seem to have internalized almost as well as “think of the children!” when proposing illogical laws.
But the problem is, it’s no longer true. “Hunting rifles” have evolved to be indistinguishable from so-called “assault weapons.” They have the same features, and use the same designs. And the removal of a grandfather clause from the proposed legislation can only mean that full-scale confiscation is in the offing. They are, indeed, coming to take away our guns. Even the “hunting rifles.” And those who are still trying to pass off that old lie are either too ignorant of the proposed legislation or too entrenched in the party rhetoric to understand the lie they’re spouting.
“the older folks weren’t all that bothered. Their existing guns were grandfathered in — indeed, no one was taking them.”
I consider that very short-sighted.
Guns are property, tools, collectible items of some value.
Grandfathered guns would have to be turned in to the authorities upon the owner’s death and could not be passed down to offspring/grandchildren.
This, in the words of the San Diego Police Chief, IS taking guns away in one generation.
Hey government! Yeah you. If you want my guns! COME AND TRY! The Second Amendment was invoked to allow citizens to defend OURSELVES and not rely on the Police which take 10 minutes to get there! We the citizens are free people and true Americans are not afraid to stand up for the rights we’ve had for over 222 years. I’m not afraid to protect my rights and I’ll fight for what I believe in! And if you think you can just come and take my rights you are WRONG and you’re kidding yourself! DON’T TREAD ON ME!!! If you think I’m scared of your Anti-Gun laws you’re dead wrong!!!
The words, “willful obeisance to wanton authority” spring immediately to mind.
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!!! Come and take ’em.
You’re thinking of “Molon Labe” as well, I presume? 🙂
Nick that NY map has been updated–click on the original posted yesterday and the new, updated one comes up. Very little white left.
You could do what I did on the subject back in the 90’s:
I told her: “You’re obviously misinformed, and you’re not interested in changing your opinion when I present to you verified facts that disagree with your position, so you have a choice: Quit talking about that which you know nothing and will learn nothing, or cease talking to me at all.”
I’m sure she gave your response the same careful consideration she’s given all the points raised by the pro-2A crowd.
As a resident of NY my understanding of the law was that “assault weapons” could be legally kept as long as you registered them by the end of the year. Technically you aren’t forced to sell or destroy them. On the other hand your argument is right on about full capacity magazines. Those are taken from us. We have to sell out of state or destroy them by the end of the year. Personally I think we should consider the magazine the same as the rifle. Banning magazines is like saying your can own the car but not the wheels.
As an aside, I haven’t seen anything that says we can’t buy an AR out of state and bring it into the state. Additionally, they are creating a ammo data base which will be maintained indefinately based on amount purchased and caliber. So they may not know exactly what rifle you own but they’ll know the caliber ammo you use.
Makes me want to open an FFL in PA on the border. I think I’d do very well there.
Just remember no one makes a 7 round magazine sooooo.. You might be able to register but never legally use your firearm. This of course includes all semi automatic pistols as well.
There are a bunch of 7 rd .45 ACP mags. Just FYI.
http://www.coltsmfg.com/ShopOnline/tabid/62/ProdID/53/Default.aspx
Yeah, that’s been bugging me too. But I haven’t said anything because the “no 7rd mags” statement applies to the general market for AR/AK class rifles and modern (double stack) semi-auto pistols.
Sometimes it’s better to ignore the exceptions and pretend that absolutes exist, because otherwise we just undermine our own arguments. In conceding that 7rd 1911 mags exist, you conceded that gun owners (in theory) do have a viable choice for a 7-round semi-auto handgun that’s available today. The opposition would then use this to justify a de facto ban on every other handgun.
I’ll keep my 15 round mag. Thank you
Doesn’t there exist a Desert Eagle 7 rounder?
so you are okay with a national UN type registry? that violates your constitutional rights. the next step after knowing where they are all at is to come and get them. read some history sir. stand up and demand your rights to privacy and the right to bear arms to defend yourself against tyranny.
Ah, you see the magician distracts you with one hand while he picks your pocket with the other.
Take a close look at the definition of a “hi capacity ammunition feeding device.” Those (other than antiques) can’t be registered, right?
Okay, tell me how any tube fed shotgun, semi or not, that can take a mag extension isn’t a HCAFD? Worried yet. Tell me, how many mini-shells can a “6+1” 500 take?
Outlawing a formerly lawful product responsibly held by law-abiding folks is a
“taking” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. In the case of NY, it’s a taking without the payment of just compensation. Congrats, Gov. Mussolini. You now have the record for most Constitutions violated during one dark night. Now cross your arms over your chest, stick out your chin, purse your lips and try to look butch for your adoring Blackshirts.
And that’s a good thing, sometimes.
Say morphine or cocaine legally ordered through the Sears catalog, but outlawed in the teens.
‘Course, recreational drugs aren’t protected by the constitution, although the Tobacco Party does a pretty good job protecting some of ’em.
Arms – flintlocks, steel crossbows or ARs – are a tidge different.
Are you saying a ‘taking’ of morphine without just compensation would have been different constitutionally than a taking of a newly prohibited rifle magazine? The Fifth Amendment does not distinguish between the two, so far as both were legally possessed before being legally condemned. If you simply mean that it was good that morphine possession without medical supervision was criminalized, you aren’t talking about the “takings clause.”
Oh yes, and we’ve seen how well drug prohibition has worked out – wrecked numerous Latin American countries, resulted in the militarization of local police, and a substantial loss of Constitutional rights due to things like asset forfeiture.
Supporters of drug prohibitions have a lot of blood on their hands – blood of innocents.
Russ,
All rights are protected by the Constitution.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
My mother used to doubt every prediction I made about Obama, his regime, and the Democrats since 2007. I have been right on the money at every turn. Being a history buff and one who believes that history repeats itself, I told her from the beginning that this is what happens to a country when it transitions toward totalitarianism. after four years of predicting each step, she believes me now.
Kind of depressing, isn’t it?
My family is starting to admit I was right, too. Sucks being right about things getting worse.
So how in God’s green earth can we turn this wreckage around?
Once the USSR fell, we had to go lookin for enemies so hard, we let the lunatics run the asylum.
Now Constitutionalists are the Terrorists?
How do you feel having moved from NY to TX? I’m considering making the same move to live w/o the govt on my neck. I’d hate to think TX will turn the same way in 30 years. 🙁
There’s no doubt that Texas is going to go for the Dems shortly. That’s the effect that the Republican’s failed policies on immigration has had. But the good news is that even the Democrats are “A” rated by the NRA.
We might go blue, but we’ll never go pro-disarmament.
It is not a lie. Your mother is not a liar. She believes what she says, but she is mistaken.
It’s a subtle but important distinction.
Those who so thoroughly convinced her, or convinced the convincers, are indeed liars.
Shickelgruber said it best: Stick to your story. “Don’t change a word, and however fantastic it is the people will eventually believe it. It will then be the truth.”
In private he called it the Big Lie.
Yeah.
This entire AWB argument and the most common gun control measures, are disingenuous from the very beginning. Any argument you make with regards to outlawing so called “assault weapons”, can be made for handguns and concealable firearms. The AWB is nothing more then an attempt to establish precedence for bans, by eliminating firearms that are “scary”, and that are grab headlines; what gun control advocates perceive as “low hanging fruit”. As soon as you can justify the ban on one type of rifle, based on unarguably, ultra rare events, you’ll be able to justify a ban on just about everything else.
Bingo!
I understand that you’re saying this is definitively about your Second Amendment rights. BUT you can’t just claim sovereignty over only part of the Amendment.
It clearly states “well regulated” as surely as it states “shall not be infringed upon”.
So how to you square you demand for only part of the Second Amendment to adhered to?
Well regulated means well trained. Click here to bone-up on the 2A.
The second amendment reads as such. “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.
Yes it does say well regulated, the militia that is. What else does it say. It doesn’t say the militia has the right to keep and bear arms, it CLEARLY states the PEOPLE have the right. It separates the militia and the people making up the militia. The constitution also clearly states WHO the militia is, there is supposed to be a well regulated (as in prepared and trained) militia AND the rest of the people willing and capable of bearing arms.
I’m have trouble finding an image of the actual second amendment, but I get the impression that the word state is supposed to be lower case. As in the definition intended was “free state” = the condition of being free.
Does anyone else have a 2¢?
Glena,
The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. Those are rights that the founders guaranteed to We the People. The government cannot deny the 1st Amendment rights of the people; the 3rd Amendment rights of the people; the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, or 10th Amendment rights of the people. The Bill of Rights was not created for the protection of a militia, well regulated, or not, from abuse by the government. The 2nd Amendment, therefore, protects the right of We the People. Otherwise, why would the founders have included it in the Bill of Rights?
BTW, those 2nd Amendment rights are your 2nd Amendment rights, too!
Going door-to-door would only serve the purpose of possibly disarming criminals. As-is, when you simply make possession illegal, it’s only the law-abiding who are going to comply and turn them in. So laws like this aren’t “coming to get them,” they’re worse — they’re taking away guns from people who will comply, and not from the people who won’t. Now there’s a recipe for success!!! <_<
Nice piece Nick. Here’s a bit from the desert sage, Edward Abbey, that I personally hold near and dear to my heart. It’s a little dated, but just go with the flow and don’t sweat the details;
The Right to Arms (from the book entitled Abbey’s Road, © 1979)
Edward Abbey
If guns are outlawed
Only outlaws will have guns
(True? False? Maybe?)
Meaning weapons. The right to own, keep, and bear arms. A sword and a lance, or a bow and a quiverful of arrows. A crossbow and darts. Or in our time, a rifle and a handgun and a cache of ammunition. Firearms.
In medieval England a peasant caught with a sword in his possession would be strung up on a gibbet and left there for the crows. Swords were for gentlemen only. (Gentlemen!) Only members of the ruling class were entitled to own and bear weapons. For obvious reasons. Even bows and arrows were outlawed–see Robin Hood. When the peasants attempted to rebel, as they did in England and Germany and other European countries from time to time, they had to fight with sickles, bog hoes, clubs–no match for the sword-wielding armored cavalry of the nobility.
In Nazi Germany the possession of firearms by a private citizen of the Third Reich was considered a crime against the state; the statutory penalty was death–by hanging. Or beheading. In the Soviet Union, as in Czarist Russia, the manufacture, distribution, and ownership of firearms have always been monopolies of the state, strictly controlled and supervised. Any unauthorized citizen found with guns in his home by the OGPU or the KGB is automatically suspected of subversive intentions and subject to severe penalties. Except for the landowning aristocracy, who alone among the population were allowed the privilege of owning firearms, for only they were privileged to hunt, the ownership of weapons never did become a widespread tradition in Russia. And Russia has always been an autocracy–or at best, as today, an oligarchy.
In Uganda, Brazil, Iran, Paraguay, South Africa–wherever a few rule many–the possession of weapons is restricted to the ruling class and to their supporting apparatus: the military, the police, the secret police. In Chile and Argentina at this very hour men and women are being tortured by the most up-to-date CIA methods in the effort to force them to reveal the location of their hidden weapons. Their guns, their rifles. Their arms. And we can be certain that the Communist masters of modern China will never pass out firearms to their 800 million subjects. Only in Cuba, among dictatorships, where Fidel’s revolution apparently still enjoys popular support, does there seem to exist a true citizen’s militia.
There must be a moral in all this. When I try to think of a nation that has maintained its independence over centuries, and where the citizens still retain their rights as free and independent people; not many come to mind. I think of Switzerland. Of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland. The British Commonwealth. France, Italy. And of our United States.
When Tell shot the apple from his son’s head, he reserved in hand a second arrow, it may be remembered, for the Austrian tyrant Gessler. And got him too, shortly afterward. Switzerland has been a free country since 1390. In Switzerland basic. national decisions are made by initiative and referendum–direct democracy–and in some cantons by open-air meetings in which all voters participate. Every Swiss male serves a year in the Swiss Army and at the end of the year takes his government rifle home with him–where he keeps it for the rest of his life. One of my father’s grandfathers came from Canton Bern.
There must be a meaning in this. I don’t think I’m a gun fanatic. I own a couple of small-caliber weapons, but seldom take them off the wall. I gave up deer hunting fifteen years ago, when the hunters began to outnumber the deer. I am a member of the National Rifle Association, but certainly no John Bircher. I’m a liberal–and proud of it. Nevertheless, I am opposed, absolutely, to every move the state makes to restrict my right to buy, own, possess, and carry a firearm. Whether shotgun, rifle, or handgun.
Of course, we can agree to a few commonsense limitations. Guns should not be sold to children, to the certifiably insane, or to convicted criminals. Other than that, we must regard with extreme suspicion any effort by the government–local, state, or national–to control our right to arms. The registration of firearms is the first step toward confiscation. The confiscation of weapons would be a major and probably fatal step into authoritarian rule–the domination of most of us by a new order of “gentlemen.” By a new and harder oligarchy.
The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an “equalizer.” Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed–but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny.
If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government–and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws. Edward Abbey
I, too, intend to be among those “outlaws”. Diane, here are a three Gaelic phrases that you would do well to become familiar with;
Coimhead fearg fhear na foighde.
Beware the anger of a patient man.
Tiocfaidh ár lá.
Our day will come.
‘Póg mo thóin.
Kiss my ass.
That was awesome. Really enjoyed reading that.
Maybe it’s confirmation bias, but it was nice to see an eloquent piece like this by a fellow armed liberal.
Depending on the time of the day/year you get to see people in the trams and buses in Zurich carrying military rifles. Or Tel-Aviv
I take slight exception to the certifiably insane & convicted criminal limitations put forth above.
If you are certifiably dangerous to yourself or others, why aren’t you locked up?
If you are a convicted criminal/felon, again why aren’t you locked up?
Yeah, good ol’ NY has a sad history in this regard. An initial registry in NYC started in 1970 or so, followed by a AWB in the 80’s. Upstate was still OK but then came the state-wide Semi-Ban in the 90’s. Was “gandfathered” so still OK. And now this screwed-up mess – SAFE Act. Still OK if you “register” with the State Police for future seizure but no passing them on in this formerly free state. “Large” mags have to be disposed of – not guns.- yet.
Even worse is the 7 rd limit, effecting almost all handguns which are already under the Sullivan Law. Anything over demands registration. Don’t feel bad about misunderstanding a part of it – nobody understands it. Like I recommend in all these cases, we are suing, lobbying and making all the noise we can. Learn from this – beware!
If you feel safe in Texas don’t, beware! Libs are like rust – they never sleep.
Several folks from New York have mentioned that they’ll have to turn in their mags or destroy them (who oversees them being destroyed?) as it will no longer be legal to possess them because they will not be “grandfathered”.
I’m not a legal scholar but how is it possible to pass such a law when The Constitution forbids the passage of ex-post facto law?
Are the states not bound by this?
It is not ex post facto because you would not be punished for what you did before the law was passed.
I consider it a “taking” though, because the law renders something valuable into contraband.
Yeah – why does anyone need a gun that can kill at 300+ meters . . .
Here’s your sign 🙂
David my 1917 American enfield can hit a silver dollar at 500 yards.and its almost 100 yrs old.its not the gun its the person behind it.and yes i own an ARMOR LIGHT RIFLE:::ar15 in .223 nice little gun not a long range gun .my 100yr old 30 06 will go threw walls.most all anti gun people dont know a .22lr from a .270wetherby mag they think every gun is a ak47.your a fool if you turn them in .
I gave my 1916 enfield to my brother the day he unscrewed a bottlecap with it from 100 yards, using ironsights. If it was random, hey, whatever, but he CALLED it walking back to the line: “Watch me unscrew the cap on this thing”, so yeah, the science of gunsmithing was further advanced than most by the turn of last century. 🙂
Ask the Iraqis how they did repelling the invader once it was already inside their homes.
Thanks, but I prefer my odds at 300+ yards/meters.
Why does anyone “need” a car that can go faster than 55.
Try a testosterone supplement or ask your wife if it is your turn to wear the pants.
Can you get trade up for another mother?
You can pick your guns but you can’t pick your family.
but you can’t pick your gun’s nose lol
It has been my experience that it isn’t very hard to get an anti-gunner to come right out and say they don’t want us to have guns. Usually after the opening salvo or two, when logic is outstripping rhetoric they’ll move to the old gem of “Well nobody needs those things and shouldn’t have them anyway!” That’s when I know there’s no point in continuing.
So true, guns are kind of like jazz, if you gotta ask, you’ll never know. Don’t give up though, some people just need exposure to discover that they’ve been zealots all along, just never knew it.
At that point ask them why Rosa Parks “needed” to sit in front of the bus.
It’s not the bill of needs, it’s the bill of rights.
Great article Mr. Leghorn. Here’s another example you can use to say, “well, some people seem to be trying really hard.”
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html
I was surprised to learn that Mexico’s Constitution contains a right to own guns. Except it’s still virtually impossible to get a permit anyway, and even if you do, you can own a revolver but not a semi-automatic pistol. That’s how Constitutionally guaranteed rights die, one modern firearm at a time.
Lefties envision they will be in power forever, regulating and controlling more and more of everyday life. Thus a compete disarming of American citizens is necessary to turn them into the proper defenseless subjects the Left wants.
Everything — everything — the Left says in regard to firearms is a lie. It should never be taken at face value.
They view that time is on their side, and will say any lie that helps to advance their way toward a firearm-free future (as applies to us, of course). Toward that end, they will advance by a thousand microsteps, taking another century if necessary. For all righteousness is theirs.
Sorry to hear about your mother’s aversion to the 2A. My mother has started to come around and now wants to own a handgun, seeing how the Democrats have been talking against it.
Compromising on rights is like saying it’s ok for the government to kill you just a little bit. Like using drones against Americans within our borders is “ok,” in Obama’s mind because he will only do so “if it’s really necessary.” Of course he gets to determine what is really necessary. Any American that goes along with any further reduction in our second amendment rights is granting the position that the Constitution no longer matters. It’s time, people, to dig in our heels and say “ENOUGH.” I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. I intend to fulfill that oath. The left are enemies of the Constitution and I will not let them succeed.
That’s not true. It states “well regulated” just as clearly as it does “shall not be infringed upon”. You must honor both sentences to hold the Constitution to it’s truth. No one is CHANGING the Constitution by “well regulating” firearms. It’s supposed to be that way.
Well regulated means well trained in the context of the second amendment. It is also clear that the right that shall not be infringed is a preexisting right, as are all rights, that is retained by the people. All rights are absolute. They can only be infringed if they are used to infringe on the rights of others.
No it doesn’t/didn’t. But that seems convenient for you to adopt as a new definition today because it suit your purpose.
Look up a dictionary from the time period and check out regulated. It hasn’t changed.
Clear evidence to me that you are repeating things you’ve “heard” and not researched on your own.
I research, it’s so easy these days.
I’ve read the founders words. I know what they meant. I’ve read actual dictionaries from the time. It meant well-trained, disciplined and knowledgeable of the tactics of warfare. It didn’t mean the government telling you what arms you could posses. The arms possessed at the time were the same arms possessed by the regular armies. That is the arms that the founders intended for the people to possess in the future. They didn’t want a government to ever be better armed than the people.
Simple grammar and syntax. The Second Amendment has two independently functioning, complementary parts.
The MILITIA is to be well regulated (well trained and yes, subject to restrictions that lend themselves to good order and proper function).
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is to be left alone (i.e., shall not be infringed).
And where did you come up with this information….oh I know…it’s how you’re interrupting it. When in fact, one sentence in in regard to the militia….which the militia are the people….all people. The other half of the 2nd is meant to not infringe…hence to violate. Read and research what the founding fathers were saying…I would begin with reading “The Federalist Papers,” which are comment from the founders in how the derived at the words and order of the Bill of Rights. The word regulated meant for the militia to be well armed, with appropriate gear and ammo, as well as properly trained. That is what the founders said when then used the word regulate. And why they added the word into the first part of the 2nd amendment. WOW the ignorance is scary when people like you believe this stuff. Making stuff up is what makes you look intellectually weak and it’s apparent that critical thinking isn’t your forte. Please learn before making a comment you think or believe is correct…when in fact you’re absolutely wrong. And people like you walk and live amongst us. Americas downfall will be from within due to people like you. We don’t need to worry of a foreign threat bring this nation down. It will occur from within from people who think like you.
Glena – there’s little point in being obtuse about what the writers of the content meant by “well-regulated”…there were most certainly NOT inviting evisceration of the 2A by “regulation”, ergo, enactment of laws with the intent to defeat its very purpose. “Well-regulated” meant ONLY that the users were PROFICIENT in their use, as obviously a militia of bozos that didn’t know how to shoot would hardly be useful for the “security of a free State”. Hence why full-time, TRAINED soldiers were commonly referred to as REGULARS, or, as is jocularly used in describing an officer or senior enlisted who’s a lifer, good at his job, and committed to the service, as “REGULAR Army”. In fact, that would be the intent of not ‘infringing’ on the RIGHT of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms…they needed to own whatever state-of-the-art firearms, equivalent to those small arms commonly used by the REGULAR Army, of their choosing, for hunting and/or personal defense, and, with the intent of constituting a well-regulated militia, to DRILL. Read the Militia Act of 1792, which prescribes that every able-bodied man should procure his own rifle, and maintain a stock of powder, flints, and balls (ammo).
The Founders of the Constitution weren’t so stupid as to write in loopholes that would eviscerate the very rights they sought to guarantee would be respected. And like the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the Ninth Amendment stating that listing them does NOT disparage or limit other inherent rights, the right to keep and bear arms was not GRANTED, as what can be granted can someday be revoked, but presumed to already exist. The 2A is a proscription that gun rights shall not be “infringed”, which, sadly, has all but been ignored.
It’s not compromising on your rights, it’s your RIGHTS within the law.
The RIGHT to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is a right too. When guns start taking that right away at alarming rates, then we need to look at ways to curb that crisis.
Not everyone should have a gun. We regulate convicted felons and a few other people now but we can and should do a better job.
When polled a large majority of Americans are for stricter gun regulation. If I were a law abiding gun owner, I’d want that too. All the fringe folk talking madness would make me a little uneasy and I’d want those folks who shouldn’t have guns, to SURELY not have guns. They make the law abiding gun owners look bad with all their rhetoric and Apocalyptic views.
All democrat lies the poles are Skewed.
I remember when the federal government in Canada was trying to institute a national registry for long guns. They estimated that there was at least 21 million long guns in the hands of Canadians. (in 1997) This was considered a low estimate at the time. After 15 years, billions of dollars, threats of prison for non compliance and finally complete capitulation and repeal only 7 millions long guns were ever registered.
We Canadians defeated the law with non compliance and political action. Admittedly we still have a long ways to go but you will never seen another attempt at registration of long guns in Canada. (at least for a couple of generations)
I read the Oxford English dictionary of that time just yesterday and well regulated means exactly the same today as it did then.
I can cut and paste or even copy the link for you. But why would I spoil your fun to look it up.
There are LOTS of websites that TELL you that your meaning is correct. BUT when you get to the actual dictionary that was used at that time, it means the same as it does today.
The Gestapo is arming itself. Don’t kid yourself, nothing is ‘about’ to happen, it already is happening and only those with open minds see the truth. The public is being played much Like the story Plato told of the Allegory of the cave. Interpreting shadows cast on the wall before them with their backs to the reality outside. Remember, the Democrats started the civil war trying to force their beliefs on everyone then. This is now.
An assault weapons ban is NOT a ban on all guns. It’s not gun grabbing. We’ve had this ban before and it didn’t hinder the people from arming themselves.
Stop being so over dramatic and paranoid.
You had an “assault weapons ban” before. This goes above and beyond the previous provisions. And does indeed ban all pump action shotguns from new York State.
Banning Judaism and Christianity wouldn’t be banning all religion, you could still worship. Banning all music except country music would be fine, after all, you could still listen to some music. We could allow the government to do warrantless searches of homes under 1000 square feet, those over 1000 square feet would be exempted so it’s not like we’re stepping on the rights of people. They can still be still have Constitutional protections, they’ll just need to live in a larger house.
Some peoples idea of freedom and liberty are just bizarre!
Believe it or not, some cops have at times buffaloed apartment dwellers that, since they weren’t the OWNERS of the dwelling that they resided in, the Fourth Amendment right to refuse entry to law enforcement (or any Government official) into one’s home didn’t apply. The idea in lying to these rubes, of course, was that if they found something they could make a bust on, like drugs, they’d just claim that the occupants had VOLUNTARILY let them in and so defeat any suppression of evidence motions.
Qualifying or being ‘sensible’ about basic rights that the Constitution was amended with in 1791 (“Bill of Rights”) to ensure that said rights already existed and would be respected, is dangerous. And what others have said with regard to the 2A is correct. It’s part of the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of needs. One need not justify what type or quantity of firearm (s)he possesses. Whenever someone discusses “need”, especially in context of hunting, mention that Paul Revere didn’t do his night ride because the DEER were coming!
I have a question for you all that say this is your sovereign Second Amendment right that entitles you to any weapon and any magazine and any accessories you wish to have. Not the Government’s business.
Do you defend the rest of the Constitution and it’s Amendments just as voraciously?
How about the Fourth Amendment? How do you feel about just as staunchly defending the Government stay out of a woman’s right to choose as they do out of your gun cabinet?
Works for me.
Let’s make sure I understand this. The shooting of 20 children with a firearm is a tragedy. The murder of 1.3 million children each year by sucking their brains out with a vacuum or stabbing a trocar through their brain at birth is a choice. I that correct?
We talking upholding the Constitution. If you’re staunchly for the Constitution, then you gotta let that go because you don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are worth defending and fighting to keep.
If you pick and choose, it’s not about the Constitution at all. It’s about what you want and how you want it.
It’s also well over 20 children that are killed by gun violence each year. Well over 20.
In the U.S. a person is killed every 17 minutes by gunshot.
About 90 on an average day, every day in the United States.
It’s a problem. We can do better and we need to do better, we are a civilized society. We don’t need to take away guns but we do need to have better regulations and WAY better enforcement of the regulations. Close the loopholes for private sales/transfers and gun show loopholes.
ALL guns, every single one of them are bought legally some point, if we continue to do things better, it will eventually result in fewer guns in the wrong hands.
Won’t stop it all, but it will help.
Wow, every 17 minutes someone is shot. Now let’s take a look and see how many of those are likely legitimate self defense, and how many are side-effects of the war on some drugs.
2.5 million defensive uses of firearms each year, and most shooting ‘victims’ were rival drug gang members.
Let’s not be naive and think that any of this will be improved by making lawful gun-owners work harder to defend themselves.
Such pure fiction, Glenna. With about 11,500 homicides per year (and declining even with out of control Dem slums like Chicago) that breaks down to 31.5 per day. Or 1.3 per hour. There are about 20,000 suicides per year by gun (far less than by other means that often take out others with themselves, and if you count those you are mixing apples and cucumbers) and that means 3.6 per hour. So how do you arrive at the fake news numbers?
Also, try reading the many documents by the Founders in regards to the 2nd. And many supreme court justices writing opinions up until 1946 (FDR’s stacked court of leftists like himself).
Yes, that’s correct. It’s not a child until at least well into the second trimester (late term is definitely wrong…and you should probably brush up on your biology, a heartbeat does not a life make [Roe v. Wade determined this, too.]) Abortions should be legal but controlled (safe, healthy, and options encouraged but not required), guns should be legal but controlled (registered, regulated, not available through loopholes, and not available to crazies and violent felons), and drugs should be legal but controlled (safe and taxed, and addiction treated as a health problem, not a crime).
Roe v. Wade doesn’t determine when life begins. The definition of a child is not one decided by people in black robes anywhere. The moment you give up your personal convictions on such a grave distinction to a court case decided by fallible, short-sighted humans, you must agree to everything the courts could ever decide. Drone.
“Regulated” in the spirit you suggest? I’m not sure the young American gov’t was doing much of that. I do not believe regulated meant controlled by regulations, as we know them today. That would have defeated the purpose of the citizen militia. A well regulated militia is a well armed and well disciplined, capable militia. It assumed bringing to muster the guns owned by the citizenry that were appropriate to military use. If you think there is no militia today, you will see it at the polls shortly, fighting tyranny. You see, the “militia”, and ‘tyranny’ probably look different than what the founders imagined. It is tempting to see the 2d Am as vestigial, for some, because they feel safe from government. Most pro 2a folks do not have dreams of shooting it out with gov’t forces. They simply understand that being armed makes a difference in who we are as citizens.
And, peace to you. I am happy to leave your important life decisions to the one who knows what is best for you…you.
What a ridiculous juxtaposition. The 4A is about the people being secure in the persons, homes, and effects, and believe me, the Government at the Federal and State level is doing its best to circumvent THAT as well.
As for your hallowed “Woman’s right to CHOOSE” (to murder her otherwise healthy unborn infant, for its ‘crime’ of being conceived under inconvenient circumstances…yeah, what a cause to champion)…the SCOTUS, erroneously, IMO, but still, did, rule in 1973, some 45 years ago the present de facto Federal legislating from the judicial bench (a squashing of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments if ever there was such a thing) that this “right” existed not due to the FOURTH AMENDMENT, but due to a ‘right’ to PRIVACY. Now, in the context where said pregnancy is, in medical opinion, a bona fide risk to life and/or health of the mother, then, yes, her privacy does over ride any interest of the state to protect the unborn child’s life. But as we’ve seen with poor little Alfie in the UK, recently deceased in frustration of his parent’s effort to remove him from the NHS hospital that effectively sentenced the wee lad to death, what was an UNSEEN inconvenience, subject to abortion at the discretionary whim of the mother during the first trimester, when typically her pregnancy is not readily apparent, now those that are already born, and theoretically, if helpless like Alfie, ought to be the subject of great protection, are instead killed off for the ‘crime’ of being INCONVENIENT.
Liberalism is truly an anti-human philosophy of DEATH.
Funny how some version of the “truth” varies from the actual facts. Instead of listening to someone tell you what your right are why don’t you find out for yourself.
A: Sales or transfers to and between spouses, domestic partners, children and step-children, are exempt from the private sale/transfer provision.
Q: I have an antique gun with a magazine that can contain more than ten rounds.
Can I keep the magazine?
A: Yes, provided that you register both the gun and magazine using the same simple registration process that is used for assault weapons.
Q: I have an assault weapon. Do I have to give it up?
A: No. If you have an assault weapon, you can register it with the State Police. You have until April 15, 2014 to register your weapon. Click on the link to the right to register your weapon.. Under state and federal law, some people are not allowed to possess a weapon, such as convicted felons, individuals who have been involuntarily committed, or individuals currently under an order of protection. These people will not be able to register. There is no fee for registering.
Q: How does the SAFE Act impact magazines?
A: Since 1994, magazines sold in New York could contain up to 10 rounds. This continues to be true today. You may buy, sell, and possess any magazine that can hold up to 10 rounds, regardless of when it was manufactured. If you have a magazine that can contain more than 10 rounds, you have until January 15, 2014 to permanently modify the magazine so that it holds no more than ten rounds, responsibly discard it, or sell it to a dealer or an out of state purchaser
What is crazy about where the generations are going is democrats are taking away our guns but get drunk all the time, and will be high on pot now behind the wheel of a car. I think I would rather be shot than run over.
Lets not forget about hurricane Katrina when they went around and TOOK PEOPLES GUNS.
It’s amazing that a Constitutinal Scholar took time out of their busy schedule to interpret the 2A via an Oxford dictionary from the 1700’s.
I have a list of other things we should ban because it causes needless death: alcohol, automobiles, electricity, industrial equipment, and elective surgery. If we take all of that away think how many lives would be saved! Oh, and sharks … sharks cause meaningless death sometimes … a ban would help!
“Q: I have an assault weapon. Do I have to give it up?
A: No. If you have an assault weapon, you can register it with the State Police. You have until April 15, 2014 to register your weapon.”
We will not need to point out that “registration” ALWAYS leads to confiscation….like light
follows dark. The depressing part of this is
really all the would be gun owners on this thread
who will still quibble. Sucks to have state police drones smash down your door at 2:00 AM
over your AR15…but some are just slow learners I guess.
I want the barrel in the picture. Hmmmmm… Nambu
When I hear people quote the 2nd amendment, one thing always pops into my mind. There are two parts to it and one cannot exist without the other. In other words it won’t be long before New York, California and I’m sure some other states too, will not be able to form “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. Why? Because they won’t be able to “to keep and bear Arms”. Scary and sad. I live in the free state of Arizona and I will sit and watch as crime rises in these states as innocent people, unable to protect their families, become targets themselves. Criminals will flock to NY and CA because the “pickens will be easy”! You think crime has gone down in England since their firearms ban? Check again. Assaults, rape, murder, robbery, they just use more knives and baseball bats. Because of strict laws in countries like Somalia, they just hack each other to death with machetes. Frankly, I think I’d rather be shot!
I think I need to say a little bit more about the 2nd Amendment. Let’s do a little time travel and go back to the mid 1700s. The truth be told, there wasn’t a lot of crime. Everyone and I mean EVERYONE was armed in some fashion. Those people who could afford them, had guns. Those who couldn’t, carried knives. Not the little clip in your pocket knives that are the fashion of today, but big, scary, long knives.
If we take a walk down a sidewalk in Philadelphia, just prior to the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, we might pass a pretty lady dressed in a long flowing gown. She might be carrying a muff to keep her hands warm. Inside that muff is a flintlock muff pistol and when it was cold many men wore muffs too. Very popular self protection during this time in Europe and America. The well dressed gentleman across the street has a elegant brass handled walking cane. Inside the cane is hidden a long, thin, and sharply pointed sword. Even the beggar on the corner who’s missing one leg (lost it in the Seven Years’ War) has some kind of shiv and has learned to do a lot of damage with his crutch. And there’s Aodh Ó Conghaile with his blackthorn shillelagh. It has three notches on it. He poured “molten lead into the head to give it more punch in the swing”. He had to put down some bad men during the First Famine. They had broken into his house and were stealing his potatoes. The ones he had deep in his basement, protected from the frost.
Ok, enough, my point being, that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights never intended the 2nd Amendment to be about home or personal protection. It wasn’t needed. As I said, everyone had protection of some sort. You didn’t go knocking on some farmer’s door without him opening it with flintlock in hand.
The 2nd Amendment allows for the people (that’s us Mr. President) to keep arms (that’s firearms and doesn’t specify what kind) and in case of an tyrannical runaway government, (hmm, better keep my mouth shut on this one) have the ability to form “A well regulated Militia” to keep that government in check.
We’re no where near that type of government, but these things will creep up on you in small baby steps. Though things really went bad, fast in Germany. After WWI, economic depression, unemployment, and political strife that verged on civil war followed. This lead to the collapse of the Weimar Republic and we all know what happened after 1933. You get a sweet talker in office and the SCHTF, FAST! Hitler had Germany believing he was the best thing since sliced bread, at least for a few years.
And here’s another little mind thought to mull around. I wonder did your “Threat Assessment” ever consider this?
Say unknown terrorists right now are scouting areas to beach a large probably hijacked cruise ship. Say some spots of New York coast line look promising. They’ve dumped all the passengers and managed to fill it with 5 or 6,000 religiously rabid, well armed terrorists. Dump these guys off in New York and see what happens. Is it possible? Maybe, with the right planning. Could they sneak in under the radar, so to speak?
Oooo, I think I’ve come up with a plot for the next Bruce Willis movie!
very nice
More archival fodder for the “true believers”: “New gun law steps over ‘line in the sand'” –>> http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/dec/28/new-gun-law-steps-over-line-in-sand/
Beginning Jan. 1, state will hold records of long-gun purchases
By Steven Greenhut 5:08 p.m.Dec. 28, 2013
The Democrats have always been infiltrated by “Tories”, i.e., the internationalists who we either exiled or hung during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812; e.g., the Rockefellers, George Soros, etal, and all others who derive income from international trade, shipping, finance, insurance, etc. Since the Kennedy administration (1963), The “Tories” have been scheming to implement trade treaties that dispense with popular sovereignty and the right of indigenous peoples to control import/export and immigration, etc. They have government military services to protect their interests. But that is not enough — they will ALWAYS strive for the absolute consolidation of, concentration of, and control over the use of force.
The Following Excerpts are Quoted Out-of-Context From:
Observations on Credit and Surveillance –>> http://mattstoller.tumblr.com/page/6
by @matthewstoller
NAFTA Origins, Part Two: The Architects of Free Trade Really Did Want a World Government of Corporations –>> http://mattstoller.tumblr.com/post/77315135524/nafta-origins-part-two-the-architects-of-free
In the opening statement [of the above 1967 hearing before the Joint Economic Committee (a bicameral group composed of both House and Senate members)] before a legion of impressive Senators and Congressmen, [former Undersecretary of State and co-collaborator on the Trade Act of 1962, George] Ball, attacks the very notion of sovereignty. He goes after the idea that “business decisions” could be “frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations,” and lauds the multinational corporation as the most perfect structure devised for the benefit of mankind. He also foreshadows our modern world by suggesting that commercial, monetary, and antitrust policies should just be and will inevitably be handled by supranational organizations.
But Ball’s idea behind getting rid of these barriers wasn’t about free trade, it was about reorganizing the world so that corporations could manage resources for “the benefit of mankind”.
Here’s just some of that statement [(see pages 271-279 of the hearing record) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47084959/1967%20NAFTA%20discussion.pdf%5D. It really is worth reading…
“For the widespread development of the multinational corporation is one of our major accomplishments in the years since the war, though its meaning and importance have not been generally understood. For the first time in history man has at his command an instrument that enables him to employ resource flexibility to meet the needs of peopels all over the world. Today a corporate management in Detroit or New York or London or Dusseldorf may decide that it can best serve the market of country Z by combining the resources of country X with labor and plan facilities in country Y – and it may alter that decision 6 months from now if changes occur in costs or price or transport. It is the ability to look out over the world and freely survey all possible sources of production that is enabling man to employ the world’s finite stock of resources with a new degree of efficiency for the benefit of all mandkind.”
“But to fulfill its full potential the multinational corporation must be able to operate with little regard for national boundaries – or, in other words, for restrictions imposed by individual national governments.”
“To achieve such a free trading environment we must do far more than merely reduce or eliminate tariffs. We must move in the direction of common fiscal concepts, a common monetary policy, and common ideas of commercial responsibility. Already the economically advanced nations have made some progress in all of these areas through such agencies as the OECD and the committees it has sponsored, the Group of Ten, and the IMF, but we still have a long way to go. In my view, we could steer a faster and more direct course by agreeing that what we seek at the end of the voyage is the full realization of the benefits of a world economy.”
“Implied in this, of course, is a considerable erosion of the rigid concepts of national sovereignty, but that erosion is taking place every day as national economies grow increasingly interdependent, and I think it desirable that this process be consciously continued. What I am recommending is nothing so unreal and idealistic as a world government, since I have spent too many years in the guerrilla warfare of practical diplomacy to be bemused by utopian visions. But it seems beyond question that modern business – sustained and reinforced by modern technology – has outgrown the constrictive limits of the antiquated political structures in which most of the world is organized, and that itself is a political fact which cannot be ignored. For the explosion of business beyond national borders will tend to create needs and pressures that can help alter political structures to fit the requirements of modern man far more adequately than the present crazy quilt of small national states. And meanwhile, commercial, monetary, and antitrust policies – and even the domiciliary supervision of earth-straddling corporations – will have to be increasingly entrusted to supranational institutions.”
“We will never be able to put the world’s resources to use with full efficiency so long as business decisions are frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations, reflect no common philosophy, and are keyed to no common goal.”
For more amusement consider that Second Amendment advocates should be the ideological “blood brothers” of the “hooligans” who protest the World Trade Organization. I guess they just don’t get guns, and we just don’t get neoliberal-globalist, foreign-finance-influenced, multinational-corporatist, Mussolini-esque corporo-fascism.
“No one is trying to take away your guns” Try explaining that to Maryland residents. There is already a ban on transfer of certain weapons (by name and type) into the state. Meaning, you cannot get a new one. If yours is lost, stolen, or damaged beyond repair- no replacement. Effectively, taken away by attrition.
Oh, and if you let just about any anti-gun, freedom-hating zealot go on long enough, the phrase becomes, “No one is trying to take away your guns yet. But we should and someday will.” They always betray the true intent, to disarm the honest citizen and do nothing to the actual criminals.
I doubt any anti gun people are reading these comments. Your comments, my comments won’t do much good here. We’re just padding ourselves in the back.
Anti gun people or those ignorant of guns dont care or want to read what you and i have to say. They’re living a bubble just like many of us here.
Think outside the box. The more we are hostile toward the ignorant, the further we push them away from us.
So all this whining and worry…. why had no one taken a bat one of these fascists and caved their heads in? You can pin a note on their bloody pulp that reads, “If I only had a gun.”
Our founding fathers revolted over taxes that are less than 1% of what we pay today. Slavery is alive and well. Burn the banks, kill the banking families, destroy the federal reserve and kill anyone even remotely connected with it’s fraudulent activity. Time to bring back personal responsibility.
Yes, they ARE out to get your guns.
The next time some Brady nut tells you that no one wants to take your guns away, send them here…
=========================
(“From Charles Krauthammer — a conservative, but one who is distinctly anti-gun — writing in the Washington Post in 1996:
The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of “assault weapons” will reduce the crime rate is laughable…. Dozens of other weapons, the functional equivalent of these “assault weapons,” were left off the list and are perfect substitutes for anyone bent on mayhem….
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate. I am not up for reelection. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban:
It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country, but the frontier has been closed for 100 years. In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one might note) had 128; Britain, 33.
Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.
Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.
De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades…. “)
=========================
(“”We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. . . . [W]e’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”
Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. (aka the Brady Campaign)
=========================
(“We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.
— Rahm Emmanuel
=========================
(“We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!
–Charles Schumer
=========================
(“They will never outlaw all of your guns at once. But every ‘reasonable’ control they can impose without your resistance gives them one more bit of leverage to make gun ownership for you and your children and your grandchildren as difficult as possible.
–David Kopel
(he’s just saying how they plan to do it)
=========================
(“The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace
–Janet Reno, addressing a 1991 B’nai B’rith gathering in Ft Lauderdale.
=========================
(“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe
–Dianne Feinsten, Associated Press 11/18/93
=========================
(“I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.
–Howard Metzenbaum
=========================
(“I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.
–Michael Dukakis
=========================
(“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,’ I would have done it.
–Diane Feinstein
=========================
(“If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated.
–Nancy Pelosi
=========================
(“We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true.
–Charles Schumer
=========================
(“What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned.
–Howard Metzenbaum
=========================
(“Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose.
–Janet Reno
=========================
(“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles…that we are unable to think about reality.
–William Jefferson Clinton
=========================
(“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” -U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993
=========================
(“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”
– Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del/ Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
=========================
(“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe.”
– U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, quoted by the Associated Press, November 18, 1993
=========================
(“I believe all handguns should be abolished”
– Senator John Chafee in The Associated Press, January 9, 1997
=========================
“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.” Lets see by the common understanding of the word “infringed” that would make all laws pertaining to guns state or federal illegal and unconstitutional who else would like to send the united states elected powers to decide whats legal back to elementary school? because evidently none of them should have graduated collage must less passed the bar exam because if we stand by the 2nd amendment I and you should be able to go buy any firearm we could possibly afford.
I don’t think they have a plan to go door to door to confiscate weapons. It’s so much easier to pass a law that says you have to turn them in. They still succeed in disarming civilians and they don’t have to use the word “confiscate”. They know you’re not going to turn in your guns, and that’s ok. Little by little, gun by gun, they will destroy the right to bear arms.
You came up from your mom’s basement long enough to have an argument with her? Was she making you a sandwich?
I was hopeful that I might read something intelligent about why so many people are actually afraid of the U.S. Gubment taking their guns. Why would they want to? To force you into conscription? To kill off the minorities? If it were the Republicans suggesting gun confiscation I’d be worried about it, because you hate blacks. You only tolerate Jews because you think you’ll need one to vouch for you at the rapture.
If you had presented any actual reasons, you might have convinced me. But you pointed to one senator and, from what I can tell, one huff po contributer.
Jesus, I better stock up on ammo.
Australia confiscated guns. Right after that they… what? Beheaded all the defenseless protesters? Forced abortions on women because their husbands couldn’t protect them anymore?
You clearly have a flair for creative writing. Imagine what you could accomplish if you weren’t so afraid mommy will take away your toys.
Howdy! Would you mind if I share you blog with my twitter
group? There’s a lot of people that I think would really appreciate yourr content.
Please let mee know. Thank you
Replace the word “guns” with “your rights” and you’ll get a much clearer picture of what all of these discussions and regulations are really about. That’s why gun control is such a touchy subject. People want to keep their guns of course but in reality they are experiencing attempts on taking their rights away. That’s why it makes them so angry.
I grew up in Europe where technically nobody owned a gun, now as a citizen of US, I enjoy target shooting and also the belief that I can protect my family against armed burglars but I still think that firearms are tools for specific job and are not necessary. But it doesn’t mean that they should be outlawed and people’s rights taken away by controlling politicians who own mass media and manipulate half of the population.
I think that religion is more dangerous than firearms but I don’t think it should be illegal or heavily regulated either.
I dunno just how seriously I can take a guy named, “Leghorn!’
スーパーコピーブランド優良店、
偽物時計n級品海外激安通販専門店！
ロレックス、ウブロをはじめとした、様々なスーパーコピー時計の販売・サイズ調整をご 提供しております。
スーパーブランドコピーなら当店で！
I’m not sure if someone else asked this, if they did I completely missed it, sorry. I know I must be missing something cause how does Article 1, Secion 9, Clause 3 or Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 (ex post facto laws) not apply to laws like this? I mean one day gun owners are in legal possession of their firearms the next day these same people owning the same firearms are now criminals but they have done nothing wrong only the law has changed.
This is just more scare tactics for fraidy cats.
“they want…they want….they want….”
Pacifists want peace on earth. I don’t see anyone worried about peace breaking out across the planet.
Look, here’s the bottom line for all the weak minded paranoids out there who always believe someone’s out to get them — liberals and dems can wish for gun control until the USA is just a distant memory of a crumbled empire, but democrats clicking their heels three times and reciting mantras won’t get them there.
And lemme tell you a secret from someone who doesn’t live in their red bubble — most liberals either have guns, or want guns.
It’s pitifully ironic that though gun carry laws are more permissive than they have been in our lifetimes, that shooters are still obsessed about losing our guns. When will you wake up that you’re being played by the gun manufacturers’ lobby like the nra, goa, etc? Wake up, americans. Stop fearing the boogeyman under the bed.
Fact: According to research by Everytown for Gun Safety, when it comes to unintentional shootings by children, toddlers (ages 2 to 4) are at the greatest risk of shooting themselves with an unsecured gun. Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun. Many of these deaths are entirely preventable with responsible gun storage.
By the way! The best essay writing service – https://www.easyessay.pro/
And Happy New Year!
How many drown in pools? How many by falls? Research the fact that mothers kill more babies each year than guns do. Finally doctors kill ten times as many people each year than guns do in this country. Ban doctors.
Your reference to DiFi and the scary black ones. Sounds like a subliminal racist comment coming from Westchester County, NY.
All of us that love and care about our families and others should all go out and get guns to protect ourselves and our families and to be armed if the government tries to become a tyrannical government!!! This is a right that is guaranteed to us to be able to bear arms and not no Congress or Senate can ever take it away, for even government has no right to make gun free cities or states or neighborhoods!!! We the citizens of this country should fight and take these politicians that try to impose these laws on American citizens to the supreme court and sue them everytime that they try to impose such unconstitutional policies!!! For no citizen should be left without protecting themselves or their family!!!
thank you
No one wants to take away your guns.
https://imgur.com/a/hmCTEyA