Post by: Jekemi on October 07, 2015, 11:01:27 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 07, 2015, 12:43:35 PM
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.
Post by: Jekemi on October 07, 2015, 03:09:05 PM
Post by: magnanimous_j on October 07, 2015, 03:24:12 PM
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 They will stop at nothing to push their Socialist agenda, which has no place for an "outdated Constitution," as they view it.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.
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.
Post by: Curly on October 07, 2015, 03:28:43 PM
Post by: 2labs on October 07, 2015, 03:57:25 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on October 07, 2015, 04:07:59 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 07, 2015, 05:06:46 PM
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 They will stop at nothing to push their Socialist agenda, which has no place for an "outdated Constitution," as they view it.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.
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.
Now that Mags says "they literally can't do that", I'm getting scared! :yike:
Post by: Jekemi on October 07, 2015, 07:26:29 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 07, 2015, 07:30:41 PM
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"
I was going to say your words, the way I normally say what I think about DEMOCRATS. They've been spewing their crap, for this many years about guns..
Post by: magnanimous_j on October 08, 2015, 09:30:55 AM
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"
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.
Post by: CP on October 08, 2015, 09:39:19 AM
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"
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.
Post by: Mongo Hunter on October 08, 2015, 09:45:58 AM
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"
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.
There's good reason not to relax. years ago Pelosi and her cronies tried to pass "the police protection act". who wouldn't vote for that if you saw that on a ballot right? who wouldn't want to protect cops? Well if you read the bill it was a very extensive Assault weapons ban. It made laws against most types of semi autos including ANY magazine fed semi auto shotgun or RIFLE! How many of you guys out there have some of the old Semi Auto 30-06's for hunting? that would have been banned under this new act. I had the whole list at one point but it basically stripped everything away except Bolt guns, low capacity shotguns and revolvers (pistols were limited to 10rds and certain types were banned). If no one was paying attention this could have found its way onto a ballot and being most people don't even read what they are voting for it would have passed.
So no I don't think a war is coming I have yet to meet a law enforcement agency or military force that would be willing to go knocking on peoples doors asking for guns. But I do think they will try to tax and regulate the gun business into the ground. Making so expensive for anyone except the elite to afford them.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 08, 2015, 10:08:03 AM
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"
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.
Or the underhanded Hughes Amendment to the FOPA and the liberties that took away.
Quote
The Hughes Amendment
In 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
https://www.nraila.org/articles/19990729/fully-automatic-firearms
Quote
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.
- Patrick Henry
Post by: huntnphool on October 08, 2015, 10:15:10 AM
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.
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.
Solutions?
It is absolutely essential to win the White House in 2016.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on October 08, 2015, 10:43:47 AM
https://reason.com/archives/2014/03/18/five-gun-rights-cases-to-watch
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 08, 2015, 10:45:13 AM
[/quote]
Solutions?
It is absolutely essential to win the White House in 2016.
[/quote]
Unless the Republicans quit with the circus (and even if they do), that's really unlikely to happen. It won't even be close. If the Dems put forward someone other than Pillary or Uncle Joe, they'll take it in a landslide. Ben Carson is about the only R I would vote for at this point. Even Rand is too vocal on issues which have already been decided by the SCOTUS. I used to support him, but I no longer will.
Post by: huntnphool on October 08, 2015, 03:29:42 PM
Solutions?
It is absolutely essential to win the White House in 2016.
[/quote]
Unless the Republicans quit with the circus (and even if they do), that's really unlikely to happen. It won't even be close. If the Dems put forward someone other than Pillary or Uncle Joe, they'll take it in a landslide. Ben Carson is about the only R I would vote for at this point. Even Rand is too vocal on issues which have already been decided by the SCOTUS. I used to support him, but I no longer will.
[/quote]
That's not seeing the big picture pianoman, regardless who the "R"s put up this year, it's important that we win, there will be at least 2 SCOTUS seats that will be appointed by the next president, which is far more important!
Post by: huntingbaldguy on October 09, 2015, 12:16:22 AM