Skip to comments.
Republican Senator Introduces Ban on Federal Gun Control
Breitbart.com ^
| 03/27/2015
| AWR Hawkins
Posted on 03/27/2015 8:57:39 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
To: E. Pluribus Unum
“that fails to garner two-thirds of senators in support.”
A dem controlled congress like a few years ago would easily have that threshold.
It needs a stronger protection.
2
posted on
03/27/2015 8:59:15 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
To: Darksheare
This does seem a bit weak...
3
posted on
03/27/2015 8:59:53 AM PDT
by
Eric in the Ozarks
("If he were working for the other side, what would he be doing differently ?")
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Does that mean the 1934 NFA, the 1968 GCA and the 1986 mg ban would all be nullified?
4
posted on
03/27/2015 9:00:00 AM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(True followers of Christ emulate Christ. True followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.)
To: Darksheare
“...Shall not be infringed” is a pretty strong protection, even if they don’t pay it any mind.
5
posted on
03/27/2015 9:00:14 AM PDT
by
rarestia
(It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
To: Blood of Tyrants
6
posted on
03/27/2015 9:03:11 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Careful, times and congressional demographics change. Better to call for Bill of Rights enforcement.
KYPD
7
posted on
03/27/2015 9:03:13 AM PDT
by
petro45acp
(Grubbers "stupid" electorate is starting to look very much like Romney's 47%. Just sayin...)
To: rarestia; Eric in the Ozarks
Yes.
It seems too many politicians cannot understand what “Shall not be infringed” means.
And any bill that doesn’t back that up or put teeth in it has proven to be useless.
8
posted on
03/27/2015 9:04:25 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
To: Darksheare
67 Senators? That’s a pretty high standard. You can’t completely ban Congress passing any law. They pass unconstitutional laws all the time.
This makes it harder - much harder. As such, why NOT be a supporter?
To: Darksheare
It must be assumed that the Founders meant exactly what they said.
No “protective measures” are necessary.
10
posted on
03/27/2015 9:06:06 AM PDT
by
Eric in the Ozarks
("If he were working for the other side, what would he be doing differently ?")
To: Eric in the Ozarks
“It must be assumed that the Founders meant exactly what they said.”
In the eyes of sensible people.
Most critters in congress have shown they are not sensible people.
11
posted on
03/27/2015 9:08:09 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
To: RinaseaofDs
The makeup of congress changes.
And we have had many “R” labeled idiots who wholeheartedly support gun bans.
Romney comes immediately to mind, all it takes is for a bunch of them to be in congress together and you have your 67 votes.
12
posted on
03/27/2015 9:09:36 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
To: Blood of Tyrants
"Does that mean the 1934 NFA, the 1968 GCA and the 1986 mg ban would all be nullified?"
Probably not, but it's a start.
"Lees amendment would ban any future gun control from lawmakers that fails to garner two-thirds of senators in support. It would also ban regulations issued by agencies like the ATF."
13
posted on
03/27/2015 9:09:46 AM PDT
by
Enterprise
("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
With Ted Cruz running for president, Mike Lee is going to become very important!
14
posted on
03/27/2015 9:13:00 AM PDT
by
GraceG
(Protect the Border from Illegal Aliens, Don't Protect Illegal Alien Boarders...)
To: Darksheare
15
posted on
03/27/2015 9:13:25 AM PDT
by
GraceG
(Protect the Border from Illegal Aliens, Don't Protect Illegal Alien Boarders...)
To: Enterprise
Too bad. The 2934 NFA would have been ruled unconstitutional if Miller’s attorney had bothered to show up in court at the hearing.
16
posted on
03/27/2015 9:14:12 AM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(True followers of Christ emulate Christ. True followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.)
To: Enterprise
Too bad. The 1934 NFA would have been ruled unconstitutional if Miller’s attorney had bothered to show up in court at the hearing.
17
posted on
03/27/2015 9:14:22 AM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(True followers of Christ emulate Christ. True followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.)
To: Darksheare
Then it has to go SCOTUS.
2/3 of the country have people that are pretty adamant about having the right to protect themselves, and its ever been thus.
My question stands - this legislation makes it much, much tougher. Why again are you opposed?
To: RinaseaofDs
SCOTUS can also change.
What SHOULD be is that “Shall not be infringed” should have been enough.
And, again, all it takes is a bunch of idiots and you have your 67.
There needs to be teeth to prevent shenanigans.
A simple 2/3 doesn’t protect enough.
19
posted on
03/27/2015 9:19:57 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
To: RinaseaofDs; petro45acp; rarestia; Eric in the Ozarks
Funny that you focus on me alone out of everyone else who has stated there is an inherent weakness in this bill.
20
posted on
03/27/2015 9:22:09 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson