I hear you guys, but "here she comes!"
NRA-ILA | Feinstein Goes For Broke With New Gun-Ban Bill
This is a discussion on The Constitution prohibits outlawing guns.... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SigPapa226 Ladies and Gentlemen You do not understand, they are trying to trample the Constitution. They will do anything to subvert it ...
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
I am sworn to protect the Constitution of the U.S.A. from all threats both foreign and domestic.
What about Prohibition? A lot of what already existed was made illegal and then destroyed.
If the Constitution is becomes subverted, then it is time to change out the leadership, by force if needed.
The only hard part is determining when this needs to be done.
Universal Background Checks...the next step towards registration and confiscation.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
NRA Never Again - Part 1 of 2 - YouTube
NRA Never Again Part 2 of 2 - YouTube
Most if not all so called "gun control" laws on the books are unconstitutional but as Smitty901 above explains the Supreme Court has the last word and they are silent on the present gun laws and will be on any new ones.
The anti gun movement is building up a full head of steam to tear down the 2nd amendment completely. Sadly what I see from the 2nd amendment advocate side is pretty much silence. I advocate going on offense full bore to fight the fight. "They" are using a proven tactic to sell their case. They are campaigning hard to sell to the American public that certain weapons are evil and if removed everything will be better. This is the same tactic used with the smoking issue in America. Right, smoking is bad but that is not my point, my point is the tactic they used to sell it. One advantage "they" have is many media outlets are anti-gun so their side gets free press to achieve what they seek.
It is now time for our side to end the silence and fight back. Unfortunately our side is going to have to spend far more money on the fight since we get very little free press. I am disappointed in the NRA going pretty much silent since the press conference and the stint on Meet the Press. Also disappointed the other 2nd amendment organizations are just as silent. Our side has given and given and all "they" do is take and demand more. Any bans Congress enacts into law will be permanent this time.
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
--Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney
Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."
Well ive written my congressman Mitch McConnell and my other state and federal reps senators etc. Most are already pro gun or at least always have been. No replies but I really didnt expect any. The one from my state that seems to be wavering isnt in my voting district so cant even email him.
Other than that not exactly sure what one can do if the NRA and other pro rights or pro gun groups are gonna stay mostly quite during this.
The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
This windmill is taken.
Regardless of how the Constitution is written, it means nothing to the president, the majority of the senate and the department of justice. I have stated many times that if they are not successful in passing an AWB the president, by executive order, can place more restrictions on type of gun ownership, force the registration of all guns, place higher taxes on the purchase of guns, higher taxes on ammo and all associated gun items.
Why would you trust your wife around Benjamin Franklin?
A man needs to get purchase on his words - and for all you tweeters out there we have a Natty Bumppo special!
I have " purchase" on my words, it is called my opinion as you have voiced your opinion of my statement.
Don't believe me?Here's a quote from the guy that got the last AWB passed:
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."
-Bill Clinton (MTV's "Enough is Enough" 4-19-94)
Since when did the Bill of Rights 'give' us freedoms? The BOR is supposed to guarantee our natural rights from govt interference!
Still don't believe me?Here's Justice Ginsberg giving advice to the Egyptians last spring:
... Asked by the English-speaking interviewer whether she thought Egypt should use the Constitutions of other countries as a model, Ginsburg said Egyptians should be “aided by all Constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II.”
“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa,” says Ginsburg, whom President Clinton nominated to the court in 1993.
For those not familiar with south africa, here the wikipedia entry for south african gun laws:In South Africa, owning a gun is conditional on a competency test and several other factors, including background checking of the applicant, inspection of an owner's premises, and licensing of the weapon by the police introduced in July 2004. The process is currently undergoing review, as the police are at present, not able to adequately or within reasonable time, process either competency certification, new licenses or renewal of existing licenses. Minimum waiting period frequently exceeds 2 years from date of application.
But at least it's safe there with all that gun control...
Wow, so much to address here.
First, the ex post facto doctrine doesn't really work as described here. This clause protects us from having a law passed to say what we had done in the past was illegal. Thus they couldn't pass a law that says it was illegal for us to have purchased a firearm in the past. That clause would in no way prevent the Congress from passing a law that says from this point forward you may not be in possession of said firearm. (That's what the second amendment is for) Just because it is not illegal for us to purchase or own an item today does not mean that it will not be illegal to be in possession of that item tomorrow. Every item that it is illegal to possess from child porn to drugs to nuclear warheads had to be explicitly outlawed at a specific point in time. Prior to that point it would not have been illegal to be in possession of that item. Good luck getting caught with any of the above now and trying your ex post facto defense. We'll take up a collection so you can have some money on your prison account for Ramen noodles.
Next, the Supreme Court is not intended to determine whether something is constitutional. That was actually a power the court gave itself in Marbury v Madison when the Marshall court declared Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. Judicial Review was a concept in British Common Law but this instance is the first time that the court ruled that a federal law was unconstitutional. And if you read the Constitution you'll not that it never outlines the exact purpose of the Supreme Court, just that we will have one.
"The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
- Lt. Col. Oliver North