Posted on 03/27/2015 8:57:39 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
No, not you.
Someone else is throwing a fit because we all spotted an inherent problem with the bill.
So they focused on me out of everyone who made the same observation.
IRRELEVANT.
The 2nd Amendment is not the right to own and use sporting goods; it is the right to OWN AND CARRY WEAPONS OF MILITARY UTILITY (per US v Miller, and the Founders), light arms AND crew-served weapons that able to project deadly force at distance, that are equal in power to the Government's arms.
Anything less is capitulation and destined to put us in chains.
BUMP.
It's even easier than that: If a weapon or ammo is found to be unlawful for U.S. citizens, then it should also be banned as unlawful for any police use by civilian police agencies, local, state or federal. A cop who then violates the law immediately forfeits his job, any accrued pension or retirement fund, and if the wepons was actually used, may then be charged with waging war on the civilian population of the United States, with the penalty prescribed for such action.
Exactly right. Miller wasn’t there, either.
Miller was dead. His lawyer thought the point moot so he didn’t show up.
????????????????????
Cheers
Had ENOUGH Yet ? ........................ Enforce the Bill of Rights ......... It’s the LAW !!!
Yours was just the first comment to pick nits. They’re as guilty as you are.
This bill is a good thing, and something we can pass and the President will veto. That’s a good thing too.
We should be passing bill after bill after bill - one a week.
He should be vetoing them just as fast. You pass bills that define your entire platform so that when the time comes to run, you can point to all the good things the other side WON’T do that you will.
It isn’t rocket science. I’m just glad we worked so hard for a historic majority, only to have a couple of Democrats led it.
“Yours was just the first comment to pick nits. “
So you focus ONLY on one person.
*Golf clap*
Way to go.
And, as mentioned, the bill has major flaws that would be problematic AS WE MENTIONED.
For OTHER issues, see posts 23 and 25!
Nit picker not I...
There’s no perfect bill. Period. This one can win, and it isn’t just symbolic. It should pass.
Your attitude on this is why we pull defeat from the jaws of victory every time. It’s far, far better with almost no downside.
Today, Obola just goes around Congress. They wouldn’t be able to with this. It binds the White Hut.
Apparently for the poster at 30, pointing out that the makeup of congress can be problematic with the 2/3 rule and future gun rights is “nit picking”.
“There’s no perfect bill. Period.”
So your answer is to make it so that future problematic congress critters can by simple 2/3 vote restrict something guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?
How about something revolutionary instead, like: ENFORCE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS WRITTEN.
RinaseaofDs, you are barking up the wrong tree.
The others I’m pinging also mentioned the SAME problem I noticed with this bill.
YOU seem to have a big bug up your backside about it.
They’re going around it now anyway. Full Stop. ‘well regulated militia’ is the problem. Right now, any collection of black-robed idiots in the country can, and have, gutted the law.
You can’t have guns in cities like NYC. Just can’t do it.
To enforce the amendment, as written, involves a well regulated militia. If it weren’t for the NRA, the 2nd would have been toast a while back.
This bill is worth passing, because it doesn’t involve a well-regulated militia, and you still have the courts to fall back on, though that is no real comfort.
“They’re going around it now anyway. “
Yes, and this bill will do very little to change that.
Tell me, do YOU trust the RINOs in any way shape or form?
I don’t.
And all it takes is a bunch of Olympia Snowes, Mitch McConnells, McCains, Grahams, etc in both sides of Congress to royally screw us.
But it would be all nice and legal like under this bill!
It would be as legal under this bill as the handgun ban in NYC is today. Unless the amendment is rewritten so that it does tie gun ownership to being in a militia, then FedZilla, StateZilla, and all the baby Zillas are going to continue to go around it.
I personally think that if the USG can have it, then people should be able to have it - as long as it can be carried and fired. Mechanized arms are another matter.
Problem is, its all tied to a term people today feign ignorance about, when they know the term ‘militia’ referred to citizens resisting tyrannical forms of governance.
I’m a big fan of Black Talons. I’m glad they go through ballistic armor. I’m quite sure the USG will use them on me the day they decide Posse Comitatus (you should see how weak the foundation of that bit of protection is!) is an outmoded concept.
Every single one of is a criminal under the current set of laws and regulations. It’s impossible not to be. Felons lose the ability to protect themselves under the 2nd, and nobody is bothered by that. It’s just a small infraction of the 2nd, among many, many other cuts.
No.
As stated in the article, a simple 2/3 vote and the ban is legal.
Just like the Third Reich’s “all nice and legal” atrocities.
The laws were passed, it was voted on, it was legal.
And you’re trusting RINOs not to act like RINOs and support the Dem positions as they always do.
That is a megafail.
Today they are just doing it - legal authority or no legal authority.
Next time someone does it, I’d like there to be a record of it. That way there’s a list.
ATF, today, just does it. No legal authority whatsoever. Ban 5.56 ammo. No problem. Ban lead in ammo - no problem. I’m surprise they haven’t thought of something like banning the use of firing pins.
Unlike what Boehner pulled with Obamacare earlier this term, he brought it to the floor because he didn’t have the votes.
This bill goes IF they have the votes. I say let them bring it. If Poland was a trip wire for NATO, then let this be the trip wire for CWII. Pass it and we’ll now where we stand. If 2/3 are willing to excise the second - heck, make it 3/4’s. If its numbers that trouble you, and 67 Senators wanting to take the 2nd down isn’t bad enough, make it 75 - 8 more votes.
What difference does it make on the Hill if they thought they could ram gun control through and get 2/3 of the Senate? Make it 3/4 - that’s what it would take to erase the amendment anyway. If you think we are nearly there, then make it 3/4, but no matter what - there should be a record. A list. Something you can spool around a crossbow bolt.
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.