The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Second Amendment => Topic started by: mystery-ak on May 06, 2019, 02:16:45 pm
-
Cory Booker proposes national license for all gun owners
[Associated Press]
ELANA SCHOR
,Associated Press•May 6, 2019
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker is pitching a sweeping gun control agenda with more than a dozen specific elements, marking his second policy rollout in three weeks as he looks for a breakthrough moment in the crowded 2020 primary.
The New Jersey senator's plan to curb gun violence centers on the creation of a national license required for all firearm owners, which would include an interview and mandatory completion of safety training. A summary released Monday by Booker's campaign says among the other elements of the gun control platform are universal background checks for gun buyers and the reinstitution of a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity firearm magazines.
Booker released an environmental justice plan last month. He has struggled to rise from the low single digits in early polls.
more
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cory-booker-proposes-national-license-gun-owners-110119599--election.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/cory-booker-proposes-national-license-gun-owners-110119599--election.html)
-
I'm guessing Spartacus will be one of the 1st Rats to drop out of the race.
-
National registration first...confiscation next. It's gonna be a shame when all my guns get lost in that horrible fishing accident.
-
National registration first...confiscation next. It's gonna be a shame when all my guns get lost in that horrible fishing accident.
When it’s time to hide them, it’s time to use them.
-
When it’s time to hide them, it’s time to use them.
888high58888
-
When it’s time to hide them, it’s time to use them.
Exactly.
-
Cory Booker on gun registration: Only 'gun runners and criminals' should fear the idea
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cory-booker-on-gun-registration-only-gun-runners-and-criminals-should-fear-the-idea (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cory-booker-on-gun-registration-only-gun-runners-and-criminals-should-fear-the-idea)
-
Cory Booker on gun registration: Only 'gun runners and criminals' should fear the idea
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cory-booker-on-gun-registration-only-gun-runners-and-criminals-should-fear-the-idea (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cory-booker-on-gun-registration-only-gun-runners-and-criminals-should-fear-the-idea)
Only gun runners and criminals will be safe.
-
Bookmark
-
(https://www.rutherford.org/images/cache/files_images/general/03-01-2017_Commentary_700x210-700x210.jpg)
-
When it’s time to hide them, it’s time to use them.
:amen:
-
They see abortion in the Constitution, but can't read the plain language of the 2nd amendment.
-
They see abortion in the Constitution, but can't read the plain language of the 2nd amendment.
Progressives reading and interpretation skills are very selective.
-
National registration first...confiscation next. It's gonna be a shame when all my guns get lost in that horrible fishing accident.
Yeah, cause... you know.... we peons out here in the sticks (bible-clinging, gun-owning Trump supporters) are too stoopid to figure out that a "national license" equates to a national registration... making it easy peasy for the leftists to confiscate, when that time comes.
My guns all fell off the back of the truck I don't own and never have. :cool:
-
Progressives reading and interpretation skills are very selective.
They apparently confuse creative writing with creative reading.
-
National registration first...confiscation next. It's gonna be a shame when all my guns get lost in that horrible fishing accident.
They will just make 'lost' weapons a crime.
-
They will just make 'lost' weapons a crime.
My guess...it's already hidden away in some paragraph in a subsection of Chapter 3 of one of their gun grabbing amendments.
-
Registration does not automatically equal confiscation. Ask the Swiss.
-
Registration does not automatically equal confiscation. Ask the Swiss.
The Right to Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.
Registration is a much greater invasion of privacy than a woman claims is the case regarding abortion.
IOW...GFY! (not directed at you) :laugh:
-
Registration does not automatically equal confiscation. Ask the Swiss.
The swiss don't have gun grabbing democrats to deal with.
-
The Right to Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.
Registration is a much greater invasion of privacy than a woman claims is the case regarding abortion.
IOW...GFY! (not directed at you) :laugh:
Registration doesn’t infringe on it, any more than a prohibition on owning fully auto machine guns infringes on it. Scalia and the rest of the justices were pretty clear on the degree to which exercise of the right can be subjected to regulation without violating the anti-infringement rule.
And thanks for the clarification. :beer:
-
The swiss don't have gun grabbing democrats to deal with.
So? Registration still doesn’t equal confiscation. If it did, it wouldn’t matter whether the Swiss had their version of the DNC or not.
-
So? Registration still doesn’t equal confiscation. If it did, it wouldn’t matter whether the Swiss had their version of the DNC or not.
Gun grabbers always use that argument.
-
Gun grabbers always use that argument.
What argument is that? That registration does not equal confiscation? Simple logic requires that conclusion, without regard to one’s politics.
-
What argument is that? That registration does not equal confiscation? Simple logic requires that conclusion, without regard to one’s politics.
Don't be obtuse.
-
Don't be obtuse.
I’m not. I’m applying basic logic. Furthermore, wholesale seizure of all firearms would clearly be an infringement of the Second Amendment in a way that mere registration is not. Any confiscation legislation premised on prior registration of firearms would be quite easily invalidated.
-
Democrats and liberal judges don't recognize the constitution.
-
Democrats and liberal judges don't recognize the constitution.
If you say so. :shrug:
-
If you say so. :shrug:
I say so. I see so. It is so.
-
Who cares what Cory Booker does?
-
I say so. I see so. It is so.
One out of three. Wouldn’t be too bad if this were baseball, but it’s not.
-
One out of three. Wouldn’t be too bad if this were baseball, but it’s not.
Meatloaf would disagree.
-
Meatloaf would disagree.
He’s entitled.
-
He’s entitled.
He knows there ain't no Coup de Ville hiding at the bottom
Of a Cracker Jack box despite what the Rats would like you to believe.
-
He knows there ain't no Coup de Ville hiding at the bottom
Of a Cracker Jack box despite what the Rats would like you to believe.
Ahhh.
-
yogi555
If you say so. :shrug:
The unconstitutional rulings by Liberal judges where the 2nd Amendment is concerned say so.
-
yogi555
The unconstitutional rulings by Liberal judges where the 2nd Amendment is concerned say so.
If you say so :shrug:
-
I’m not. I’m applying basic logic. Furthermore, wholesale seizure of all firearms would clearly be an infringement of the Second Amendment in a way that mere registration is not. Any confiscation legislation premised on prior registration of firearms would be quite easily invalidated.
Sure. All we need is an honest Judge.
:happyhappy:
(I say so. I miss /snicker)
-
National registration first...confiscation next. It's gonna be a shame when all my guns get lost in that horrible fishing accident.
@txradioguy
Doesn't matter what laws they pass, bad guys will have guns bought off the street or steal them or get them wherever, and use them on whatever they want to shoot - humans or animals. The two who shot up the latest school, one of them broke into their parent's gun cabinet. No way am I going to list the defensive weapons I have, not even my PINK rifle.
-
@txradioguy
Doesn't matter what laws they pass, bad guys will have guns bought off the street or steal them or get them wherever, and use them on whatever they want to shoot - humans or animals. The two who shot up the latest school, one of them broke into their parent's gun cabinet. No way am I going to list the defensive weapons I have, not even my PINK rifle.
Exactly. Every scheme involving "gun control" will leave the law-abiding helpless from the evil people in our midst.
Registration, licensure, insurance, you name it. The desired end result is no defense for the innocent. Clever hot-shot lawyers who insist otherwise piss me off.
-
The LEFT...DEMON-RATS...just can't stop, trying to take our guns. THAT IS COMMUNISM. DEATH FOLLOWS. SAME WITH Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, BERNIE SANDERS. Hillary. ELIJA CUMMINGS...WARREN. Their sit in in congress, to remove our guns, while being protected by guns in CONGRESS OFFICE. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! Feinstein...against guns, while she has her own body guard with gun. Yes. KEEP YOUR GUNS...YOU WILL NEED THEM
-
The LEFT...DEMON-RATS...just can't stop, trying to take our guns. THAT IS COMMUNISM. DEATH FOLLOWS. SAME WITH Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, BERNIE SANDERS. Hillary. ELIJA CUMMINGS...WARREN. Their sit in in congress, to remove our guns, while being protected by guns in CONGRESS OFFICE. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! Feinstein...against guns, while she has her own body guard with gun. Yes. KEEP YOUR GUNS...YOU WILL NEED THEM
:shrug:
-
Exactly. Every scheme involving "gun control" will leave the law-abiding helpless from the evil people in our midst.
Registration, licensure, insurance, you name it. The desired end result is no defense for the innocent. Clever hot-shot lawyers who insist otherwise piss me off.
I agree. It is ALL, find out which law abiding citizen has them...while CRIMINALS do not follow any laws. How dumb do these people think...we are? CORY? CORY PISSES ME OFF! ANOTHER OBAMA.
-
If you say so :shrug:
History says so: Great Britain, Cuba, China, The Bahamas, Australia, Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia. Communist Vietnam, The USSR, Idi Amin's Uganda, Guatemala, Ottoman Turkey, Rwanda, Aremia, North Korea. In every one of these countries Registration of firearms have led to confiscation to degree.Might be time to reassess your position.
-
Registration does not automatically equal confiscation. Ask the Swiss.
You have one example where it did not. How many examples of it leading to confiscation would you like?
Should we then say gun registration lead to gun confiscation 9 times out of 10? 19 times out of 20? Maybe more?
-
You have one example where it did not. How many examples of it leading to confiscation would you like?
Should we then say gun registration lead to gun confiscation 9 times out of 10? 19 times out of 20? Maybe more?
I only need one instance to prove the logical fallacy of equating registration with confiscation. Those who would prove the equivalence, on the other hand, need 100%, so even 9 out of ten still fails.
-
Next do home PCs and smartphones.
-
I only need one instance to prove the logical fallacy of equating registration with confiscation. Those who would prove the equivalence, on the other hand, need 100%, so even 9 out of ten still fails.
So almost alway, but not always. Got it.
-
So almost alway, but not always. Got it.
If it worked out in one out of a hundred cases where it didn't, the legal mind says registration is A-OK. One needs a lot of law school and experience twisting words to obtain such a total lack of common sense.
"It hasn't worked before because the right people didn't do it. We'll do it better, we promise."
-
Registration does not automatically equal confiscation. Ask the Swiss.
Not anymore...
Swiss Vote to Tighten Gun Laws to Align With E.U. Rules
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/world/europe/switzerland-vote-gun-law-eu.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/world/europe/switzerland-vote-gun-law-eu.html)
-
Not anymore...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/world/europe/switzerland-vote-gun-law-eu.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/world/europe/switzerland-vote-gun-law-eu.html)
Nice find! Kudos. That makes it 100%.
-
Nice find! Kudos. That makes it 100%.
They had a chance this weekend to remain a beacon for RKBA in Europe and they voted against their own self interest and sided with the Borg.
-
National registration of firearms would be a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment, as the clear and precise language of the Constitution indicates that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
"Shall not" means not at all, as in never. Any requirement to fill out a government form or to (presumably) pay a fee to the Federal government would presume to qualify a right that the Amendment insists cannot be proscribed.
And please, spare me the nonsense about the amendment only applying to state militias, as any reasonable reading of the history of the amendment and of the language employed within it and historical usages common to the time prove otherwise, as the Supreme Court found in the Heller decision. "Militia" in this context was intended to apply to all competent citizens capable of bearing arms.
Furthermore, even a successful attempt to implement such a law would result in massive civil disobedience and a flood of lawsuits. As it should.
-
National registration of firearms would be a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment, as the clear and precise language of the Constitution indicates that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
"Shall not" means not at all, as in never. Any requirement to fill out a government form or to (presumably) pay a fee to the Federal government would presume to qualify a right that the Amendment insists cannot be proscribed.
And please, spare me the nonsense about the amendment only applying to state militias, as any reasonable reading of the history of the amendment and of the language employed within it and historical usages common to the time prove otherwise, as the Supreme Court found in the Heller decision. "Militia" in this context was intended to apply to all competent citizens capable of bearing arms.
Furthermore, even a successful attempt to implement such a law would result in massive civil disobedience and a flood of lawsuits. As it should.
:amen:
-
NJ bookmark
-
Registration is a measure I support, but not at the federal level. The 2A was intended as a limitation of the Federal government and vested the authority to regulate the citizen militias in the various states.
Of course, the modern interpretation of the 2A, as per the Heller decision, is that it provides for the protection of an individual right (self-protection) unrelated to the citizen militia, in much the same way that the Constitution is interpreted to protect a woman's right to privacy and, hence, to choose an abortion. And neither right is absolute; both are susceptible to reasonable regulation by the States.
Can such reasonable regulation include registration? Of course, as well as licensure and insurance.
-
Registration is a measure I support, but not at the federal level. The 2A was intended as a limitation of the Federal government and vested the authority to regulate the citizen militias in the various states.
Of course, the modern interpretation of the 2A, as per the Heller decision, is that it provides for the protection of an individual right (self-protection) unrelated to the citizen militia, in much the same way that the Constitution is interpreted to protect a woman's right to privacy and, hence, to choose an abortion. And neither right is absolute; both are susceptible to reasonable regulation by the States.
Can such reasonable regulation include registration? Of course, as well as licensure and insurance.
Then you agree Booker is dead wrong on this?
-
National registration of firearms would be a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment, as the clear and precise language of the Constitution indicates that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
"Shall not" means not at all, as in never. Any requirement to fill out a government form or to (presumably) pay a fee to the Federal government would presume to qualify a right that the Amendment insists cannot be proscribed.
And please, spare me the nonsense about the amendment only applying to state militias, as any reasonable reading of the history of the amendment and of the language employed within it and historical usages common to the time prove otherwise, as the Supreme Court found in the Heller decision. "Militia" in this context was intended to apply to all competent citizens capable of bearing arms.
Furthermore, even a successful attempt to implement such a law would result in massive civil disobedience and a flood of lawsuits. As it should.
No, it wouldn’t.
-
Registration is a measure I support, but not at the federal level. The 2A was intended as a limitation of the Federal government and vested the authority to regulate the citizen militias in the various states.
Of course, the modern interpretation of the 2A, as per the Heller decision, is that it provides for the protection of an individual right (self-protection) unrelated to the citizen militia, in much the same way that the Constitution is interpreted to protect a woman's right to privacy and, hence, to choose an abortion. And neither right is absolute; both are susceptible to reasonable regulation by the States.
Can such reasonable regulation include registration? Of course, as well as licensure and insurance.
Why would the 2A prohibit a federal registration plan? Federal registration could easily fit under the Commerce Clause, at least on a going-forward basis, unless one wants to argue that the 2A completely removes firearms from the purview of the Commerce Clause.
-
Why would the 2A prohibit a federal registration plan? Federal registration could easily fit under the Commerce Clause, at least on a going-forward basis, unless one wants to argue that the 2A completely removes firearms from the purview of the Commerce Clause.
How does the Commerce Clause apply to private individual transaction not crossing state lines?
-
No, it wouldn’t.
:facepalm2:
-
How does the Commerce Clause apply to private individual transaction not crossing state lines?
For the same reason a farmer can be prohibited from selling his own crops in his own State, I suppose.
-
Why would the 2A prohibit a federal registration plan? Federal registration could easily fit under the Commerce Clause, at least on a going-forward basis, unless one wants to argue that the 2A completely removes firearms from the purview of the Commerce Clause.
A national/federal gun registration mandate is a blatant infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. What part of that "shall not infringe" are some folks too duh-uh to comprehend? :shrug:
-
How does the Commerce Clause apply to private individual transaction not crossing state lines?
If it uses, or affects, or at one time passed through, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, it is amenable to regulation by Congress under the Commerce Clause.
If a good initially travelled in interstate commerce, then subsequent commercial transactions with it are amenable to regulation.
One needn’t even go as far as Wickard v. Filburn.
-
A national/federal gun registration mandate is a blatant infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. What part of that "shall not infringe" are some folks too duh-uh to comprehend? :shrug:
How so? How does registering a firearm prevent you from owning it?
-
:facepalm2:
:shrug:
-
I only need one instance to prove the logical fallacy of equating registration with confiscation. Those who would prove the equivalence, on the other hand, need 100%, so even 9 out of ten still fails.
If you were being intellectually honest given the preponderance of evidence your response should be: It hAsn't led to confiscation for the Swiss...YET. But given your stubborn refusal to admit your error.......
-
If it uses, or affects, or at one time passed through, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, it is amenable to regulation by Congress under the Commerce Clause.
If a good initially travelled in interstate commerce, then subsequent commercial transactions with it are amenable to regulation.
One needn’t even go as far as Wickard v. Filburn.
Thank you. So in reading at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111, (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111,) Wickard v. Filburn, it seems the justification comes down to: "...The Court reasoned that Congress could regulate activity within a single state under the Commerce Clause, even if each individual activity had a trivial effect on interstate commerce, as long as the intrastate activity viewed in the aggregate would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce...."
If you make that argument about gun registration of a father handing down a rifle to his daughter, it leads me to believe that that gun registration in general is an infringement on ownership. If taken in the aggregate, registration would need to have a substantial effect on the commerce for them to apply.
-
How so? How does registering a firearm prevent you from owning it?
Many states already have a form of "registration" when you purchase a weapon. It targets law-abiding citizens only... since criminals won't bother to get their guns legally.
A national or federal "list" of law-abiding gun owners is unnecessary... unless the time comes if/when the tyrannical left (Democrats) wants to (or tries to) start their wet-dream of gun confiscation.
You know all this.... yet here you are.... pretending.
Stop being deliberately obtuse. It is deliberate... isn't it? :whistle:
-
Not anymore...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/world/europe/switzerland-vote-gun-law-eu.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/world/europe/switzerland-vote-gun-law-eu.html)
@Bill Cipher waiting for you to admit that registration leads to confiscation 100% of the time. Not holding my breath, but I am waiting.
-
How so? How does registering a firearm prevent you from owning it?
Lol.... your question reminded me of a BS promise the radical left made over and over again.... right before they infringed upon Americans' rights by ramming through ObamaCare. "If you like your plan/doctor, you can keep your plan/doctor". Remember that one?
Logical thinking folks can connect the dots to yet another BS promise by the RL... made at some point in the future, no doubt.... about a national/federal gun registration "list".
"If you like your guns, you can keep your guns".
Yeah.... riiiiight!
-
Thank you. So in reading at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111, (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111,) Wickard v. Filburn, it seems the justification comes down to: "...The Court reasoned that Congress could regulate activity within a single state under the Commerce Clause, even if each individual activity had a trivial effect on interstate commerce, as long as the intrastate activity viewed in the aggregate would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce...."
If you make that argument about gun registration of a father handing down a rifle to his daughter, it leads me to believe that that gun registration in general is an infringement on ownership. If taken in the aggregate, registration would need to have a substantial effect on the commerce for them to apply.
If you say so. :shrug:
-
@Bill Cipher waiting for you to admit that registration leads to confiscation 100% of the time. Not holding my breath, but I am waiting.
Why should I admit something that isn’t true?
-
Lol.... your question reminded me of a BS promise the radical left made over and over again.... right before they infringed upon Americans' rights by ramming through ObamaCare. "If you like your plan/doctor, you can keep your plan/doctor". Remember that one?
Logical thinking folks can connect the dots to yet another BS promise by the RL... made at some point in the future, no doubt.... about a national/federal gun registration "list".
"If you like your guns, you can keep your guns".
Yeah.... riiiiight!
I see you failed to answer the question. Nice try.
-
I see you failed to answer the question. Nice try.
Typical leftie deflection.... since (I know) you know that the infringement is forcing law-abiding Americans to put their names on a FEDERAL list... that is not only unnecessary, but an unconstitutional abuse of power. But then... that's the idiot left (Democrats) all over. Abusing power that they should never have or never have been given.
-
No, it wouldn’t.
If individual states want to register firearms, they can and in some cases, already do, as they are allowed under our Constitution.
The Federal government has no such power. I know many gun owners, including myself and I promise you that not single a one of us would ever register our guns, much less pay a fine to do so.
And if you think 180 million gun owners can effectively be bullied or forced, you are mistaken. People will get killed trying.
-
And if you think 180 million gun owners can effectively be bullied or forced, you are mistaken. People will get killed trying.
*****rollingeyes*****
Why do the same folks, who brag about their lawlessness in the face of a State merely inconveniencing their sacrosanct gun right, cheer the State's exercise of compulsion in forcing a woman to give birth? Would such women be justified, as you apparently think you are in protecting rights you deem important, to shoot and kill pro-lifers who threaten the liberties they deem important?
-
*****rollingeyes*****
Why do the same folks, who brag about their lawlessness in the face of a State merely inconveniencing their sacrosanct gun right, cheer the State's exercise of compulsion in forcing a woman to give birth? Would such women be justified, as you apparently think you are in protecting rights you deem important, to shoot and kill pro-lifers who threaten the liberties they deem important?
Why do you alway try to make every gun thread about abortion?
-
*****rollingeyes*****
Why do the same folks, who brag about their lawlessness in the face of a State merely inconveniencing their sacrosanct gun right, cheer the State's exercise of compulsion in forcing a woman to give birth? Would such women be justified, as you apparently think you are in protecting rights you deem important, to shoot and kill pro-lifers who threaten the liberties they deem important?
A successful abortion ALWAYS results in the death of at least one human person. No one has a Constitutional right to an abortion or a moral right to one. The 2nd amendment guarantees that my legal and moral right to defend my life, my family, and my country with not be infringed upon. Now i know that you are going to make one of your usual halfA$$ED nonsensical replies, but I wasn't really writing this of you since you are not capable of seeing reason.
-
Why do you alway try to make every gun thread about abortion?
His guitar only has one note.
-
If individual states want to register firearms, they can and in some cases, already do, as they are allowed under our Constitution.
The Federal government has no such power. I know many gun owners, including myself and I promise you that not single a one of us would ever register our guns, much less pay a fine to do so.
And if you think 180 million gun owners can effectively be bullied or forced, you are mistaken. People will get killed trying.
The federal government could quite easily impose a registration requirement under the Commerce Clause. In fact, it’s a testament to the true idiocy and short-sightedness of liberals that it has not. Certainly on a going-forward basis it could require the registration of all new firearms sold in interstate commerce. It could put teeth into this requirement by providing that the manufacturer is deemed to remain the legal owner, and be liable for all injuries caused by the firearm unless it is legally registered to a new owner, who then becomes liable for any injuries caused. The manufacturer could be given the power, or the duty, to register the new owner whether the new owner chooses to or not (private individuals would not be given the power to register someone else as the legal owner of a firearm originally registered to that private individual).
Registration of all new firearms would be a fait accompli.
-
The federal government could quite easily impose a registration requirement under the Commerce Clause. In fact, it’s a testament to the true idiocy and short-sightedness of liberals that it has not. Certainly on a going-forward basis it could require the registration of all new firearms sold in interstate commerce. It could put teeth into this requirement by providing that the manufacturer is deemed to remain the legal owner, and be liable for all injuries caused by the firearm unless it is legally registered to a new owner, who then becomes liable for any injuries caused. The manufacturer could be given the power, or the duty, to register the new owner whether the new owner chooses to or not (private individuals would not be given the power to register someone else as the legal owner of a firearm originally registered to that private individual).
Registration of all new firearms would be a fait accompli.
How would you handle stolen property?
How do you enforce the secondary sale registration?
-
How so? How does registering a firearm prevent you from owning it?
It won't prevent me from owning it. It will prevent me from registering it.
I will not comply.
Come and take em if you can. I will not be alone.
-
How so? How does registering a firearm prevent you from owning it?
Arbitrary requirements for "ownership" set by state legislatures that are anti 2A for starters. Slow rolling the "registration" process to the point where it goes past the required sign up date making the guns now "illegal" to own and subject to confiscation.
Registration itself will deter many people from purchasing a gun because they don't want to go through the hassle and they don't want their personal info in yet another government data base that's subject to hacking and/or being used to monitor and control the individual.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
Why do the same folks, who brag about their lawlessness in the face of a State merely inconveniencing their sacrosanct gun right [...]
Merely inconveniencing, my ass. It won't inconvenience me at all, because I will not do it, even if I have to make my guns myself.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Not that it matters, because the Rocky Mountain states will nullify any such thing anyway - But if they didn't I surely would, as would just about everyone I know.
-
How would you handle stolen property?
How do you enforce the secondary sale registration?
If I were a democrat? I wouldn’t, other than, perhaps, allowing the registered owner to insure against the risks. As far as stolen property goes.
Otherwise, the registered owner would be required to report the theft to the police as soon as it was discovered, and would be required to fully cooperate with any subsequent investigation. If the owner subsequently found the firearm, he would be required to report that fact immediately, and failure to do so would be a felony.
Private sales would have to be reported, and the buyer would have to sign a new registration, or else the prior owner would continue to be treated as the legal owner for liability purposes.
The legal owner would also be required to maintain a minimum level of insurance coverage at all times, and failure to do so would be a criminal offense. Insurers would be allowed to write policies of insurance against injuries caused by a firearm and, if one wanted to be sneaky, one would prohibit them from limiting their liability by capping the damages covered.
All of this would cut down on gun ownership quite significantly, and none of it would be an unconstitutional infringement because it’s all related to the legitimate desire of the government to ensure that gun owners act responsibly when owning a device with the potential for such grave mayhem. Under rational basis review, such a set of laws would almost certainly pass muster.
Like I said, it’s surprising that the democrats haven’t yet thought out such a course of action.
-
If I were a democrat? I wouldn’t, other than, perhaps, allowing the registered owner to insure against the risks. As far as stolen property goes.
Otherwise, the registered owner would be required to report the theft to the police as soon as it was discovered, and would be required to fully cooperate with any subsequent investigation. If the owner subsequently found the firearm, he would be required to report that fact immediately, and failure to do so would be a felony.
Private sales would have to be reported, and the buyer would have to sign a new registration, or else the prior owner would continue to be treated as the legal owner for liability purposes.
The legal owner would also be required to maintain a minimum level of insurance coverage at all times, and failure to do so would be a criminal offense. Insurers would be allowed to write policies of insurance against injuries caused by a firearm and, if one wanted to be sneaky, one would prohibit them from limiting their liability by capping the damages covered.
All of this would cut down on gun ownership quite significantly, and none of it would be an unconstitutional infringement because it’s all related to the legitimate desire of the government to ensure that gun owners act responsibly when owning a device with the potential for such grave mayhem. Under rational basis review, such a set of laws would almost certainly pass muster.
Like I said, it’s surprising that the democrats haven’t yet thought out such a course of action.
Tell me...what part of "shall not infringe" is so confusing to gun grabbers like you and Jazzy?
-
After mandatory gun registration would come ammunition sales to only lawfully registered gun owners and only the type of ammunition that matches the type of firearm lawfully registered. One may be required to prove the allowed use of previously purchased ammunition before being able to purchase additional ammunition.
Then comes registration expirations and renewals.
-
After mandatory gun registration would come ammunition sales to only lawfully registered gun owners and only the type of ammunition that matches the type of firearm lawfully registered.
Then comes registration expirations and renewals.
Lets not forget the micro stamping on the bullets that California requires on all new types of guns sold in the state.
Which is why they haven't been able to take advantages of upgraded version of current models of guns and newer guns since 2014 IIRC.
And as far as the renewals go...you'll have states make them so costly it turns into a defacto ban on gun ownership due to the expense.
-
After mandatory gun registration would come ammunition sales to only lawfully registered gun owners and only the type of ammunition that matches the type of firearm lawfully registered.
Then comes registration expirations and renewals.
And I would be deep up in the holler with an underground ammo factory and a distribution system, making bank.
City folks will never learn.
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvaEJzoaYZk#)
-
All of this would cut down on gun ownership quite significantly, and none of it would be an unconstitutional infringement
We will have to disagree.
-
The federal government could quite easily impose a registration requirement under the Commerce Clause. In fact, it’s a testament to the true idiocy and short-sightedness of liberals that it has not. Certainly on a going-forward basis it could require the registration of all new firearms sold in interstate commerce. It could put teeth into this requirement by providing that the manufacturer is deemed to remain the legal owner, and be liable for all injuries caused by the firearm unless it is legally registered to a new owner, who then becomes liable for any injuries caused. The manufacturer could be given the power, or the duty, to register the new owner whether the new owner chooses to or not (private individuals would not be given the power to register someone else as the legal owner of a firearm originally registered to that private individual).
Registration of all new firearms would be a fait accompli.
If your interpretation of the Commerce Clause were correct, then there would be no legal restriction on the Federal government to regulate the manufacture, sale, transportation and ownership of anything, anywhere, by anyone in the United States. Fortunately, and despite one foolish and mistaken Supreme Court decision, the Federal government has no such breath of power. Otherwise, state sovereignty would be meaningless, as would the rest of our Constitution.
Under such circumstances and without the right of firearms ownership, the Federal government would be an authoritarian power and we, its subjects. That's what a lot of people truly want these days, it would seem. But it will never stop the criminals. And it won't stop the rebels, either.
-
If it uses, or affects, or at one time passed through, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, it is amenable to regulation by Congress under the Commerce Clause.
If a good initially travelled in interstate commerce, then subsequent commercial transactions with it are amenable to regulation.
One needn’t even go as far as Wickard v. Filburn.
Thanks for the cite! That was the case I mentioned upthread about the Commerce Clause.
-
Tell me...what part of "shall not infringe" is so confusing to gun grabbers like you and Jazzy?
I’m not a gun-grabber, so you’re addressing the wrong person.
I’m explaining how the democrats could go about it in a constitutional manner if they really thought about it instead of simply responding in a Pavlovian fashion.
What part of “like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose ....†as per Justice Scalia, do you not understand?
-
If your interpretation of the Commerce Clause were correct, then there would be no legal restriction on the Federal government to regulate the manufacture, sale, transportation and ownership of anything, anywhere, by anyone in the United States. Fortunately, and despite one foolish and mistaken Supreme Court decision, the Federal government has no such breath of power. Otherwise, state sovereignty would be meaningless, as would the rest of our Constitution.
Under such circumstances and without the right of firearms ownership, the Federal government would be an authoritarian power and we, its subjects. That's what a lot of people truly want these days, it would seem. But it will never stop the criminals. And it won't stop the rebels, either.
Actually, the federal government pretty much does have that power under the Commerce Clause. Sorry to break it to you.
-
We will have to disagree.
Really? What part?
The government definitely has a substantial interest in seeing that gun owners behave responsibly, which would justify an insurance requirement. In order to ensure that the insurance requirement was being complied with, and in order to allow claims against an insurance policy to be made if a gun was used to cause injuries, a registration system becomes necessary. And requiring an insurance company to cover all claims made during a coverage period without a dollar cap is a simple and accepted use of the power to regulate insurance.
All of the parts are legitimate concerns to the government and a legal mandate would almost certainly pass muster.
-
Lets not forget the micro stamping on the bullets that California requires on all new types of guns sold in the state.
Which is why they haven't been able to take advantages of upgraded version of current models of guns and newer guns since 2014 IIRC.
I've got a buddy I used to punch cows with back in the day... He's down down in the Sierras... I asked him about that. He said Arizona ain't that far...
-
http://firearmsfreedomact.com/ (http://firearmsfreedomact.com/)
What is the Commerce Clause?
What is the Commerce Clause and Why is it Important?
by Gary Marbut
During colonial times in America, there was a problem with commerce that crossed lines between colonies. More specifically, some colonies would practice predatory taxation upon goods passing through enroute from colony A to colony B. For example, suppose the Carolinas were shipping tobacco to market in New York. Suppose that enroute Virginia placed such a heavy tax on the goods passing through that they would not be marketable, pricewise, upon reaching New York markets.
This was an issue that the Continental Congress and the framers of the U.S. Constitution felt Congress must have the power to address. Therefore, the original Constitution contained the provision at Article II, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have power … To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;â€
Congress’s power to “regulate commerce … among the states†is now often referred to as done under the “interstate commerce clause†or just the “commerce clause.â€
Commerce clause power was not much used by Congress until the New Deal and the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). During that administration, Roosevelt attempted to assert a lot of federal power that had not been previously asserted by the federal government. However, a number of such laws pressed through Congress were found by the U.S. Supreme Court to lack constitutional authority. For many of these pet endeavors, FDR claimed commerce clause authority.
Upon being rebuffed by the Supreme Court, Roosevelt threatened to expand the number of justices on the Court in order to be able to pack the Court with sympathizers and thereby gain court approval of his threatened New Deal programs. That created something of a standoff between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court.
It was into this politically-charged situation that the legal case of Wickard v. Filburn came to the Supreme Court. Because of the real threat of Court-packing by Roosevelt, the Supreme Court blinked on Wickard.
Wickard was a wheat farmer in Illinois and Filburn was the Secretary of Agriculture. In order to maintain wheat prices, Congress had instituted price supports for Wheat markets, along with quotas for growing wheat. Wickard was not only growing wheat for market, but he also grew an extra acre of wheat to harvest to give to his wife to grind into flour to make bread for the Wickard family. The Department of Agriculture, tasked to enforce the wheat quotas, asserted that the acre of wheat Wickard grew for his family was a violation of the quotas.
Wickard sued. The Department of Agriculture claimed that Congress had commerce clause authority under the Constitution to prohibit Wickard’s practice of growing wheat for his family. Even though it was admitted that the wheat Wickard grew for his family never left the farm, the Department of Agriculture claimed that this practice affected interstate commerce. If Wickard had not given this wheat to his wife, the government argued, it might have traveled across a state line and could have affected interstate commerce. Further, the government argued, if Wickard had not given farm-grown wheat to his wife to feed the family, his wife would have bought bread at the store – bread that might have crossed a state line and might have affected interstate commerce.
Thus, the government argued, Congress had sufficient constitutional authority under the commerce clause to impose the wheat quotas on Wickard and prohibit him from growing extra wheat to feed his family.
When presented with this argument and the Roosevelt threat to expand and pack the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the government’s arguments in Wickard, thereby dramatically expanding the power of Congress to “regulate commerce … among the states.â€
Since the New Deal, a large proportion of laws enacted by Congress are theoretically founded on commerce clause power.
-
I've got a buddy I used to punch cows with back in the day... He's down down in the Sierras... I asked him about that. He said Arizona ain't that far...
CA and AZ are like night and day about gun laws.
-
CA and AZ are like night and day about gun laws.
Yeah - He goes up to Kingston(?) for vacation a couple times a year and brings stuff home. Look! No registration, no serialization... Well, how'd that happen?
-
http://firearmsfreedomact.com/ (http://firearmsfreedomact.com/)
So, not A implies maybe B. Therefore, A implies B.
Um, no. Not even close. No points for even trying.
-
If I were a democrat?
You are one, you just don't have the courage to admit it.
-
Really? What part?
Any regulation that makes a major reduction in ownership is an infringement on keep and bare arms.
While my opinion is meaningless, I suspect it would be the opinion of the majority as well.
-
Yeah - He goes up to Kingston(?) for vacation a couple times a year and brings stuff home. Look! No registration, no serialization... Well, how'd that happen?
Kingman. Down the road a piece from me now.
-
You are one, you just don't have the courage to admit it.
Actually, I’m not.
-
Kingman. Down the road a piece from me now.
Yep. That's it, I'd bet.
:beer:
-
Any regulation that makes a major reduction in ownership is an infringement on keep and bare arms.
While my opinion is meaningless, I suspect it would be the opinion of the majority as well.
Not to mention that the entire idea is not only ineffective, but also unwarranted.
Take away suicides (which would find a way anyway), and crime (which would find a way anyway), and the American gun-owning population is reliably responsible.
-
Any regulation that makes a major reduction in ownership is an infringement on keep and bare arms.
While my opinion is meaningless, I suspect it would be the opinion of the majority as well.
Not really. The libel laws, truth in advertising laws, heck, the securities laws, all limit, sometimes substantially, what someone can say, but they aren’t for that reason unconstitutional as being laws respecting freedom of speech.
Except for a very small number of licensed individuals, most of us cannot own a fully automatic machine gun (even though we could have back in the early 1980s), and yet that is very unlikely to be held to be an unconstitutional infringement.
As a result, an insurance requirement would almost certainly pass muster, even if it resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of privately owned guns.
-
Not to mention that the entire idea is not only ineffective, but also unwarranted.
Take away suicides (which would find a way anyway), and crime (which would find a way anyway), and the American gun-owning population is reliably responsible.
Then an insurance requirement shouldn’t be much of an impediment to those responsible gun owners.
-
Then an insurance requirement shouldn’t be much of an impediment to those responsible gun owners.
An expense exceeding the cost of the firearm would be an infringement. And a few years of such insurance would certainly be such a cost.
-
Then an insurance requirement shouldn’t be much of an impediment to those responsible gun owners.
Sure it is, when the cost of insurance prevents ownership, or even reduces the amount of guns I can own.
When my defense and even subsistence requires a monthly fee, that necessarily omits those who cannot afford the insurance - Making defense of self a privilege rather than a right, disaffecting those too poor to participate.
It is a pity that you are so eager to reduce the number of legally used guns in the US - That use, in defense, far outstrips your cause.
-
Arbitrary requirements for "ownership" set by state legislatures that are anti 2A for starters. Slow rolling the "registration" process to the point where it goes past the required sign up date making the guns now "illegal" to own and subject to confiscation.
Registration itself will deter many people from purchasing a gun because they don't want to go through the hassle and they don't want their personal info in yet another government data base that's subject to hacking and/or being used to monitor and control the individual.
I know a couple of people that were 'deterred' from completing their concealed carry permit process during the Obama administration when a liberal governor (I think) released the personal info of that state's concealed carry permit holders. Not trusting either the leftists in power or the hacking issues ongoing, they decided not to put their info 'out there'.
Other examples of "breaches"...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/23/concealed-weapons-permit-holders-exposed-data-brea/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/23/concealed-weapons-permit-holders-exposed-data-brea/)
https://bearingarms.com/beth-b/2017/02/26/local-sheriff-releases-names-ccw-permit-holders-media/ (https://bearingarms.com/beth-b/2017/02/26/local-sheriff-releases-names-ccw-permit-holders-media/)
-
Then an insurance requirement shouldn’t be much of an impediment to those responsible gun owners.
It is to someone who properly understands that to be back-door registration.
In addition, I'm sure the premiums will be jacked up to where only the wealthy can own guns. This is the true goal of the Rats.
-
An expense exceeding the cost of the firearm would be an infringement. And a few years of such insurance would certainly be such a cost.
Probably not, particularly if it was priced by private insurance companies.
-
It is to someone who properly understands that to be back-door registration.
In addition, I'm sure the premiums will be jacked up to where only the wealthy can own guns. This is the true goal of the Rats.
Maybe we could amend the "health care" laws and require ALL policies to cover guns. Only fair, right?
-
Probably not, particularly if it was priced by private insurance companies.
Really? How much per gun in the house would you expect? And then also the truck, four-wheeler, car, camper, and etc used for transport? and use on public and private lands?
What do YOU regard as a reasonable tax (because that's what it is)?
-
Probably not, particularly if it was priced by private insurance companies.
You’re dreaming if you think your Progressive brethren will allow that to happen. They’ll mandate via the state insurance Commissioner what the minimum rate will be and it won’t be cheap.
It’s a back door gun ban plain and simple. Not to mention racist.
-
I’m curious how many weapons our resident gun grabbers actually own?
-
I’m curious how many weapons our resident gun grabbers actually own?
And how man they think we should be able to own. How many guns are 'enough'?
-
Probably not, particularly if it was priced by private insurance companies.
Probably so. I don't think the private companies will be allowed to set the prices. Government will never be able to resist sticking their noses under this new tent. If they mandate it, they will price it.
-
Really? How much per gun in the house would you expect? And then also the truck, four-wheeler, car, camper, and etc used for transport? and use on public and private lands?
What do YOU regard as a reasonable tax (because that's what it is)?
It’s not a tax. And calling it one doesn’t advance the discussion one whit.
-
Sure it is, when the cost of insurance prevents ownership, or even reduces the amount of guns I can own.
When my defense and even subsistence requires a monthly fee, that necessarily omits those who cannot afford the insurance - Making defense of self a privilege rather than a right, disaffecting those too poor to participate.
It is a pity that you are so eager to reduce the number of legally used guns in the US - That use, in defense, far outstrips your cause.
If you can’t afford the insurance, you’re not a responsible gun owner.
-
It’s not a tax. And calling it one doesn’t advance the discussion one whit.
Riiiiight. Just like Obamacare was not a tax...
-
Riiiiight. Just like Obamacare was not a tax...
Who is he fooling. Nobody here. The left couldn't care less what it's called as long as their leftist agenda is furthered and/or fulfilled. They have a lot in common with Muslims re: that. Taqiyya, DemocRat style.
-
Riiiiight. Just like Obamacare was not a tax...
If you say so. :shrug:
-
Probably not, particularly if it was priced by private insurance companies.
@Bill Cipher Funny dude, if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance, if you like your guns you can keep your guns. Sound vaguely familiar?
-
@Bill Cipher Funny dude, if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance, if you like your guns you can keep your guns. Sound vaguely familiar?
@verga you'll never get any of the gun grabbers and anti-2A types to admit to the similarities in that.
-
If you say so. :shrug:
Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts said so. :shrug:
-
If you can’t afford the insurance, you’re not a responsible gun owner.
Says who?
Seriously who the H3LL do you think you are making that judgement?
-
Says who?
Seriously who the H3LL do you think you are making that judgement?
@verga
He's a typical PrOgressive who think he knows more and is smarter than we are and therefore has the right to lord over us and decide what we should do and when we should do it and how much of anything we should have.
He's a wannabe mastermind.
That stupid way of thinking you highlighted in that quote tosses out the fact that there are millions of responsible gun owners in this country as we speak that don't carry insurance on their guns to be a good citizen/responsible gun owner.
-
@verga
He's a typical PrOgressive who think he knows more and is smarter than we are and therefore has the right to lord over us and decide what we should do and when we should do it and how much of anything we should have.
He's a wannabe mastermind.
That stupid way of thinking you highlighted in that quote tosses out the fact that there are millions of responsible gun owners in this country as we speak that don't carry insurance on their guns to be a good citizen/responsible gun owner.
If you say so. :shrug:
-
If you say so. :shrug:
Got it...this is your go to answer when you know you're wrong.
Childish much?
-
**nononono*
Happens on every gun thread in "Politics," it seems....
-
"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Constitutional architect James Madison in a letter to James Robertson
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
James Madison, 1792
I'll take his word over those of anyone on this board as he was there and knows better than anyone what those words mean.
-
Who is he fooling. Nobody here. The left couldn't care less what it's called as long as their leftist agenda is furthered and/or fulfilled. They have a lot in common with Muslims re: that. Taqiyya, DemocRat style.
@XenaLee
That's right. Folks that don't know the first damn thing what they're talking about tellin other folks how to do...
There's the problem with governing from 3000 miles away, right there.
What I do doesn't impose a single damn thing on them, but what they do is always an imposition upon me. That's the difference.
-
James Madison, 1792
I'll take his word over those of anyone on this board as he was there and knows better than anyone what those words mean.
Bump that!
:beer:
-
Hey @Bill Cipher
I’ll ask you the same question I asked that other gun grabbing tool on this board:
So whatcha gonna do when people refuse to comply with your anti freedom gun grabbing scheme?
Seriously...what’re you going to do? Empower the state to go knocking on doors to take the legally acquired private property from people who were made felons with the stroke of a pen?
All I’d suggest is that you at least have the stones to volunteer to be at the front of the stack when that door gets breached...otherwise you’re just another tyrant wannabe.
-
Got it...this is your go to answer when you know you're wrong.
Childish much?
If you say so. :shrug:
-
If you say so. :shrug:
It would be a lot easier if you would just put that in your signature line.
-
It would be a lot easier if you would just put that in your signature line.
Unless he enjoys being redundant.
-
Unless he enjoys being redundant.
I think you're right...a point is being made, admittedly in a manner designed to infuriate Members of TBR.
-
I think you're right...a point is being made, admittedly in a manner designed to infuriate Members of TBR.
@Cyber Liberty
The silence to my question is interesting as well
-
I think you're right...a point is being made, admittedly in a manner designed to infuriate Members of TBR.
Well.... I'm certainly not infuriated. Not even close. So I'd call it an epic FAIL. :laugh:
-
It would be a lot easier if you would just put that in your signature line.
Ahh well. Life isn’t a bowl of cherries, after all.
-
Duly noted...just another chickensh!t wannabe tyrant
-
Hey @Bill Cipher
I’ll ask you the same question I asked that other gun grabbing tool on this board:
So whatcha gonna do when people refuse to comply with your anti freedom gun grabbing scheme?
Seriously...what’re you going to do? Empower the state to go knocking on doors to take the legally acquired private property from people who were made felons with the stroke of a pen?
All I’d suggest is that you at least have the stones to volunteer to be at the front of the stack when that door gets breached...otherwise you’re just another tyrant wannabe.
I’m not a gun grabber, so your question is meaningless to me. I own a Ruger P89 and used to own a little Browning 22 pistol.
What I am trying to do is to sketch out how the argument would go if the Democrats were actually serious about trying to limit gun ownership in a sophisticated, rational way that would pass Constitutional muster.
It would, I think, behoove people to consider things like this rather than simply trying to resist any changes for the sake of resistance.
Quite honestly, if there is another large-scale massacre the next time the democrats control congress and the White House, or are close to controlling Congress, there’s a damned good chance the Second Amendment will be repealed in its entirety.
When that’s gone, all bets are off.
-
I’m not a gun grabber, so your question is meaningless to me. I own a Ruger P89 and used to own a little Browning 22 pistol.
What I am trying to do is to sketch out how the argument would go if the Democrats were actually serious about trying to limit gun ownership in a sophisticated, rational way that would pass Constitutional muster.
It would, I think, behoove people to consider things like this rather than simply trying to resist any changes for the sake of resistance.
Quite honestly, if there is another large-scale massacre the next time the democrats control congress and the White House, or are close to controlling Congress, there’s a damned good chance the Second Amendment will be repealed in its entirety.
When that’s gone, all bets are off.
You bet your ass all bets will be off. What will be on is the American Civil War II. And our side has been arming up (especially) since 2007. If the Democrats are stupid enough to push that button... then they will deserve what they get.
-
You bet your ass all bets will be off. What will be on is the American Civil War II. And our side has been arming up (especially) since 2007. If the Democrats are stupid enough to push that button... then they will deserve what they get.
@XenaLee
And the traitorous gun grabbers who support them...by act or by proxy
-
I’m not a gun grabber, so your question is meaningless to me. I own a Ruger P89 and used to own a little Browning 22 pistol.
What I am trying to do is to sketch out how the argument would go if the Democrats were actually serious about trying to limit gun ownership in a sophisticated, rational way that would pass Constitutional muster.
It would, I think, behoove people to consider things like this rather than simply trying to resist any changes for the sake of resistance.
Quite honestly, if there is another large-scale massacre the next time the democrats control congress and the White House, or are close to controlling Congress, there’s a damned good chance the Second Amendment will be repealed in its entirety.
When that’s gone, all bets are off.
So...you ARE too gutless to either answer the question or to volunteer to lead the stack.
As I said...duly noted. Your spouted drivel is what is meaningless
-
So...you ARE too gutless to either answer the question or to volunteer to lead the stack.
As I said...duly noted. Your spouted drivel is what is meaningless
Thanks for the personal attacks. Clear evidence you have nothing of substance to say.
-
You bet your ass all bets will be off. What will be on is the American Civil War II. And our side has been arming up (especially) since 2007. If the Democrats are stupid enough to push that button... then they will deserve what they get.
Are you kidding me? A bunch of internet jockeys is going to go all radical and violent? I don’t think so. The crescendo of whinging and empty threats on the internet will reach unheard of levels, but in the end, it’ll be over with, with no violence or bloodshed.
-
Are you kidding me? A bunch of internet jockeys is going to go all radical and violent? I don’t think so. The crescendo of whinging and empty threats on the internet will reach unheard of levels, but in the end, it’ll be over with, with no violence or bloodshed.
Want to bet. If push comes to shove you better have a gun. Unregistered of course.
-
I happily personally attack those who show themselves to be gutless...all you gotta do is answer the question.
Come on Chief, climb out behind the skirt of your banalities, cowboy up and answer the question...because you have shown here that you ARE a gun grabber.
So whatcha gonna do when people refuse to comply with your anti freedom gun grabbing scheme?
Seriously...what’re you going to do? Empower the state to go knocking on doors to take the legally acquired private property from people who were made felons with the stroke of a pen?
-
I happily personally attack those who show themselves to be gutless...all you gotta do is answer the question.
Come on Chief, climb out behind the skirt of your banalities, cowboy up and answer the question...because you have shown here that you ARE a gun grabber.
So whatcha gonna do when people refuse to comply with your anti freedom gun grabbing scheme?
Seriously...what’re you going to do? Empower the state to go knocking on doors to take the legally acquired private property from people who were made felons with the stroke of a pen?
Whatever. Since you prefer your own delusions to what I actually post, there isn’t much point. Since I (a) have not said I’m a gun-grabber, and (b) own a firearm myself, your attacks are not only pointless, they’re false.
But whatever. :shrug:
-
Want to bet. If push comes to shove you better have a gun. Unregistered of course.
I’ll take that bet. There isn’t a single soul here who is going to run to the hills and start a violent revolution because the amendment procedures put into the Constitution are used to peacefully repeal the Second Amendment, and you know it.
-
I’ll take that bet. There isn’t a single soul here who is going to run to the hills and start a violent revolution because the amendment procedures put into the Constitution are used to peacefully repeal the Second Amendment, and you know it.
I won't run to the hills. I will stand my ground. I would hope you will do the same. Oh and cut the crap.
-
I won't run to the hills. I will stand my ground. I would hope you will do the same. Oh and cut the crap.
Over what? The use of the amendment procedures for exactly what they were designed for? Please. You’ll do nothing of the sort.
-
Whatever. Since you prefer your own delusions to what I actually post, there isn’t much point. Since I (a) have not said I’m a gun-grabber, and (b) own a firearm myself, your attacks are not only pointless, they’re false.
But whatever. :shrug:
You espouse and support schemes that will result in gun confiscation...therefore you’re a gun grabber...please try to keep up.
And I notice you’re still too chicken<bleep> to simply answer a question. So while you may be too gutless to defend your God given rights...please don’t be such a sanctimonious ass to presume that we are all so weak hearted. There are still men in this country and a whole lot of us took an oath to defend this country agains ALL enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC...and that oath did not have an expiration date...and you sir are treading dangerously close.
So you want them? Molon Labe
-
Are you kidding me? A bunch of internet jockeys is going to go all radical and violent? I don’t think so. The crescendo of whinging and empty threats on the internet will reach unheard of levels, but in the end, it’ll be over with, with no violence or bloodshed.
Do you even begin to comprehend how many of those so called “internet jockeys†you mock have more trigger time and tactical experience than gutless gun grabbers like you...or the cowards of your ilk inside the beltway?
-
Are you kidding me? A bunch of internet jockeys is going to go all radical and violent? I don’t think so. The crescendo of whinging and empty threats on the internet will reach unheard of levels, but in the end, it’ll be over with, with no violence or bloodshed.
LOL! Yeah. You do that. Just keep thinking that. See where it gets ya.
-
Over what? The use of the amendment procedures for exactly what they were designed for? Please. You’ll do nothing of the sort.
Don't be ridiculous.
-
You espouse and support schemes that will result in gun confiscation...therefore you’re a gun grabber...please try to keep up.
And I notice you’re still too chicken<bleep> to simply answer a question. So while you may be too gutless to defend your God given rights...please don’t be such a sanctimonious ass to presume that we are all so weak hearted. There are still men in this country and a whole lot of us took an oath to defend this country agains ALL enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC...and that oath did not have an expiration date...and you sir are treading dangerously close.
So you want them? Molon Labe
I do nothing of the sort. I consider what the democrats might do if they were to make a concerted effort at it, and I explore whether those efforts would be likely to succeed or not.
It’s a shame you can’t seem to see the difference.
-
Do you even begin to comprehend how many of those so called “internet jockeys†you mock have more trigger time and tactical experience than gutless gun grabbers like you...or the cowards of your ilk inside the beltway?
Since I’m not a gun grabber, your comment is beside the point.
And you, most of all, would meekly hand your peashooters over at the drop of a hat. You’re all bluster and no beef.
-
LOL! Yeah. You do that. Just keep thinking that. See where it gets ya.
None of you had the fortitude to play the political long game with the democrats, and I should believe that you’ll suddenly muster enough “Dutch†to violently oppose a duly enacted law? Sorry if I seem a bit skeptical.
-
I do nothing of the sort. I consider what the democrats might do if they were to make a concerted effort at it, and I explore whether those efforts would be likely to succeed or not.
It’s a shame you can’t seem to see the difference.
They can't get 3/4 of the states to ratify, so they won't go directly after the Second Amendment. Instead they'll try to achieve the same goal with registration, insurance and other "reasonable restrictions."
-
They can't get 3/4 of the states to ratify, so they won't go directly after the Second Amendment. Instead they'll try to achieve the same goal with registration, insurance and other "reasonable restrictions."
I wouldn’t be quite so sanguine if there had just been another bloody mass shooting.
-
Since I’m not a gun grabber, your comment is beside the point.
Sure you’re not. You as anti 2nd Amendment as any gun grabber out there.
And you, most of all, would meekly hand your peashooters over at the drop of a hat. You’re all bluster and no beef.
Yeah right. Unlike yOu I’m not a bullsh*t artist. If I say I’m gonna do something I do it.
You know that first hand.
-
Sure you’re not. You as anti 2nd Amendment as any gun grabber out there.
Yeah right. Unlike yOu I’m not a bullsh*t artist. If I say I’m gonna do something I do it.
You know that first hand.
No, you’re a consummate BS artist. I know that from first hand.
-
No, you’re a consummate BS artist. I know that from first hand.
I don’t think you want to go down that road “Oâ€.
-
None of you had the fortitude to play the political long game with the democrats, and I should believe that you’ll suddenly muster enough “Dutch†to violently oppose a duly enacted law? Sorry if I seem a bit skeptical.
Be skeptical. Have at it. And while you're at it, be aware that you're breaking Rule #1....
and brazenly admitting it..... tsk tsk.
And btw.... that "duly enacted law" you're spouting off about would be anti-Constitutional and a deal breaker for those of us on the right. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back (pardon cliche). You'd have to know and be aware of that fact if you were, in fact, one of us. Guess not.
-
Be skeptical. Have at it. And while you're at it, be aware that you're breaking Rule #1....
and brazenly admitting it..... tsk tsk.
And btw.... that "duly enacted law" you're spouting off about would be anti-Constitutional and a deal breaker for those of us on the right. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back (pardon cliche). You'd have to know and be aware of that fact if you were, in fact, one of us. Guess not.
@XenaLee
Wannabe masterminds like O/Bill Cipher don’t care about the constitutional ramifications of their dictates. They just want people to bow to their will.
-
Be skeptical. Have at it. And while you're at it, be aware that you're breaking Rule #1....
and brazenly admitting it..... tsk tsk.
And btw.... that "duly enacted law" you're spouting off about would be anti-Constitutional and a deal breaker for those of us on the right. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back (pardon cliche). You'd have to know and be aware of that fact if you were, in fact, one of us. Guess not.
You’re a few pieces short of the puzzle. If the Second Amendment were repealed, then there would be nothing to prevent a state of the federal government from enacting a gun seizure law. That was my point. And I don’t think anyone here is going to violently resist a duly enacted law - one duly enacted after repeal of the Second Amendment.
-
@XenaLee
Wannabe masterminds like O/Bill Cipher don’t care about the constitutional ramifications of their dictates. They just want people to bow to their will.
Whatever, big boy. You’re also a few pieces short of the puzzle. As I said before: if the Second Amendment is repealed, then a gun seizure law becomes perfectly legal, and I very seriously doubt if you’d put even a penny where your mouth is when it comes to your bluster about what you would and would not violently resist. The bigger the bluster, the meeker the reality. Milquetoast.
-
I don’t think you want to go down that road “Oâ€.
Why? You gonna go cry to the mods again and get me banned?
-
OK, knock it off. This is a road I'm not particularly interested in anybody going down.
-
Why? You gonna go cry to the mods again and get me banned?
I didn’t have to go to the Mods to ban your sorry @ss.
I did it myself. IP and email address the works.
The ONLY reason you got to come back was because you blackmailed the owner of this site over graphics you supposedly created.
You were a sorry POS gun grabbing Tax lawyer from NYC who likes to act like Billy Badass from the safety of your keyboard.
There. It’s all out there now. Told you that you didn’t want to go down this road.
And quite frankly I don’t care if I get a timeout for this. It will be worth every day I’m in solitary to let everyone on TBR know what a steaming sack o’ crap you really are.
*mic drop*
-
OK, knock it off. This is a road I'm not particularly interested in anybody going down.
Totally agree, Cyber is red letter now, so I take that to mean, can do anything to anyone. I won't get involved. Not my deal here but this isn't good for the forum.
OK, we all have seen the posts, feel free to edit, delete them, again, not my real bizness here.
-
You’re a few pieces short of the puzzle. If the Second Amendment were repealed, then there would be nothing to prevent a state of the federal government from enacting a gun seizure law. That was my point. And I don’t think anyone here is going to violently resist a duly enacted law - one duly enacted after repeal of the Second Amendment.
Well... since we're talking about hypotheticals... and what we "think".....
I don't think it would get that far.... ie to any "duly enacted law".... after the left managed to repeal the Second Amendment.... against the will of the majority of Americans.... just like they rammed ObamaCare thru. I think that action alone would set off CWII. That said, I don't put it past them to try. They're stupid and arrogant that way.
-
I didn’t have to go to the Mods to ban your sorry @ss.
I did it myself. IP and email address the works.
The ONLY reason you got to come back was because you blackmailed the owner of this site over graphics you supposedly created.
You were a sorry POS gun grabbing Tax lawyer from NYC who likes to act like Billy Badass from the safety of your keyboard.
There. It’s all out there now. Told you that you didn’t want to go down this road.
And quite frankly I don’t care if I get a timeout for this. It will be worth every day I’m in solitary to let everyone on TBR know what a steaming sack o’ crap you really are.
*mic drop*
He who thinks he knows so much, actually knows so little.
Maybe you will get a timeout. Lord knows you deserve it. I keep trying to have a conversation here, and all you can do is follow me around flinging insults and ad hominems, like a chimp flinging its own feces.
What on Earth do you think it adds to the conversation to call me a gun-grabber, or any of the other uncreative insults you’ve used? It adds precisely nothing other than insults and ill-will.
Try contributing to a conversation sometime by adding valuable content, not insults.
-
Well... since we're talking about hypotheticals... and what we "think".....
I don't think it would get that far.... ie to any "duly enacted law".... after the left managed to repeal the Second Amendment.... against the will of the majority of Americans.... just like they rammed ObamaCare thru. I think that action alone would set off CWII. That said, I don't put it past them to try. They're stupid and arrogant that way.
It wouldn’t be against the will of the majority. It would be the will of the majority. Stampeded, to be sure, but that’s the risk that gets run when those who favor the Second Amendment refuse to engage constructively with what’s going on in the world.
-
OK, knock it off. This is a road I'm not particularly interested in anybody going down.
@Cyber Liberty
Knock yourself out, kiddo.
-
It wouldn’t be against the will of the majority. It would be the will of the majority. Stampeded, to be sure, but that’s the risk that gets run when those who favor the Second Amendment refuse to engage constructively with what’s going on in the world.
With all due respect.... I think you are grossly deluded. Despite what the idiot left media portrays (they lie)....the majority of Americans are not gun-grabbing leftist morons who would be just fine with repeal of the 2nd Amendment. You have it ass-backwards, IOW. Just sayin....
-
With all due respect.... I think you are grossly deluded. Despite what the idiot left media portrays (they lie)....the majority of Americans are not gun-grabbing leftist morons who would be just fine with repeal of the 2nd Amendment. You have it ass-backwards, IOW. Just sayin....
And I you. Swapping insults doesn’t move the conversation forward much, does it?
-
@XenaLee
Wannabe masterminds like O/Bill Cipher don’t care about the constitutional ramifications of their dictates. They just want people to bow to their will.
Lol..... as I once told my boss, jokingly (but serious)....
kissing ass is not on my diet. And bowing is not part of my exercise routine. And never will be. :patriot:
-
And I you. Swapping insults doesn’t move the conversation forward much, does it?
Well, since we're getting nowhere with this discussion anyway....
whatev.
-
Well, since we're getting nowhere with this discussion anyway....
whatev.
As you wish. Have a good night.
-
As you wish. Have a good night.
You do the same.
-
You do the same.
I will. Thanks.
-
Does this outbreak of pleasantries mean I can't do a thread lock or ban hammer? 66minnie yymouse
-
Does this outbreak of pleasantries mean I can't do a thread lock or ban hammer? 66minnie yymouse
Beats me. But if I wish you a pleasant good night as well, will that mollify you? If so, then please have a good night.
-
Beats me. But if I wish you a pleasant good night as well, will that mollify you? If so, then please have a good night.
It does. Good night. :beer:
-
If you say so. :shrug:
@Bill Cipher We do, BTW Every time I post to you I will be thinking Last name Head, first name Richard.
-
Quite honestly, if there is another large-scale massacre the next time the democrats control congress and the White House, or are close to controlling Congress, there’s a damned good chance the Second Amendment will be repealed in its entirety.
When that’s gone, all bets are off.
Congress with the White House does not have the power to repeal a Constitutional Amendment.
-
I’m not a gun grabber,
@Bill Cipher If you say so :shrug: Richard Head.
-
Since I (a) have not said I’m a gun-grabber, and (b) own a firearm myself, your attacks are not only pointless, they’re false.
Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Carl Rowan, all gun owners and gun grabbers. So you are in good company Mr. Head.
-
I’ll take that bet. There isn’t a single soul here who is going to run to the hills and start a violent revolution because the amendment procedures put into the Constitution are used to peacefully repeal the Second Amendment, and you know it.
Whatever you say :shrug: But we all know that you are pretty much always wrong Richard.
-
Why do you alway try to make every gun thread about abortion?
Because I cannot stand this "rights for me but not for thee" mentality. Why is the gun owner's liberty interest sacrosanct, but a woman's liberty interest is dismissed as lost as soon as she "opens her legs"? Why not treat both as protected by the Constitution, yet subject to reasonable regulation?
-
Quite honestly, if there is another large-scale massacre the next time the democrats control congress and the White House, or are close to controlling Congress, there’s a damned good chance the Second Amendment will be repealed in its entirety.
When that’s gone, all bets are off.
The 2A is not going to be repealed - it doesn't have to be. Instead, it will be effectively neutered by a SCOTUS decision.
What the Supreme Court granted in Heller it can take away. Just as pro-lifers have agitated for years for the SCOTUS to reverse its finding of rights for women, so are liberals salivating for the day when the Supreme Court can reverse Heller and render the 2A an anachronism.
Even with Heller still on the books, there's little question that a good-faith regime of gun registration, licensure and insurance is Constitutional as a reasonable regulation of the gun right. And most gun owners will understand and comply, just as drivers understand why motor vehicles need to be registered and insured.
And following nearly a century of automobile registration, there's still no evidence it leads to confiscation!
-
Because I cannot stand this "rights for me but not for thee" mentality. Why is the gun owner's liberty interest sacrosanct, but a woman's liberty interest is dismissed as lost as soon as she "opens her legs"? Why not treat both as protected by the Constitution, yet subject to reasonable regulation?
@Jazzhead
Because right to life is another Topic. Let's stick to gun control on this one. It's tough enough as it is.
-
@Jazzhead
Because right to life is another Topic. Let's stick to gun control on this one. It's tough enough as it is.
Understood, but I was responding to a specific question. And the two issues are related in that each pits champions of individual liberty against advocates of authoritarianism. And neither can see the hypocrisy in their own position.
-
The 2A is not going to be repealed - it doesn't have to be. Instead, it will be effectively neutered by a SCOTUS decision.
What the Supreme Court granted in Heller it can take away. Just as pro-lifers have agitated for years for the SCOTUS to reverse its finding of rights for women, so are liberals salivating for the day when the Supreme Court can reverse Heller and render the 2A an anachronism.
Even with Heller still on the books, there's little question that a good-faith regime of gun registration, licensure and insurance is Constitutional as a reasonable regulation of the gun right. And most gun owners will understand and comply, just as drivers understand why motor vehicles need to be registered and insured.
And following nearly a century of automobile registration, there's still no evidence it leads to confiscation!
As to the first point: fair enough; however, if some nut job presents the democrats with a suitable tragedy to exploit, they will, and then nothing will stand in their way.
-
As to the first point: fair enough; however, if some nut job presents the democrats with a suitable tragedy to exploit, they will, and then nothing will stand in their way.
New Zealand, Australia, UK and a host of other countries proved that tragedy will be exploited for political gain. "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
The Second will not be repealed, but the advocates of "reasonable regulation" will chip away at that Amendment every chance they get by plying the population with emotional arguments. Been that way since the dawn of time. It's pretty obvious stuff for spectators of this "sport."
-
New Zealand, Australia, UK and a host of other countries proved that tragedy will be exploited for political gain. "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
The Second will not be repealed, but the advocates of "reasonable regulation" will chip away at that Amendment every chance they get by plying the population with emotional arguments. Been that way since the dawn of time. It's pretty obvious stuff for spectators of this "sport."
Including two of our own resident gun grabbers here