Closest - whatever.


:rotflmao: Well, Obama may or may not have been as corrupt (though his ideology surely is) the fanaticism was real. The fanaticism, supported byt the media on how bad Mitt Effing Romney was. Mitt was a Boy Scout and spot on WRT a lot of things. But binders of wimin... And he's gonna putcha back in chains.

GMAFB

Dizzy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope - saving the world one server at a time ; )

"out of touch MY view is" That is your opinion based on years of your own personal life experiences. Try understanding that listing those peoples' opinions makes my point that these people are influencing all the sheep who pressure those who actually do have the power to ban guns. But I guess you needed me to point that out to you.( I can be condescending also)
And since I did not explain why I listed those, you proclaimed that you win the debate. I never said everyone is coming for my guns, those are your words.
I understand what infringements are.
It's a good thing you have all that money on your side.

So while I am back on this thread again,
here is a nice blog you will get another list for you to mock.

https://thewriterinblack.com/2017/05...e-your-guns-2/


too long to copy and paste the whole thing but here is a sample


Whenever I, or others, object to “registration” or bans on transfers, or other forms of “gun control” and firearms restrictions as steps toward an eventual complete prohibition and the confiscation that such would necessarily entail, we get told we’re paranoid and “nobody wants to take your guns.”

Well, perhaps we should consider these “nobodies”:

“A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.” Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

“My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.” Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say ‘Sorry.’ it’s 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” Rosie O’Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” Andrew Cuomo

“I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.” Michael Dukakis

“If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

“In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea … Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

“Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.” Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

“[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!” John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

“I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step.” Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

“Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.” Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

truth

Minnesota Bill Introduced 2018: “Expand the definition of an “assault weapon” to include many semiautomatic pistols, rifles or shotguns and makes possessing them a felony, with the exception of some that were legally registered before February 2018. Those owning a grandfathered assault weapon must undergo a background check, renew their registration annually, and use them only on their property or at a shooting range. Such weapons could not be sold or transferred, only surrendered to law enforcement for destruction.” Even ignoring the “possessing” part the inability to transfer makes it a ban with delayed enforcement.

East Lansing School District has made an official resolution which includes: “Whereas, no civilian should ever be allowed to purchase, possess or use a weapon of mass destruction, including but not limited to automatic and semi-automatic guns, nor be allowed to purchase, possess or use any magazine, clip or other tool designed to deliver rapid-fire ammunition without the need to reload;” (That’s the vast majority of all firearms in American and pretty much anything but single-shot firearms.)

“Kerry Picket, Sirius XM Patriot: ‘Now some would argue that then guns and ammunition would only be available to those with money, those who are wealthy. And that those who are in the lower classes as far as financial terms are concerned would not be able to afford such weapons. Tell me about that.’

“Congressman Danny Davis (D-Ill.): ‘Well I would be just as pleased if neither group were able to get them [guns]. So what I am saying is it doesn’t pose an issue for me because I would like to outlaw them altogether. I am saying I would like to make it where nobody except military personnel would ever have access to these weapons. So it wouldn’t bother me that one category of people couldn’t get them even if the other one was willing to pay the high price for them. Then we use that money for services that are needed and people could make use of them.’
“Picket: ‘So rich people only could own firearms?’
“Congressman Davis: ‘So if rich people could only get firearms then only rich people would be able to pay the price. And if that could prevent some people from getting them, I would want to prevent all people from getting them. But if rich people were willing, and would continue to pay the high price then I’d be happy that we kept the other group from getting them.'” Audio of interview included at this link.

An article at VOX.COM: “Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.”

House Bill effectively a delayed ban on the vast majority of firearms in the US: “The bill prohibits the ‘sale, transfer, production, and importation’ of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.” By banning the transfer they are, in effect, creating a delayed ban. As soon as the current owner of a covered firearm (most of those in the US) dies or otherwise is unable to keep the firearm it cannot be passed on to someone else–like ones heirs. That gun is then gone and no more can replace it.

Daryl Fisher (A Democrat candidate for Sheriff in Buncombe County NC): “Any weapon that is designed for use by the military I think we should ban. You’ve heard people say you have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands. [shrugs] OK.” (Up front about willing to kill to take people’s guns.) What is interesting to note is that while my 1893 Argentine Bolt Action (an antique, old enough that it’s not even regulated by the ATF), my Mosin Nagant rifle, and various other bolt actions, including the extremely popular Remingtin 700 have been used by the US and other militaries, that AR-15 is not (the similar appearing M-16 and M-4, both having full auto or “burst” fire that the AR-15 lacks, are different beasts).

Going back in time a bit, to a bill Senator Diane Feinstein introduced in 2013. “‘The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time,’ Feinstein said. ‘Therefore, there is no sunset on this bill.'” After all, ending transfer of the firearms means that when, for whatever reason (including eventual death) a person cannot own their existing weapon it has to be surrendered. A slow confiscation over time is still a confiscation.

“But nobody wants to take our guns?”

The number of influential people who want to ban "all" guns seems to be extremely small. Most of the quotes on that page are talking about prohibitions on specific weapons only.

There's almost zero public support for the idea of banning "all" guns. Yet, the percentage of the population in favor of tighter restrictions is overwhelming. Politicians are left hamstrung by special interest money over the will of their constituents.

I'll bet you do look good in a weskit and tricorn when you go to church though :hihi:

It’s a lot easier to blame the inanimate object, than it is to accept responsibility for ourselves. One of the cornerstones if liberalism is that no one is responsible for the things they do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is why Jim.

Well John, time to speak up as your state is next to red flag according to the Governor's panel she assembled that is made up of people who already made up their minds so why they bother to go thru motions is just optics I guess.


https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/1...6d49ca56a4ad72


good luck, we already had our red flag bill rammed thru this summer, my Rep and a dozen or so others voted no but in this state there was no stopping this poorly written law from passing as they slap each others' backs congratulating themselves for "doing" something, as opposed to addressing the actual problem.

Young's legal "reasoning" is laughable and is just an example of a leftist statist authoritarian grasping a straws.

Heller's statement that "if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, . . . " isn't comparing appearances, accessories or furniture, it is comparing the full-auto M-16 to other guns that fall under Title II of NFA-34.

The single characteristic that those guns share, making them both "bannable" and thus "like" each other, is the ability to fire more than one bullet with a single pull of the trigger.

That's it, full stop . . .

Collapsible stocks, pistol grips, removable magazines, barrel shrouds or flash hiders are NOT mentioned in NFA-34; NONE of those things are of any interest to ATF in determining what differentiates a Title II "banned" gun from a "legal" gun.

This Massachusetts district opinion is just an example of what is to be expected from liberal judges -- lie, cheat and misrepresent and in the end, violate their oaths to the Constitution and dishonor their office.


.

All Scalia is doing here is reciting the law and the unremarkable legal condition as it relates to the public carriage of arms by private citizens. Your chopping of the quote stomps the subject being discussed into a mudhole.


And what has become the most significant part of that paragraph is always left off by the left:

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

LMAO. When you learn what all that actually means, especially what "dangerous and unusual" weapons are, and why "dangerous and unusual" weapons are not protected arms, you will be much less likely to quote that passage.



There are two reasons that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were not considered to violate the 2nd Amendment -- First is that the 2nd Amendment had no effect on state laws (until 2010). Second, establishing in law the manner of carriage of arms by citizens has always been a power of the state.

Recently, federal courts have held that the rights that the 2nd Amendment does protect (to keep and bear arms) secures a right to openly carry a gun in public for self defense and states are bound to respect that right. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...utional-right/

Whether that forces a state in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction to institute a 'shall issue' concealed carry permit because they don't want to see a citizen's gun, is up to those states. One way or another, the state must recognize the citizen's right to be armed in public for self defense.


This, like state assault weapon bans, will soon be before the Supreme Court; you should enjoy your illegitimate laws while they last.


.

And that's what the left just doesn't get.



Redefining, reworking and remolding the original, fundamental, pre-existing, never surrendered right to arms is not within the purview of any court or legislature.


Scalia expands on this principle multiple times in Heller:

"The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."

And that scope of protection, of prohibiting government gaining a foothold to restrain the right, is not diminished with time, technological advancements or especially, the aggrandizing opinion of liberals about being enlightened and unburdened by the framer's intent.

"Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, . . . and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, . . . the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
(internal citations removed)

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

While the right to arms is not an "unlimited" right, that doesn't mean that government's constitutional ability to restrain the right is limitless:

" . . . the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."

.

The unqualified notion that constitutional rights are not absolute opens the door to limiting those rights. And it does so in a way that infers there need not be any end to further limitations.

Without specifically delineating how those rights are limited, and in what way they do have a claim to being absolute, leaves the uninformed with the impression that there are no limits to abridging any right so long as there is a compelling government interest to do so.

As Scalia said "A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all." And yet we have this widespread acceptance of Progressive jurisprudence which thrives on the judicial practice of "interpreting" the Constitution via a Judge's opinion of what the text "should" mean in the light of his view of what is "just" in present circumstance. Which essentially concedes that there are no constitutional guarantees. That there are only rights promulgated by judicial opinion.