The Right To Bear Arms

[Daryl Hunt]

Hilary had a plan to use court decisions to get her way by suing gun makers ...and getting them to settle in court and limit themselves.....I have posted this plan which is documented at the Clinton Library....

She and others want the gun manufacturers held liable when their own negligence in what they produce causes harm or death.

The NRA (bow down, mortal) has fought safety being built into guns. Care to discuss some of those? Making a car that is unsafe gets the manufacturer into deep trouble. Guns should be no different. Shoot, Blenders have adequate safety standards. Table Saws are now getting a safety feature that won't allow them to cut your fingers off. One of the biggest pain in the ass and yet the most safe thing on a 1911 is the grip safety. Yet, they allow the High Power Semi Autos to be made and spread throughout the land. Even the safety on that one is unsafe. It's just plain junk. Drop a High Power with it's safety on and even with the slide locked (a real joke) and find out what happens. You, too, can plunk down 150 bucks and buy a high power semi auto in many calibers.

What makes a gun less regulated than a Toaster?[/QUOTE]

 

[2aguy]

And I don't know of one single "Liberal......spit on floor" that has tried to take that right away from. Protecting your home and family shall not be taken, period.

But walking around with your weapon on the street is NOT protecting your home and family. You think that afternoon you spent to get your permit is training enough. Not even close. The Bad Guy is still more qualified with his gun than you are. He has one real big advantage. He won't hesitate. The normal american (you do claim to be normal don't you) will hesitate. If you don't have that built in hesitation then you are more dangerous to those around you than the bad guy.

I just love the new insult, "Snowflake". You nutcases can do better than that.

You assume a lot and know so little.

I am retired Military. And I have that hesitation. It took a bit to get it back. We don't need killers walking the streets. Without that hesitation you would be a killer if you walked around armed all the time.

Hillary was clear about her feelings toward the second amendment. She doesn't believe it gives people the right to own guns. And she intended to fight against it every chance she got.

You said the same thing for 8 years under Clinton and then 8 more years under Obama. Fewer and fewer people aren't buying your BS every day. You are using Fear Tactics. Don't you think we have had enough of the fear and hate already?

So, yes, some Dems want to take our guns away. Period. So, we would not have them to protect our homes, which is how most would use them.

And some Reps want to arm and kill everyone that doesn't agree with them. What's your point?

Criminals are experienced with guns. And they will always have them. There have been instances, most recently at a church, where concealed carry was allowed because it was not a gun-free zone (as if that exists in the eyes of criminals), where people with concealed guns managed to save lives. Two people were shot outside the church but the gunman was immediately taken down when he entered the church. Look it up yourself since the liberal media never reports the positive when it comes to legal gun owners.

You want to hear something funny? Gunshows are gun free zones. If a school can't be a gun free zone then we need to make all gun shows where all can carry loaded weapons. I wonder why your own kind force Gun Shows to be guns free? Again, the Hate and Fear tactics have been unmasked.

You want to hear something funny? Gunshows are gun free zones.

If they are gun free, moron, it is because of local ordinances......not because of the participants, moron. The NRA convention allowed carry at the convention, moron.....

And this is what hilary had planned if she had won......

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

And....moron...the 4th Circuit Court of appeals just ruled that "military weapons" are not protected by the 2nd Amendment....and you are too stupid to know this happened and how dangerous this ruling is to the right to bear arms...since every single firearm created has pretty much been a military weapon...from the pump action shotgun to the lever action rifle...to the bolt action rifle to the 6 shot revolver.......

And in order to make that ruling...the 4th ignored all previous Supreme Court rulings on the subject and made up the idea that military weapons aren't protected....you know....the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment.....

You have no clue what you are talking about....

 

[2aguy]

Hilary had a plan to use court decisions to get her way by suing gun makers ...and getting them to settle in court and limit themselves.....I have posted this plan which is documented at the Clinton Library....

She and others want the gun manufacturers held liable when their own negligence in what they produce causes harm or death.

The NRA (bow down, mortal) has fought safety being built into guns. Care to discuss some of those? Making a car that is unsafe gets the manufacturer into deep trouble. Guns should be no different. Shoot, Blenders have adequate safety standards. Table Saws are now getting a safety feature that won't allow them to cut your fingers off. One of the biggest pain in the ass and yet the most safe thing on a 1911 is the grip safety. Yet, they allow the High Power Semi Autos to be made and spread throughout the land. Even the safety on that one is unsafe. It's just plain junk. Drop a High Power with it's safety on and even with the slide locked (a real joke) and find out what happens. You, too, can plunk down 150 bucks and buy a high power semi auto in many calibers.

What makes a gun less regulated than a Toaster?

[/QUOTE]


Boy....you are stupid..... Guns have safety features you moron......

Do you even understand anything about guns? From your post it is obvious you don't know anything about them or the law covering actual problems with guns.......

You really are too stupid to post on this topic.....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Hilary had a plan to use court decisions to get her way by suing gun makers ...and getting them to settle in court and limit themselves.....I have posted this plan which is documented at the Clinton Library....

She and others want the gun manufacturers held liable when their own negligence in what they produce causes harm or death.

The NRA (bow down, mortal) has fought safety being built into guns. Care to discuss some of those? Making a car that is unsafe gets the manufacturer into deep trouble. Guns should be no different. Shoot, Blenders have adequate safety standards. Table Saws are now getting a safety feature that won't allow them to cut your fingers off. One of the biggest pain in the ass and yet the most safe thing on a 1911 is the grip safety. Yet, they allow the High Power Semi Autos to be made and spread throughout the land. Even the safety on that one is unsafe. It's just plain junk. Drop a High Power with it's safety on and even with the slide locked (a real joke) and find out what happens. You, too, can plunk down 150 bucks and buy a high power semi auto in many calibers.

What makes a gun less regulated than a Toaster?

Boy....you are stupid..... Guns have safety features you moron......

Do you even understand anything about guns? From your post it is obvious you don't know anything about them or the law covering actual problems with guns.......

You really are too stupid to post on this topic.....[/QUOTE]

You either sell yourself long or everyone else short. FACT: The States are passing gun controls that YOU think are Unconstitional. Hillary has nothing to do with this. It's the States. Of course, the States are having the mass shootings. What is the one thing that ALL Mass shootings have in common? Large capacity mags. What does many states have in place? Putting a Max of 10, 15 or 20 round clips.

We ain't buying what you are selling anymore. Your Fear and Hate got Trump elected. Are you capable of feeling shame?

I am done with you, criminal.

 

[danielpalos]

Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.

Only to make it clear that we have the right not to die at the hands of home invaders or anyone who seeks to harm us.

If I hear someone kick my door in during the night, I will shoot them. I know libs would rather I have no means to defend myself but you guys are incapable of thinking things through.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

We don't have a One Nation government.

 

[danielpalos]

more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.

yeah why don't you lead the charge ?

i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.

so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?

it depends on the situation. however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.

at least until i can build a keep.

 

[danielpalos]

No one practices carrying handcuffs. That is the problem.

Do you? So you are admitting that you are part of the problem? Shocking...

did we ever find out what the perpetrator's problem was?

why would someone prefer to get shot rather than give up peacefully during times of peace?

 

[danielpalos]

Only gun lovers who have to shoot and maybe kill someone?

To save an officer's life? Yeah. Hell yeah. That's why the law permits it, you dumb-ass.

it is about non-lethal methods versus lethal methods.

 

[P@triot]

No one practices carrying handcuffs. That is the problem.

Do you? So you are admitting that you are part of the problem? Shocking...

did we ever find out what the perpetrator's problem was?

why would someone prefer to get shot rather than give up peacefully during times of peace?

He may have been a wanted felon. He may have been out of his mind on crystal meth or cocaine. He might have had a death wish. We can speculate ALL day. The fact is - he assaulted a police officer and the officer was on his back, pinned, and in serious trouble. Thank God the U.S. Constitution permits citizens to keep and bear arms. It saved that officers life.

 

[P@triot]

Only gun lovers who have to shoot and maybe kill someone?

To save an officer's life? Yeah. Hell yeah. That's why the law permits it, you dumb-ass.

it is about non-lethal methods versus lethal methods.

No....it's about common sense (us) vs. idiotic ideology (you).

 

[danielpalos]

And I don't know of one single "Liberal......spit on floor" that has tried to take that right away from. Protecting your home and family shall not be taken, period.

But walking around with your weapon on the street is NOT protecting your home and family. You think that afternoon you spent to get your permit is training enough. Not even close. The Bad Guy is still more qualified with his gun than you are. He has one real big advantage. He won't hesitate. The normal american (you do claim to be normal don't you) will hesitate. If you don't have that built in hesitation then you are more dangerous to those around you than the bad guy.

I just love the new insult, "Snowflake". You nutcases can do better than that.

You assume a lot and know so little.

Hillary was clear about her feelings toward the second amendment. She doesn't believe it gives people the right to own guns. And she intended to fight against it every chance she got.

So, yes, some Dems want to take our guns away. Period. So, we would not have them to protect our homes, which is how most would use them.

Criminals are experienced with guns. And they will always have them. There have been instances, most recently at a church, where concealed carry was allowed because it was not a gun-free zone (as if that exists in the eyes of criminals), where people with concealed guns managed to save lives. Two people were shot outside the church but the gunman was immediately taken down when he entered the church. Look it up yourself since the liberal media never reports the positive when it comes to legal gun owners.

why have any gun laws at all. there would be no, criminal gun lovers.

 

[Marion Morrison]

[
Can't it?

The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.

I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime. Agree?

I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.

God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....

Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.

Yes.

The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.

The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.

My, what a statist view you have.

Apparently you missed the "God-given right" thing.

The concept of it may not penetrate your PC-stricken brain. That doesn't mean it's not a valid concept; only that you're too indoctrinated to realize it.

 

[danielpalos]

No one practices carrying handcuffs. That is the problem.

Do you? So you are admitting that you are part of the problem? Shocking...

did we ever find out what the perpetrator's problem was?

why would someone prefer to get shot rather than give up peacefully during times of peace?

He may have been a wanted felon. He may have been out of his mind on crystal meth or cocaine. He might have had a death wish. We can speculate ALL day. The fact is - he assaulted a police officer and the officer was on his back, pinned, and in serious trouble. Thank God the U.S. Constitution permits citizens to keep and bear arms. It saved that officers life.

why was the perpetrator "worrying" and not, being happy, to such an extent, he had to "rebel against authority"?

 

[P@triot]

why have any gun laws at all.

Exactly. The U.S. Constitution doesn't permit it. They only exist because of you left-wing hatriots and your fascist desire to control everyone and everything.

 

[esthermoon]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

It seem it's not simple amending the US Constitution

Constitutional Amendment Process | National Archives

 

[danielpalos]

Only gun lovers who have to shoot and maybe kill someone?

To save an officer's life? Yeah. Hell yeah. That's why the law permits it, you dumb-ass.

it is about non-lethal methods versus lethal methods.

No....it's about common sense (us) vs. idiotic ideology (you).

no, it isn't. it is about non-lethal methods versus lethal methods.

gun lovers merely happen to like, lethal methods.

 

[esthermoon]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think it's a good amendment because you have the right to bear arms and nobody can deprive you of your right.
Here if you have a little knife even at night you can get arrested

 

[P@triot]

why was the perpetrator "worrying" and not, being happy, to such an extent, he had to "rebel against authority"?

Probably because he has to live in a country where liberty is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.

 

[danielpalos]

why have any gun laws at all.

Exactly. The U.S. Constitution doesn't permit it. They only exist because of you left-wing hatriots and your fascist desire to control everyone and everything.

i don't take the right wing seriously about the law, from Inception.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[P@triot]

Here if you have a little knife even at night you can get arrested

Man....I couldn't handle that. At all. Authoritarian stuff like that would make me snap. I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me what I can and can't carry on me.