In pictures: US gun-blessing ceremony

[PaulS]

Just wait till some states ban ammunition because they're not guns LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

Property that was attained while legal and then banned and confiscated absolutely DOES violate rights. And if it ever goes to court before a judge that is not a liberal constitutional tyrant, then it would be overturned.




The argument about modern firearms are not what the 2A was for is horsecrap, The British had what the people had, and when they wanted to disarm the people, the revolution began. You can believe whatever you want about what can be banned or should be banned and we are never going to agree apparently. I know what is right and what is wrong. Did a bunch of ranchers armed with AR-15's win a standoff with the feds? yes they did.

If the country goes over the ledge to socialism, that is when you will finally realize you are left with Communism and wonder how it happened.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Property that was attained while legal and then banned and confiscated absolutely DOES violate rights. And if it ever goes to court before a judge that is not a liberal constitutional tyrant, then it would be overturned.

1) Doesn't mean you can't ban new sales and

2) Doesn't mean you can't add registration requirements and sale transfer requirements onto existing weapons.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Did a bunch of ranchers armed with AR-15's win a standoff with the feds? yes they did.
.

That is kind of a stretch. Had the Feds wanted to win the standoff, it would have been over it seconds. They didn't want the repercussions of doing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

That is kind of a stretch. Had the Feds wanted to win the standoff, it would have been over it seconds. They didn't want the repercussions of doing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not to mention the ranchers were wrong to begin with.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

this was on fox Tucker Carlson

“Imagine if Barack Obama had said that? ‘Just ignore due process and confiscating guns.’ Obama would have been denounced as a dictator,” Carlson said on Thursday. “Congress would be talking impeachment right now. Someone would be muttering about secession.”

not sure if he is asking why this isn't happening or just for once see's how hypocritical the base is?

Went to see the comments which are very telling and no where on the 1st page of comments was there a critical comment against Trump he was mentioned 1 time here is the comment

What Fiasco. President Trump is battling the Democratic Communist Party, the Rhinos, the push towards a NWO,

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/...ke-guns-first/


I am sure they wont see an issue with this one as well ,,Trump praises Chinese president extending tenure 'for life'


“He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.

this is the part that scares me^^^^

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

“He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.

this is the part that scares me^^^^

Trump is enamored with dictators and authoritarian regimes. I don't even think he realizes what he's saying.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I don't particularly agree with everything in the bill, but the way it reads, you could purchase a semi automatic rifle with a fixed magazine that holds 10 rounds. That isn't a flintlock.

By the way, one of the arguments against magazine size limits is that they don't change anything. You can duct tape a couple together in opposite directions and pull it out and flip it in two seconds. Fixed magazine does address that aspect.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you read it?

Originally Posted by wdmso

"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

And the crowd REPUBLICANS AND THE NRA go crazy

And for the 10000 thousand time we will be told what he ment to say

So you would be OK with it?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Of course the 2A people went berserk. If today, we can take away your second amendment rights without giving you the benefit of due process, maybe tomorrow someone can take away another constitutional right of yours, without due process, maybe freedom of speech? Or protection from cruel and unusual punishment?

I don't like guns being in the hands of weird people. But I don't like the idea of ignoring the parts of the Constitution we don't happen to like at the moment, either. Neither should you. Because if we can ignore it when we feel like it, then it serves no purpose.

For a lot of people, it is easy to strip away Constitutional Rights. I mean, what's the worst that could happen, right?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Due process must come first. The constitution could not be more clear. You disagree?

Yeh - not hearing much (as we should) about the deeper investigations that need to be done.

Originally Posted by wdmso

It's a slippery slope ...due process ignored the Fla shooter ,,, I know in Mass a 209a protection order or admission to a detox voluntary or in voluntary gets a knock at your door to secure all weapons .... it's automatic . You can get them back via Due process ... but they can't just take them based on a unnamed caller or because some thinks your weird..

So this slippery slope is OK?

We do need a good examination on how to protect rights and balance the need for some people not to have access to firearms (and removal if needed) due to disqualifying events (mental health/Drug Abuse/Criminal Records) and not limit those that are not disqualifying.

The FL shooter Cruz wasn't failed by Due process? The students at MSD were failed by the lack of any ATTEMPT of ANY PROCESS by legal authorities at the local, state, and Federal level.

Originally Posted by wdmso

so whos rights gets priority those of a possible shooter or those of his potential victum's ?..

Be inconvenienced. In court to get your guns back due process

Be inconvenienced because your dead no due process

The possibility of abuse exists that's why we have courts .. reasonable people who have nothing to hide and operate with in the rules won't be effected .

The reasonable people are the ones that will have their rights curtailed. You CAN support 2A and not own a firearm. Interestingly after the recent hits on the NRA (you know, the killers that caused the MSD shootings) they signed up thousands of new members because it is a fight over Constitutional rights.

Move the discussion from 2A to 1A - how flexible are you in having your speech curtailed?

Originally Posted by wdmso

And I don't buy that the freedom to own a gun is absolute. Or with out restriction
Or the fantasy this leads to taking people's guns .... it's just not based in facts

I do not think it is without restriction, but the default is to allow with certain items to disqualify. But there has been significant calling from Dems and Dem legislators to ban and confiscate.

Due process? Or the lack of implementation of Due Process by legal authorities at the local, state, and Federal level??

Originally Posted by spence

And their rights wouldn't be violated by banning assault weapons either. Even in the Heller case the SC didn't say the government couldn't ban certain types of weapons.

Heller also stated the people have the right to the same arms in use in "lawful purpose". So technically, the people could get more advanced systems than currently available.

Originally Posted by wdmso

this was on fox Tucker Carlson

“Imagine if Barack Obama had said that? ‘Just ignore due process and confiscating guns.’ Obama would have been denounced as a dictator,” Carlson said on Thursday. “Congress would be talking impeachment right now. Someone would be muttering about secession.”

not sure if he is asking why this isn't happening or just for once see's how hypocritical the base is?

Went to see the comments which are very telling and no where on the 1st page of comments was there a critical comment against Trump he was mentioned 1 time here is the comment

What Fiasco. President Trump is battling the Democratic Communist Party, the Rhinos, the push towards a NWO,

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/...ke-guns-first/


I am sure they wont see an issue with this one as well ,,Trump praises Chinese president extending tenure 'for life'


“He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.

this is the part that scares me^^^^

You are exceptional at Cherry Picking you quotes to broad brush people. You may be even more effective than Spence.

Originally Posted by spence

Trump is enamored with dictators and authoritarian regimes. I don't even think he realizes what he's saying.

Here we agree