Feinsteins Gun Control Bill

[Richard]

Originally Posted by koz

Lets add that anti-gun people want to be protected by guns or have guns themselves (Reid, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Biden, David Gregory, Schumer, Rahm) but don't want the common folk to have them.

I don't think you understood my first point and I'd place your comment in the same category as the one I was commenting upon.

Richard

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

I disagree and see it more like this:

• Anti-gun people don’t own guns and want limitations on those who do.
• Pro-gun people, many who own firearms, want fewer limitations.

Richard

Where do you see the Second Ammendment come in?

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Richard

I disagree and see it more like this:

• Anti-gun people don’t own guns and want limitations on those who do.
• Pro-gun people, many who own firearms, want fewer limitations.

Richard

Nope I disagree.

I don't want the federal gov making a unilateral decision to abolish the second amendment. I've no doubt what their intent is and more than one left-wing socialist dim has made it crystal clear they wish to ban all guns. And as former/retired Green Berets we all know where that path leads.

When they come for my guns I will already be at their door, that's a promise.

[Hand]

Originally Posted by Richard

[*]Pro-gun people, many who own firearms, want fewer limitations.
Richard

I own guns, I have no problems with the current limitations (in my state). Except for the one prohibiting concealed carry in a church or any public event. Bad things have happened at both of these venues.

My state doesn't require any firearms training to obtain a CCW permit, for some this is fine, for others I think some training should be strongly encouraged.

I don't mind the legal red tape involved with purchasing suppressors, although this has prohibited me from purchasing one.

I don't mind at all, not being able to afford a fully automatic mp5k, although I think this would be a bad ass gun to own.

I'm OK with the current limitations. And I'm pro-gun.

I believe that many have come to the realization that our freedoms really are being eroded just as surely as our disposable income. I believe that many see the possession of firearms as the last bastion of ammunition left to the American populace against being completely over run by the government. Its easy to see that the government is not serving our best interest, not instituting policy for the good of the country. And while many of us will cringe at how much Obama and his minions are going to lighten our wallets, we will begrudgingly comply AS LONG AS he leaves our damn guns alone.

We are already being raped. But at least we have our guns. It may be silly to some, but to us, its a freedom that we wont stand to see pillaged if we have any say in the matter. And as long as we have guns, we will have a say in the matter.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Where do you see the Second Ammendment come in?

I see it as an amendable stipulation within a document which contains necessarily onerous provisions for amendment as determined by the needs and cumulative will of the nation it created, a document providing a foundation for a historically important pact of yet to be determined longevity between a citizenry and its democratically constituted government.

How do you see it?

Richard

[SF18C]

Originally Posted by Richard

I see it as an amendable stipulation within a document which contains necessarily onerous provisions for amendment as determined by the needs and cumulative will of the nation it created, a document providing a foundation for a historically important pact of yet to be determined longevity between a citizenry and its democratically constituted government.

How do you see it?

Richard

Oh I like that! I'm gonna remember that one!

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Richard

[COLOR="Lime"]I see it as an amendable stipulation

"Amendable stipulation" as illustrated by "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

I see it as an amendable stipulation within a document which contains necessarily onerous provisions for amendment as determined by the needs and cumulative will of the nation it created, a document providing a foundation for a historically important pact of yet to be determined longevity between a citizenry and its democratically constituted government.

How do you see it?

Richard

I don't see it as part of a "living" document, as many moderates and closet libs do. I see it as an absolute guarantee of our right as citizens to own and operate firearms.

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Dusty

I don't see it as part of a "living" document, as many moderates and closet libs do. I see it as an absolute guarantee of our right as citizens to own and operate firearms.

Could the Second Amendment be "amended" - by the process(es) outlined in the Constitution? I think that is more the point Richard was making... perhaps not, I'm sure he'll expound at some point.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Richard

I see it as an amendable stipulation within a document which contains necessarily onerous provisions for amendment as determined by the needs and cumulative will of the nation it created, a document providing a foundation for a historically important pact of yet to be determined longevity between a citizenry and its democratically constituted government.

How do you see it?

Richard

I see it as etched in stone, written by a nation of brave men that fought hard to win their freedom and vowed to write a document that left no doubts in anyone's mind that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It meaning is crystal clear to me. It's also crystal clear why it's the Second Amendment and not the 11th or 12th. Our forefathers wanted it to be as important as the First Amendment as it goes hand in hand with defending our freedoms.

I have no doubt what our great forefathers were thinking when they drafted the Second Amendment. They left no possibility that the People would ever be disarmed. They knew then that "Power" is an illusion with a well armed populace.

It's a right, not a privilege.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

Could the Second Amendment be "amended" - by the process(es) outlined in the Constitution?

Looks like that's what the libs have in mind, or something similar.

Good luck with that. That issue will be the "bridge too far".

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

I see it as etched in stone, written by a nation of brave men that fought hard to win their freedom and vowed to write a document that left no doubts in anyone's mind that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It meaning is crystal clear to me. It's also crystal clear why it's the Second Amendment and not the 11th or 12th. Our forefathers wanted it to be as important as the First Amendment as it goes hand in hand with defending our freedoms.

I have no doubt what our great forefathers were thinking when they drafted the Second Amendment. They left no possibility that the People would ever be disarmed. They knew then that "Power" is an illusion with a well armed populace.

It's a right, not a privilege.

Yep, and there's more than just two of us who have that angle on the subject.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Yep, and there's more than just two of us who have that angle on the subject.

Great, now we have a conspiracy.....

[SF18C]

Here they come!!!!


Ten gun bills on Congress's first day

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...y-of-the-house

But two of em are okay!



Two freshman Republicans introduced contrary bills that would end federal law requiring that areas around schools be designated as "gun free zones." These bills, H.R. 35 from Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) and H.R. 133 from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), are a response to findings that violence in and around schools has increased since the gun free zone law took effect in 1990.



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...#ixzz2H2goa4bX

[charlietwo]

I would imagine if the 2nd amendment could be amended, so too could the 1st if a big enough crisis called for it.

Dangerous grounds I would not willingly tread.