Posted on 06/13/2017 7:53:58 AM PDT by rktman
That was in a taped conversation and it may have been what he privately thought... but publicly he never pushed any gun control measure, though he did indicate he would sign a “Saturday Night Special” law if it came to his desk.
Don’t say investigation...say matter...
Police were tipped off to his outbursts and he confessed that he’d made terrorists remarks but that it was just a response to islamophobia.
Some day these jihadists are going to have to be taken as a threat before they carry out their attacks.
His wife drove him there at times and knew of his plot, where is she today?
1962: We ONLY want to register handguns! Rifles and shotguns will not be affected!
1964: We want to register ALL GUNS! and ban the import of 5 shot bolt action army surplus rifles.
1968: We demand the registration of ALL FIREARMS, and a ban on foreign Saturday night specials and army surplus rifles (They got this ban).
1971: We demand a BAN on all SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS!
1976: We demand a ban on ALL HANDGUNS! Long guns will not be affected!
1981: The NRA is a RIFLE ORGANIZATION! They should give up their handguns and they can keep their rifles!
1986: We DEMAND a ban on semi-auto rifles and shotguns!
1993: They got a 10 year ban on new military style rifles.
2000: We demand a ban of single shot .50 cal rifles!
They are never satisfied, ever!
I believe the concern is not the meaning of "infringe". The concern is the meaning of the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". If something can be designated as not included in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" then laws against that something would not be considered an infringement.
What the ORIGINAL FOUNDER of Handgun Control Inc (Now Brady Center) said back in 1976.
Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.
“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. 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.
Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.
So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that 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.
My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”
-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58
“Yes, I’m for an outright ban [on handguns].”
-Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., 60 Minutes interview
HCI, around 1984, came out in favor of a ban on semi-auto rifles and shotguns.
It’s fine to use “undocumented immigrant” and “sanctuary city” but the New York Times criticized the use of “government schools.”
I still can’t get past the term “Gun Lobby”. WTH is that?
Okay. Now I’m confused. #invsestigationsdontmatter? Or is it #mattersdontinvestigate. Either way, mueller needs to go. If they can’t find evidence in this “matter” they’ll just make some up. All this is distraction from getting stuff done.
Since the feds have repeatedly proven that they cannot be trusted to police themselves with respect to working within the limited powers expressly constitutionally delegated to them by the states, patriots need to develop the following habit.
Patriots need to start checking every law, regulation and action of the already unconstitutionally big federal government against the limited powers that the states have expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds, Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers a good place to start.
And if no clause can be found to reasonably justify federal involvement in an issue then the fed’s actions are probably unconstitutional imo.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
With respect to so-called federal gun control laws, while the Founding States expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate military-related arms, such power evidenced by clauses 12 and 16 of Congress’s Section 8-limited powers as examples, there is no express delegation of power to justify the feds making civilian-related gun laws imo.
In fact, it is disturbing that federal gun regulations for non-military related arms seem to have started appearing in the books during FDR Administration, FDR and the Congress at that time infamous for making laws which they had no express constitutional authority to make.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
So the referenced federal lawmaker probably, and unsurprisingly if so, doesn’t seem to understand the fed’s limited powers concerning making laws imo, gun-related laws in this case.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Interesting. What was George McGovern’s position on gun control in 1972?
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.