Free: Contests & Raffles.
While I agree with you in theory, the Constitution means nothing to this President, nor to the Left leaning members of Congress, nor to the Liberal press, nor to Hollywood. The combined coalition of these groups represent a powerful lobby, one that is well funded and politically motivated. They will stop at nothing to push their Socialist agenda, which has no place for an "outdated Constitution," as they view it. That is why we must be vigilant, like minded, organized, and focused. They perceive that they have the high ground. This gives them an advantage at this point. To pretend that "this could never happen" is the worst mistake we could make.
Quote from: Jekemi on October 07, 2015, 03:09:05 PMWhile I agree with you in theory, the Constitution means nothing to this President, nor to the Left leaning members of Congress, nor to the Liberal press, nor to Hollywood. The combined coalition of these groups represent a powerful lobby, one that is well funded and politically motivated. They will stop at nothing to push their Socialist agenda, which has no place for an "outdated Constitution," as they view it. That is why we must be vigilant, like minded, organized, and focused. They perceive that they have the high ground. This gives them an advantage at this point. To pretend that "this could never happen" is the worst mistake we could make.Dude, relax. They literally CAN'T do that. Probably the worst thing they could actually pull off is a country-wide universal background check like we have here in Washington. They don't even have the political juice to implement a mag-count limit, let alone a full on assault weapon ban.
Dude, relaxing is what got us to this point. The time for relaxing ended sometime in the 1950's. Now's the time to beat our plowshares into swords. There is a battle coming, the only question is "Which side will you be on? Liberty or slavery"
Quote from: Jekemi on October 07, 2015, 07:26:29 PMDude, relaxing is what got us to this point. The time for relaxing ended sometime in the 1950's. Now's the time to beat our plowshares into swords. There is a battle coming, the only question is "Which side will you be on? Liberty or slavery"That's weird, because I have an honest to god AK-47 in my closet. I shoot with guys who have better rifles than our front line soldiers, and every once in a while, I even get to shoot a .50 BMG. If it were important enough to me (it's not), I could even fill out a bit of paperwork and buy an actual sound suppressor and screw it onto the end of one of my pistols and pretend I'm James Bond. If I wanted to spend 200 dollars in 5 minutes, I could go to Vegas and rent a full auto at one of a dozen ranges within taxi range of the strip.Also, I filled out one form and had my fingerprints taken and now I have the legal right to concealed carry a pistol almost anywhere I want. Considering I came up in the Clinton years where a 10-round mag was the law, if anything, we have more rights now. Every once in a while, some Democrat will make noise about gun control, but it never leads to anything except price gouging. There is no battle coming. There is no revolution. It's all fear mongering meant to separate you from your wallet. Calm down, because you're making us look like whack-jobs.
Quote from: magnanimous_j on October 08, 2015, 09:30:55 AMQuote from: Jekemi on October 07, 2015, 07:26:29 PMDude, relaxing is what got us to this point. The time for relaxing ended sometime in the 1950's. Now's the time to beat our plowshares into swords. There is a battle coming, the only question is "Which side will you be on? Liberty or slavery"That's weird, because I have an honest to god AK-47 in my closet. I shoot with guys who have better rifles than our front line soldiers, and every once in a while, I even get to shoot a .50 BMG. If it were important enough to me (it's not), I could even fill out a bit of paperwork and buy an actual sound suppressor and screw it onto the end of one of my pistols and pretend I'm James Bond. If I wanted to spend 200 dollars in 5 minutes, I could go to Vegas and rent a full auto at one of a dozen ranges within taxi range of the strip.Also, I filled out one form and had my fingerprints taken and now I have the legal right to concealed carry a pistol almost anywhere I want. Considering I came up in the Clinton years where a 10-round mag was the law, if anything, we have more rights now. Every once in a while, some Democrat will make noise about gun control, but it never leads to anything except price gouging. There is no battle coming. There is no revolution. It's all fear mongering meant to separate you from your wallet. Calm down, because you're making us look like whack-jobs.So you wouldn’t remember the Brady Bill and the rights that we had before that.
The Hughes AmendmentIn 1986, to reaffirm Congress's intent in passing the GCA and prevent improper law enforcement by BATF, Congress approved the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA).7 Near the end of debate on the measure, late at night with most members of the House of Representatives absent, Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) introduced an amendment related to fully-automatic firearms. Despite an apparent defeat of the amendment by voice vote, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding over the proceedings, declared the amendment approved. Hughes and Rangel were longtime "gun control" supporters.BATF interpreted the amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986. The effect of the interpretation has been to "freeze" the number of privately owned fully-automatic firearms at roughly 150,000, an exact figure being unavailable due to privacy protection requirements that apply to tax-based laws such as the National Firearms Act. The crime-fighting utility of the 1986 "freeze" was questionable, since no legal, civilian-owned fully-automatic firearm had been used to commit a violent crime. BATF's director at the time, Stephen Higgins, had testified before Congress in 1986 that the misuse of legally-owned fully-automatic firearms was "so minimal as not to be considered a law enforcement problem." Farmer v. Higgins
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on October 07, 2015, 12:43:35 PMHe can't confiscate guns without changing the Constitution. To amend the Constitution, there must either be a 2/3 vote by BOTH the House and the Senate, or a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of the state legislatures. Seeing that about half of the states are red, they'd never get 2/3 of the senate and they'd never get 2/3 of the state legislatures to vote for a convention.What he can do is try end runs around the 2nd Amendment with Executive orders, directing departments like Justice and Treasury to take guns from "undesirables". The Congress won't sit still for too much of that, but they've been amazingly docile about the prospect of certain SS disability enrolleesf losing their rights if someone else is managing their disability program.Though I agree with your position that the 2nd amendment guarantees my individual right to possess firearms, I will tell you that legally the matter is not nearly as cut and dry. I recently read a brief prepared to be presented before the 4th appeals court, essentially stating that until 2008 the courts had not ruled on the individual right prior to WA DC vs Heller. There is a very active minority in the trial lawyer community that believes that a national policy can be constructed by attacking DC vs Heller first on the grounds of undue influence, then enacting a national policy in the wake, before a case comes to trial to support the overturned position. Its a lot of BS in my opinion, but someone will bring it to court. Essentially all they will need is a single instance of a Appellate or higher court not citing Heller and they will use that as justification for any legislation after.
He can't confiscate guns without changing the Constitution. To amend the Constitution, there must either be a 2/3 vote by BOTH the House and the Senate, or a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of the state legislatures. Seeing that about half of the states are red, they'd never get 2/3 of the senate and they'd never get 2/3 of the state legislatures to vote for a convention.What he can do is try end runs around the 2nd Amendment with Executive orders, directing departments like Justice and Treasury to take guns from "undesirables". The Congress won't sit still for too much of that, but they've been amazingly docile about the prospect of certain SS disability enrolleesf losing their rights if someone else is managing their disability program.
