8
8
0
"We don't want to take away your guns"... have you read H.R. 4269?
The day after Christmas the Democrats introduced H.R. 4269 or will be known as the Assault Weapons of 2015. This will radically change what you can own, what you can have. Read it members and please comment.
Think things are not about to change for the worse if this passes? Think it won't be used during the upcoming campaign's. After reading this, I couldn't say if I wanted to cry or be outraged or both. As I felt a knife being driven into the soul of the document we have been sworn to defend.
The day after Christmas the Democrats introduced H.R. 4269 or will be known as the Assault Weapons of 2015. This will radically change what you can own, what you can have. Read it members and please comment.
Think things are not about to change for the worse if this passes? Think it won't be used during the upcoming campaign's. After reading this, I couldn't say if I wanted to cry or be outraged or both. As I felt a knife being driven into the soul of the document we have been sworn to defend.
Posted from congress.gov
Rifle Shooting
Rifles
Government
Freedom
Collecting Guns
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 18
8
8
0
Saw this already; actual date it was introduced was 16 Dec.
Not much to worry about - it'll die in committee.
Not much to worry about - it'll die in committee.
(8)
(0)
6
6
0
The fact is that despite claims on both sides from all the armchair constitutional scholars about what is or isnt the meaning of the 2d amendment, the Supreme Court has yet to take a case that has caused them to rule on what kinds of weapons are permitted or not. Even Justice Scalia, as strict an originalist as there is, has stated that question is open for discussion. Because he believes in strictly interpreting the constitution using the definition of words as they were used at the time the Constitution was written, not what they mean today.
So he said that all that is clear is that the term "arms" as used in the 2A refers to arms that existed back then. He believes that the founders could not have explicity meant to include things like semiautomatic or automatic weapons, machine guns, etc because they didnt exist. He has also stated that the 2A doesnt mean that anyone can own any weapon they want without restriction. And he's as conservative as they get.
So some time in the future one of these cases will make its way to the SCOTUS and then we'll see. It all depends on how they view the intent. For example, if you stress the aspect of needing arms to fight the government, well the government today has tanks and airplanes that the founders couldnt imagine, so should Stingers and TOW missiles be owned by private citizens in their "militia" role? If not, our ability to fight "tyranny" by our own government is limited. But if you accept that some limitations are permitted under the 2A, then the question becomes where do you draw the line? The founding fathers could no more have envisioned an "arm" capable of firing dozens of rounds a minute and the potential threat to society it could entail than they could have an atom bomb
So we'll see how it all shakes out. But the subject is a lot more complicated than "what part of not infringed don't you understand" versus "what part of regulated militia don't you understand."
So he said that all that is clear is that the term "arms" as used in the 2A refers to arms that existed back then. He believes that the founders could not have explicity meant to include things like semiautomatic or automatic weapons, machine guns, etc because they didnt exist. He has also stated that the 2A doesnt mean that anyone can own any weapon they want without restriction. And he's as conservative as they get.
So some time in the future one of these cases will make its way to the SCOTUS and then we'll see. It all depends on how they view the intent. For example, if you stress the aspect of needing arms to fight the government, well the government today has tanks and airplanes that the founders couldnt imagine, so should Stingers and TOW missiles be owned by private citizens in their "militia" role? If not, our ability to fight "tyranny" by our own government is limited. But if you accept that some limitations are permitted under the 2A, then the question becomes where do you draw the line? The founding fathers could no more have envisioned an "arm" capable of firing dozens of rounds a minute and the potential threat to society it could entail than they could have an atom bomb
So we'll see how it all shakes out. But the subject is a lot more complicated than "what part of not infringed don't you understand" versus "what part of regulated militia don't you understand."
(6)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Using the logic that the 2nd amendment only applies to arms that existed at the time, then the 1st amendment only applies to forms of speech, press, and religions that existed at the time.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Capt Seid Waddell - So sir, do you believe the consitution permits civilians to own any type of weapon they want as long as the military has it? Like an M203 grenade launcher or a .50 cal machine gun? How about Stinger missiles or light antitank weapons? Hand grenades? The reason I ask is that usually as you move up the ladder of arms/weapons in terms of lethality, most people will hit a point where they say "well no, that's too much, people shouldn't have grenade launchers" or wherever they draw that line. So then following that logic, where is the line drawn? I'm not saying I am for or against a particular interpretation. It's just that as I follow these debates about what should and shouldn't be allowed, they usually end up in a fuzzy area. People even on the progun side seem reluctant to say "hey, everything is good" or "this is where I draw the line".
So going back to the premise that this right was established to allow the people the ability to fight the government, if the government now has tanks and airplanes, are the people allowed under the 2A to have weapons that can kill tanks and airplanes? The founding fathers could not have imagined either of those weapon existing or a government having them. Would they have included them if they had existed at the time? If not, then how far down the armament ladder does the second amendment stop?
So going back to the premise that this right was established to allow the people the ability to fight the government, if the government now has tanks and airplanes, are the people allowed under the 2A to have weapons that can kill tanks and airplanes? The founding fathers could not have imagined either of those weapon existing or a government having them. Would they have included them if they had existed at the time? If not, then how far down the armament ladder does the second amendment stop?
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
The Biggest Machine Gun Shoot in the World at Knob Creek by God, Guns & Guts
If you enjoyed this video, then you'll love the book I published in 2012 called God, Guns & Guts that inspired History Channel's God, Guns & Automobiles.…
LTC (Join to see), the Constitution does not limit the types of arms the citizens may bear. If a person cannot be trusted to bear his arms safely and lawfully then perhaps it is the person that should be sequestered rather than the arms he happens to possess.
Any kind of arms in the hands of the law abiding citizenry are no threat to anyone. We have machine gun shoots twice a year at Knob Creek (south of Louisville) where all manner of weapons from submachine guns to mini-guns, and cannons and flame throwers light up the targets. Yet there is never any crime wave associated by these weapons in private hands.
Guns do not cause crime; criminals cause crime. You cannot prevent crime by disarming honest people.
https://vimeo.com/35692852
The idea of an armed society is that the government will not feel free to abuse the people like the Crown did the colonists; the people are in charge of the government rather than the reverse.
And if the government ever takes it into its head to attack the people and the military follows orders to do so, our Constitutional form of government will be over. What would ensue would be either another revolution or the subjugation of the people by a tyrannical government.
Any kind of arms in the hands of the law abiding citizenry are no threat to anyone. We have machine gun shoots twice a year at Knob Creek (south of Louisville) where all manner of weapons from submachine guns to mini-guns, and cannons and flame throwers light up the targets. Yet there is never any crime wave associated by these weapons in private hands.
Guns do not cause crime; criminals cause crime. You cannot prevent crime by disarming honest people.
https://vimeo.com/35692852
The idea of an armed society is that the government will not feel free to abuse the people like the Crown did the colonists; the people are in charge of the government rather than the reverse.
And if the government ever takes it into its head to attack the people and the military follows orders to do so, our Constitutional form of government will be over. What would ensue would be either another revolution or the subjugation of the people by a tyrannical government.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see)
Private citizens can own M2 .50caliber machine guns. A gun group I belong to has several shoots a year where members bring their full auto toys. My daughter, 12 years old at the time, got to shoot the .50 full auto.
Google Knob creek machine gun shoot. It's the biggest shoot of it's kind in the US. People even bring flame throwers to this event. Citizens have had these weapons for years. You don't hear about it, because they're not used in crimes.
Private citizens can own M2 .50caliber machine guns. A gun group I belong to has several shoots a year where members bring their full auto toys. My daughter, 12 years old at the time, got to shoot the .50 full auto.
Google Knob creek machine gun shoot. It's the biggest shoot of it's kind in the US. People even bring flame throwers to this event. Citizens have had these weapons for years. You don't hear about it, because they're not used in crimes.
(3)
(0)
5
5
0
I've read HR 4269, and it cannot be viewed as anything other than an infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If the Democrats in Congress wish to produce such infringements the proper modality for doing so is not a legislative bill, but rather a Constitutional Amendment. If the support of the "people" is as grand as they so often claim, they should have no difficulty negotiating such a ban Constitutionally. One has to give serious doubt to their claims of support among the people, when they see fit to infringe on our inherent rights through a piece of legislation that is clearly an infringement on our rights, and a proposed usurpation of powers not granted, and actually explicitly forbidden them by our Constitution. Regards.
(5)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSgt Christopher Brose , unfortunately, Republicans don't care enough about these Constitutional Transgressions to say, or do anything about then either... Complicit guilt, in my opinion.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SSG Gerhard S. While I wish the Republicans had more of a spine, as a party they are not complicit in Democrat anti-constitutional nonsense. Some individual Republicans might be, but IMO it's incorrect to say Republicans in general don't care enough to say or do anything about Democrat malfeasance.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Nonetheless the Republican House of Representatives holds the purse strings, and have given in to the Democrats every time. They have b done little to distinguish themselves as being fiscally responsible while adding $6 Trillion to the national debt obey the last 6 years. The problem with the a Republican party establishment is they have no practical relation to the Conservative principles they claim to hold. Respectful regards... The Republicans have between showing their stripes since Bush 41, and before... I have been voting Conservatively since then, as a Libertarian.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSgt Christopher Brose -Please understand I was not speaking of the people, but rather of the Republican Leadership, and most of those elected into Federal office.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google