You will have to look it up your self. I believe it was on page 7, I didnt book mark it and I am referencing the old bill that was rejected as un-constitutional. The new one will contain the same language.
Last edited:
Biden announces proposed gun control measures
- Thread starter BjornF16
- Start date
those dumb gun conspiracy guys on here. lol. Can you pick up a 25 round ruger 10 22 mag for me in Colorado?
It is a Colorado crime to have magazines with more than 15 rounds. Colorado gun magazines may hold a maximum of fifteen (15) rounds. Anything that holds more than 15 rounds is considered a large-capacity magazine (LCM), which is illegal in the state under CRS 18-12-302
Straw man argument.
Show me where seatbelts or shock "therapy" (or their 18th century equivalent) is mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
However, I can point to the 2A for the "right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (paraphrased).
Oppression of "rights" or "civil rights" would be tyranny. Free speech, assembly, arms, search and seizure, etc.
Here is a quote from the past:
IN AMERICA, declared Dr. Richard Price in 1779, “every inhabitant has in his house (as a part of his furniture) a book on law and government, to enable him to understand his civil rights; a musket to enable him to defend these rights; and a Bible to enable him to understand and practice his religion.” (1)
(1) Richard Price, A Sermon Delivered to a Congregation of Protestant Dissenters (London, 1779), 26.
Halbrook, Stephen P.. The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy) . National Book Network - A. Kindle Edition.
5MilesBack
"DADDY"
Do you believe that tyranny only comes from one political slant? It doesn't matter what "party" one belongs to........tyranny is tyranny. When the government (federal, state, or local) is violating "the people's" rights, creating and enforcing unconstitutional laws, making edicts and calling them laws, and in regard to the 2A even "infringing" on our right to bear arms......then we have tyranny. It comes in many forms and from many directions in the government........little by little.
The problem is.......people just continue to put up with it, so the government just keeps pecking away with it. But at some point that always ends badly......history proves that. History also shows how tyranny always "creeps" in. It's not a sudden immediate change overnight. There are always signs, indications, and evidences......that are always ignored or even denied by the masses. That's the part that is most mindboggling. It is true.......if you believe that millions of dead bodies need to happen to be tyranny, then you will never see tyranny until after the fact. Millions of bodies is not the precursor to tyranny, it is the eventual outcome of tyranny.
Last edited:
Hitler took power in basically under a decade. Which means, the last time Reagan helped install an AR ban, Hitler wouldve had enough time to take power and start gas chambers before the ban was lifted.
Obviously that's not what happened. I would argue nothing "Tyrannical" happened during that time.
Do you believe all background checks should be removed and the public should be given full and unfettered access to fully auto machine guns?
*zap*
WKR
I can live with the federal guns laws that we have now and the gun laws in Kansas we have now.....I will strongly disagree with any new restrictions.
In general the more educated people become the less common sense they have. I'm different in that I'm STUBBORN and I jumped onto the hard science/engineering train because I wanted a GOOD paying, secure career. I've got three degrees, one is a MS because I was so insecure and NEVER wanted to go back to school again. I'm a highly analytical, critical thinker, a real world problem solver. If a mature registered civil engineer like myself can't apply my education, or is a fool he is worthless. Education is PRICELESS, however education without commonsense, and wisdom or being a fool negates all or most of that knowledge. Purple, undecided gender, underwater basket weaving education is worthless. The irony is I also went into science and engineering because I didn't like people and thought I wouldn't have to deal with them and was COMPLETELY wrong. I think it's fate.
Last edited:
According to the 2nd Amendment where it says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON" Yes! Of course the 2nd Amendment meaning has been changed by the courts over the centuries and it means what "they" say it means. Personally I'm ok on some infringements like not having unfettered access to fully auto machine guns, however we have too many restrictions now, especially in California and many must be repealed.
Ok cool, well according to some others if you interpret the the 2a literally, that's also Tyranny. Because it was the government infringing on our constitutional rights. Yet, here were....eating and living well...without machine guns.
Additionally, what are your thoughts on the Patriot Act? Or Presidential Policy Directive 20, National Security PD- 54, Homeland security PD-23. The laws that gives the Federal government and their intelligence apparatuses permission to spy on everything we do, say, buy....every text, email, phone call, credit card swipe.....EVERYTHING. Not just spy, but store it....all of it.
Last edited:
A great book for reading what the thinking/rationale of our Founders, state elected officials, and media from Constitutional debate/ratification process is:
The Founders' Second Amendment - Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Stephen P. Halbrook.
The patriots’ aversion to the governmental policy of searching persons, places, and houses and seizing firearms demonstrates the close connection between the Second Amendment right to keep arms and the Fourth Amendment prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures.
Halbrook, Stephen P.. The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy) . National Book Network - A. Kindle Edition.
The Founders' Second Amendment - Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Stephen P. Halbrook.
The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy): Halbrook, Stephen P.: 9781566639712: Amazon.com: Books
The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy) [Halbrook, Stephen P.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy)
www.amazon.com
The patriots’ aversion to the governmental policy of searching persons, places, and houses and seizing firearms demonstrates the close connection between the Second Amendment right to keep arms and the Fourth Amendment prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures.
Halbrook, Stephen P.. The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy) . National Book Network - A. Kindle Edition.
Racethesunset
WKR
In America, guns of all shapes and sizes save orders of magnitude more lives than they take. CDC has higher metrics, so I’ll quote the lesser ones from pro-2A sites:
Minimum of 2,500,000 million crimes averted per year when the victim has a firearm.
Minimum of 400,000 life threatening events averted per year when the victim has a firearm.
Minimum 60% of felons admitted they would not commit a crime when the victim has a firearm.
The hot topic for most is going to be school shootings, but if you just do basic math, it’s obvious that innocent lives would be saved by simply training and arming teachers to be sheep dogs instead of sheep.
At a higher level, I think that it will take generations to erode the culture that ascribes to the second amendment. It would be better for Leftists to work with it than against.
Minimum of 2,500,000 million crimes averted per year when the victim has a firearm.
Minimum of 400,000 life threatening events averted per year when the victim has a firearm.
Minimum 60% of felons admitted they would not commit a crime when the victim has a firearm.
The hot topic for most is going to be school shootings, but if you just do basic math, it’s obvious that innocent lives would be saved by simply training and arming teachers to be sheep dogs instead of sheep.
At a higher level, I think that it will take generations to erode the culture that ascribes to the second amendment. It would be better for Leftists to work with it than against.
5MilesBack
"DADDY"
Even the Supreme Court of 1939 believed that able bodied citizens should not only have access to..........but to own and possess fully automatic weapons.
If you remove any emotion from looking at the 2A, then yes........logically.......banning citizens from owning or having automatic weapons is an infringement on the people.
Just look at the actual numbers for the individuals in the last 50 years that have shown that they are incapable of responsibly possessing any of the weapons that are currently under heavy scrutiny as "assault weapons". Minuscule.......absolutely minuscule numbers in relation to the entire populace of American citizens.......like less than .01%. So people want to ban them because less than .01% of the population can't act responsibly with them. If that's the measuring stick that we use to determine what needs to be banned.......then there's a humongous sized list of every day items that need to be banned as well......starting with vehicles and cell phones. You know......items that aren't constitutionally protected from the government taking away.
I agree with most of what you say. But I do struggle with this idea that we need to arm teachers, or just the fact that we need armed security at an elementary school. I mean, I understand logically that there might not be another option if we want to defend kids in school from atrocities. I think what I'm saying is that this goes to a much greater problem, its more conceptual.
Like seriously, the argument for grade school kids getting shot can't always be we need to arm teachers so I don't have to fill out extra paperwork or wait 3 days or I dunno some other seemingly minuscule encroachment. I mean, we gladly give up 4th amendment rights all the damn time in the name of safety and no one here talks about that.
I'm not sure if the answer is looking for middle ground or if we just need to start being more honest about how we talk about and handle gun issues as gun owners.
I agree, but hell, doesn't that go for just about any law out there? They all seem to be about the 1% that screws it up for everyone else.
I am adamantly against banning ARs, but when it comes to these discussion I do think responsible gun owners aren't being realistic or honest about what's acceptable and what's not in terms of gun laws.
We all agree certain people shouldn't have guns. We all agree some of those people will find them anyway. We all agree we can't legislate the big bad gun to oblivion in an effort to make life 100% safe.
But I think we also need to be honest and say, okay if we didn't have any guns at all, like zero, zip, zilch, that doesn't necesarrily mean we'd all be victims of fascism or communism and executed within a decade. I mean certainly the fundamental part of the 2a is to have guns to prevent that, so no guns would presumably mean that it would be easier for some malevolent power to do just that. But, look at Australia, they haven't had any guns for what, 3 decades? There's no more tyranny there than there is here. So doesn't that sort of mean that a straight forward universal background check isn't that bad? I'm not saying I even support that...I'm sincerely asking and trying to use reason and logic for valid comparisons for the sake of rational argument. Because we can't, as gun owners, collectively enter into this conversation with "**** NO" as what appears to be our only argument to the anti-gun portion of the nation.
Racethesunset
WKR
Paperwork? There are hundreds of millions of firearms in the US. They are cultural, and public policy is always downstream of culture.
No administration will change or cancel that culture in the coming decade or longer. No amount of Biden-loving NSA, FBI, or ATF will change that. The more they push, the more the culture will thrive.
Paperwork for firearms will make a black market, just like alcohol, tobacco, etc. Guns will continue to be widely available for decades to come, in the hands of republicans and democrats alike, in the hands of law abiding citizens and felons alike.
And in public schools, our kids will continue to be fish in a barrel, indoctrinated by well meaning, unarmed teachers. There is no middle ground here. You either accept that freedom loving 2A culture is a part of your society, or you pretend it can be legislated away.
You are completely missing the point. There are some laws like seatbelt laws that save lives and are overall good for society. However, with every law or regulation you are restricting personal freedom. Few want to regulate everything and few want zero regulations. There is a spectrum. I'm on the less government, less laws and regulations side. Seatbelt laws are silly, everyone should wear a seatbelt but I don't care if people don't, why should I, they aren't hurting me? Tyrannical is a big word. No, I don't view seat belt laws as tyrannical, to me it is government overreach. Bob Dole was moderate compared to Reagan. And Conservative politicians do liberal things like liberal politicians do Conservative things sometimes. I'm in California and living under a "soft" tyranny, copying that term from Mark Levin. That means my freedoms have been greatly reduced, but nothing like communist china or other totalitarian states. We are given unenforceable mandates likes having to stay home or not travel, which are not enforced. Seat belt laws, mask laws, this law, that law in themselves are not tyrannical to me, however they are the death of my freedoms by a thousand cuts. That's my Libertarian view.
isocyanate
WKR
The Supreme Court has noted that the 2nd is not unlimited, just like the 1st, and similar to how the 4th has been all but thrown out. You could make the argument that a well regulated militia includes a vetting process and training. And the subsequent ability to purchase a brand new M240B for you private collection because it is “part of ordinary military equipment” (Miller v US 1939)....
No, it's how I interpret by reading it only, however the courts interpret, specifically the Supreme court, what it means. That is what it actually means and means to me to, what the court says. I don't always like it, but that is what it is.
I don't like it ONE bit!!! Maybe it was good intentioned, but it is wrong
"Kids are fish in a barrel"....that's an interesting take for sure.
"You either accept that freedom loving 2A culture is a part of your society, or you pretend it can be legislated away." - So you're saying without the 2a or guns we're not free and we don't love freedom. And That a country like Australia, with no guns, isn't free... and a country like Yemen (3rd highest number of guns per capita with almost 10 million in famine conditions) is free?
Iraq and Afghanistan each have more guns per capita than England and Denmark combined... But they're less free or love freedom less than Iraq and Afghanistan?
Last edited:
Similar threads
Featured Video
Latest Articles
- TT#63 Dirk Durham’s Art of Elk Calling
- BIG Buck Stories with the Dirty Giants Podcast
- TT#62 Brian Barney Hunting Bulls without Calling
- Hoyt Alpha AX-2 SD Review
- Kuiu Kenai vs Outdoor Vitals Vario Hooded Jacket Review
- Hoyt RX-9 Ultra Review
- Hunting Vampire Bucks & Building an Optics Kit
- Darton Sequel ST2 35 Review
- TT#61 Gear and Skills for Success with Aron Snyder
- Vortex Viper Shotgun Enclosed Micro Red Dot Review