Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[Hand]

A BILL

To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

I'll be making a call to my Senators office today.

I used to think these people were either ignorant or un-informed. But seeing them including barrel shrouds in the list of things defined as "assault weapons" makes me now think otherwise.

“(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

“(i) A pistol grip.

“(ii) A forward grip.

“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.

“(iv) A grenade launcher.

“(v) A barrel shroud.

“(vi) A threaded barrel.

[tom kelly]

The ultra liberal "progressive" leftist want all of our guns, increase out taxes, force socialism upon us, and turn this country into a communist state that they control with propaganda from the main stream media." If you own the language, you own the narrative. IMHO the Second Civil War started on 9 April 1865, when Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered and ended the 1st Civil War.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by tom kelly

... 9 April 1865, when Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered and ended the 1st Civil War.

Concur. The top-hatted despot proved that all that stuff in the founding documents about a voluntary coalition of states & that a state could peacefully leave when it and the Republic were at odds was a load of horsehockey if the right despot had the right amount of power.

[CSB]

Concur. The top-hatted despot proved that all that stuff in the founding documents about a voluntary coalition of states & that a state could peacefully leave when it and the Republic were at odds was a load of horsehockey if the right despot had the right amount of power.

I have a problem with that, and here's why:

In the Constitution our founding fathers provided for the creation of the Union (by the ratification of a specified number of states); they provided for the creation/addition of additional states (such as territories making application to become states; or even a state splitting into two states such as Virginia/West Virginia).

But nowhere in the Constitution or any amendments is there any contemplation or process for a State to leave the Union.

You would think that if leaving the Union was a possibility, the Constitution would have provided the rationale and the process.

- Majority vote by a state, ratified by a majority vote of both houses of Congress?

- A motion made by a state's legislature and signed by the state's governor,
thereafter approved by a majority vote of both houses of Congress? 2/3 vote?, 3/4 vote? of one or both houses of Congress?

Compare and contrast (as my high school social studies teacher would say) the rather express one way in, no way out provisions of the United States Constitution,

with the provisions of Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union, a "treaty" that is the de facto "constitution of the United States of Europe," and expressly provides for a member of the Union to withdraw from the Union.

Yes, it still has gaps and unclear terms, but Article 50, leading now to "Brexit" as England departs the European Union, at least embraces the concept that a state/nation can join a Union, but then thereafter decide ... under provisions in the establishing document ... to withdraw from that Union.

Our United States Constitution has no "Article 50." For better or for worse, we are wedded for life.

Or as that same teacher said many years ago:

"Can a State leave the United States? No. We settled that at a courthouse in a place called Appomattox."

[Badger52]

CSB, I appreciate your input, really.

My issue with the "settled at Appomattox" view is that the criteria cited is something settled by force of arms. It takes the view that "we settled it because we kicked their ass."

My view is that nowhere in the Constitution is such a mechanism prohibited. Several states had individually petitioned the national government on this issue with their grievances prior to hostilities, those grievances falling upon deaf ears. It could be a comparison of:

- "That which is not explicitly permitted is denied." Seems rather statist to me. (And, honestly, I don't recognize the existence of the EU's documents to be a retroactive vindication of the Appomattox verdict.)

Contrasted with:

- "That which is not expressly denied is permitted." In my view that is more in keeping with the larger tenor of the founding documents of a limited national government, all else being reserved to the states.

[bblhead672]

If the premise is that once a state is "in" there's no Constitutional way out, the only recourse I see is to burn it all down and start over.

It appears that the communists are taking this path already with little resistance from the masses. They are working diligently to void the Constitution and fundamentally change the United States.
Once they achieve their gun control/confiscation goals history tells us what happens to the "deplorables."

[Badger52]

Biden just did a Beto on his campaign.

Part of Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden’s overarching gun control plan is to pay AR-15 owners to surrender their rifles or allow them to keep the guns, as long as they register them with the government.

Biden’s plan would apply not only to AR-15s but also to AK-47s, variants of both rifles, and other firearms that Democrats label as “assault weapons.” The call to surrender or register would also apply to “high capacity” magazines.

Rest at the link above.

[bblhead672]

Gun Grabbers Misleading Us

Mr. Williams is spot on.

Americans who call for stricter and stricter gun control know that getting rid of rifles will do little or nothing for the nation's homicide rate. Their calls for more restrictive gun laws are part of a larger strategy to outlaw gun ownership altogether. You have to wonder what these people have in store for us when they've eliminated our means to defend ourselves.

I don't have to wonder, I can read history demonstrating what they have in store for us.

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Biden just did a Beto on his campaign.




Rest at the link above.

Well looks like the "Beto Approach" of talking as whacked-out leftist as possible to get attention has resulted in his ending his campaign.


Big Curly Bill on that one...

Well.... Bye

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

Big Curly Bill on that one...

Well.... Bye

I'm sad to see him go, poor thing. The Dems hated him because he blasphemed, to wit: "What the hell are you doing actually SAYING OUT LOUD what we all secretly think? NEVer do that, NEVer!"

Anytime they can step on their jock strap with track shoes and pull the curtain back for more of America to see I'm all for it.

[Intel NCO]

Originally Posted by Badger52

I'm sad to see him go, poor thing. The Dems hated him because he blasphemed, to wit: "What the hell are you doing actually SAYING OUT LOUD what we all secretly think? NEVer do that, NEVer!"

Anytime they can step on their jock strap with track shoes and pull the curtain back for more of America to see I'm all for it.

Truth. The real sin is publicizing the efforts to destroy the Second Amendment of the USC..

[rsdengler]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Anytime they can step on their jock strap with track shoes and pull the curtain back for more of America to see I'm all for it.

LOL, I don't think Beto Frito could wear a jock strap, I don't think he has big enough balls to support......

Another idiot Dem flushed down the toilet.....

[Box]

Lets not kid ourselves - the DNC never once considered Beto as a nominee.
They still dont consider Bernie to be a viable nominee and I doubt they have any real interest in Kamalamala Harris or Chief Lies-a-beth WarHen either

These idiots are like a canaries in a coal mine.
Put them in a cage - and carry them into the campaign-shaft. When the carbon monoxide of public opinion kills one of your birds, turn around and go back to the surface long enough to adjust your messaging...
...when the public shows how they feel about being forcefully disarmed, release your idiotic candidate into the wild and adjust the parties message
...test out public opinion on crime stats with a dope smoking hippy that slept her way up the political and adjust your message based on the results
...when FaceBook lets you know that a victory will result in legal action against your message, adjust the party message and let Speaker Pelosi fire a few passive aggressive arrows about budget reality at the offending squaw
...let your crazy communist uncle continuously desensitize the public reality about economics while simultaneously testing the air quality in the campaign mine shaft

Then if it starts to look like the parties handlers cant keep the former VP on track, you can cut him free and run the cool gay-guy-slash-combat-vet as your nominee and then tighten him up with the former first lady as a running mate.
Dress them both up in frilly purple outfits and call it a day....

[tom kelly]

Look's like the present group of Demo POTUS candidates are self-destructing. The DNC Convention will be "Brokered" & will produce a winner who is ?????????????

[Trapper John]

Don't know 'bout the rest of yous guys, but I'm enjoyin' the Badger52 v CSB debate!