The only law that will disarm criminals, is a TOTAL BAN, followed by confiscation

[Little-Acorn]

The liberals have made countless laws restricting guns. Some places are even called "gun free zones" by them. Yet that is where nearly all of the mass shootings take place.

It is becoming increasingly clear that their laws don't work.

Some of them have even admitted frankly that the only countries that have managed to reduce these mass shootings, are the ones that enact a virtual 100% ban on guns in civilian hands: England, China, Japan, Australia, etc. The fact that crime continues to increase in most of those countries, is carefully not examined by the liberals.

And yet, with the evidence before them, they continue to push for more gun laws. It's obvious what their real goal is: Knowing the laws they call for won't work, they want the 100% ban in this country, too.

And even that 100% ban will only work if we also enact a massive police state, where squads of armed police regularly invade and search every house, looking for guns.

Keep this in mind the next time some politician calls for "reasonable gun restrictions" or some other tired talking point. He knows it won't work. But it's the next step he wants on the way to his real goal.

What other reason could he have for continuing to push for more gun laws?

[DLT]

The liberals have made countless laws restricting guns. Some places are even called "gun free zones" by them. Yet that is where nearly all of the mass shootings take place.

It is becoming increasingly clear that their laws don't work.

Some of them have even admitted frankly that the only countries that have managed to reduce these mass shootings, are the ones that enact a virtual 100% ban on guns in civilian hands: England, China, Japan, Australia, etc. The fact that crime continues to increase in most of those countries, is carefully not examined by the liberals.

And yet, with the evidence before them, they continue to push for more gun laws. It's obvious what their real goal is: Knowing the laws they call for won't work, they want the 100% ban in this country, too.

And even that 100% ban will only work if we also enact a massive police state, where squads of armed police regularly invade and search every house, looking for guns.

Keep this in mind the next time some politician calls for "reasonable gun restrictions" or some other tired talking point. He knows it won't work. But it's the next step he wants on the way to his real goal.

What other reason could he have for continuing to push for more gun laws?

Total gun bans/confiscations is the leftist wet-dream-du-jour. But they have many such dreams. Look for them to ramp up their aspirations over this next extremely crucial year.

[Black Diamond]

Total gun bans/confiscations is the leftist wet-dream-du-jour. But they have many such dreams. Look for them to ramp up their aspirations over this next extremely crucial year.

16 months is a long time.

[Gunny]

The liberals have made countless laws restricting guns. Some places are even called "gun free zones" by them. Yet that is where nearly all of the mass shootings take place.

It is becoming increasingly clear that their laws don't work.

Some of them have even admitted frankly that the only countries that have managed to reduce these mass shootings, are the ones that enact a virtual 100% ban on guns in civilian hands: England, China, Japan, Australia, etc. The fact that crime continues to increase in most of those countries, is carefully not examined by the liberals.

And yet, with the evidence before them, they continue to push for more gun laws. It's obvious what their real goal is: Knowing the laws they call for won't work, they want the 100% ban in this country, too.

And even that 100% ban will only work if we also enact a massive police state, where squads of armed police regularly invade and search every house, looking for guns.

Keep this in mind the next time some politician calls for "reasonable gun restrictions" or some other tired talking point. He knows it won't work. But it's the next step he wants on the way to his real goal.

What other reason could he have for continuing to push for more gun laws?

The only law that will disarm criminals is to kill them all.

[indago]

An amendment to the Constitution could be considered:

--------------------------------------------------------
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of Gunz'nAmmo within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for any purpose is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
--------------------------------------------------------

[Gunny]

An amendment to the Constitution could be considered:

--------------------------------------------------------
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of Gunz'nAmmo within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for any purpose is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
--------------------------------------------------------

If we're going to amend the Constitution, let's go with amending the 14th, not the 2nd.

[fj1200]

What other reason could he have for continuing to push for more gun laws?

He ignorantly thinks it will help.


Total gun bans/confiscations is the leftist wet-dream-du-jour. But they have many such dreams. Look for them to ramp up their aspirations over this next extremely crucial year.

Nothing will happen.


16 months is a long time.

Be over before you know it.

[Little-Acorn]

An amendment to the Constitution could be considered:

--------------------------------------------------------
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of Gunz'nAmmo within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for any purpose is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
--------------------------------------------------------
Interesting idea.

Has it ever been tried before?

Hmm, I could swear I've seen that exact language in the Constitution somewhere already. One of the amendments, I believe, ratified around 1919?

Remind me again, how that worked out for the country? :read:

[indago]

Interesting idea.

Has it ever been tried before?

Hmm, I could swear I've seen that exact language in the Constitution somewhere already. One of the amendments, I believe, ratified around 1919?

Remind me again, how that worked out for the country? :read:

Bingo!

[Surf Fishing Guru]

An amendment to the Constitution could be considered:

--------------------------------------------------------
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of Gunz'nAmmo within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for any purpose is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
--------------------------------------------------------

Certainly the process exists to give the feds a new power but that doesn't mean the specific action of allowing government to restrict the private citizen's possession and use of his/her personal arms, would be constitutionally legitimate.

The Constitution is predicated on certain incontrovertible and immutable tenets. An armed citizenry is certainly a fundamental tenet of the Republic established by the Constitution. Those foundational principles are permanent and unalterable by the governing structure created from them -- the child can not change its parents (see Marbury v Madison).

Additionally, many states made their ratification of the Constitution contingent upon Congress submitting a bill of rights with NC & RI withholding their signing outright (after Sept 29, 1789). Since each of those provisions were deemed vital to the original ratification, to revisit them now and extinguish the protections therein secured, could be argued to threaten the original ratification.

If any of the 10 stipulations that satisfied the original thirteen can be subject to modern revisiting and rescinding, certainly each state's assent to the original compact can be revisited and rescinded. Would the the Constitution remain in force if say five original states were to formally rescind their 1787-1789 ratification?

[Motown]

If any of the 10 stipulations that satisfied the original thirteen can be subject to modern revisiting and rescinding, certainly each state's assent to the original compact can be revisited and rescinded. Would the the Constitution remain in force if say five original states were to formally rescind their 1787-1789 ratification?

This is a very interesting point. I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea if this could actually be done but if this could be done and a political party that dominated the legislatures of some of the original 13 found the Constitution inconvenient and wanted to get rid of it this might be the way to go about it. There's no shortage of Constitutional outrages to point to if you want to.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Interesting idea.

Has it ever been tried before?

Hmm, I could swear I've seen that exact language in the Constitution somewhere already. One of the amendments, I believe, ratified around 1919?

Remind me again, how that worked out for the country? :read:

IT WAS A 13 YEAR LONG, HARD LEARNED LESSON IN STUPIDITY!!!
One that the dems/libs/leftists would like to repeat because they believe in dictatorial government and extreme government violence used daily against citizens.
The product being prohibited doesnt matter , be it guns or alcohol--the disastrous results would be the same!!
Only this time it would be the direct act of war against WE citizens --no matter how cleverly disguised it may be!
The obama would start another civil war if he tries to confiscate our guns and at that point his is without any doubt
a traitor and a dictator that is to be deposed by any means possible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Tyr





http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm

Sidebar -- Thomas Jefferson: Radical and Racist, October 1996
The "Tree of Liberty" letter
From Thomas Jefferson to William Smith





Paris, November 13, 1787

DEAR SIR, -- I am now to acknoledge the receipt of your favors of October the 4th, 8th, & 26th. In the last you apologise for your letters of introduction to Americans coming here. It is so far from needing apology on your part, that it calls for thanks on mine. I endeavor to show civilities to all the Americans who come here, & will give me opportunities of doing it: and it is a matter of comfort to know from a good quarter what they are, & how far I may go in my attentions to them. Can you send me Woodmason's bills for the two copying presses for the M. de la Fayette, & the M. de Chastellux? The latter makes one article in a considerable account, of old standing, and which I cannot present for want of this article. -- I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: & very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: & what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted. -- You ask me if any thing transpires here on the subject of S. America? Not a word. I know that there are combustible materials there, and that they wait the torch only. But this country probably will join the extinguishers. -- The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform.



We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :beer: :salute: :beer:- INDEED!!!! -TYR

[fj1200]

If any of the 10 stipulations that satisfied the original thirteen can be subject to modern revisiting and rescinding, certainly each state's assent to the original compact can be revisited and rescinded. Would the the Constitution remain in force if say five original states were to formally rescind their 1787-1789 ratification?


This is a very interesting point.

It may be an interesting point but I don't see it going anywhere. When States buy into the Constitution they buy into any changes and the Amendment ratification process. Any option of rescinding was decided a long time ago.

[Motown]

It may be an interesting point but I don't see it going anywhere. When States buy into the Constitution they buy into any changes and the Amendment ratification process. Any option of rescinding was decided a long time ago.

I understand your point if we're talking about an amendment but what if there isn't an amendment? How about an ammo ban or some sort of gun ban enacted through executive fiat or legislation not involving the amendment process? It doesn't even have to have anything to do with guns, it could be something else seen as an encroachment.

[fj1200]

I understand your point if we're talking about an amendment but what if there isn't an amendment? How about an ammo ban or some sort of gun ban enacted through executive fiat or legislation not involving the amendment process?

I think sfg's point was premised on Amendments so I don't think that goes anywhere. But to your EO/legislation question any EO fiat is subject to underlying legislation and new legislation are both subject to Constitutional muster both of which should be losers to the Second. If it's not then of course we have other problems. Either way states are still invested in the Union.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I understand your point if we're talking about an amendment but what if there isn't an amendment? How about an ammo ban or some sort of gun ban enacted through executive fiat or legislation not involving the amendment process? It doesn't even have to have anything to do with guns, it could be something else seen as an encroachment.





The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."



"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"

"shall not be infringed." ----TYR

[indago]

"shall not be infringed." ----TYR

Acknowledged, barring a new amendment repealing it...

[Motown]

I think sfg's point was premised on Amendments so I don't think that goes anywhere. But to your EO/legislation question any EO fiat is subject to underlying legislation and new legislation are both subject to Constitutional muster both of which should be losers to the Second. If it's not then of course we have other problems. Either way states are still invested in the Union.

You're right, I also assumed he was talking about amendments. I'm assuming the 2nd Amendment won't be amended using the process currently in place. I'm also assuming the Democrats and even some Republicans would like to change the 2nd Amendment in the worst way, so bad they can taste it, along with some other things. I think a crisis would go a long way to helping that happen and I wouldn't expect the people who want the crisis to act in any way to prevent the crisis.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Acknowledged, barring a new amendment repealing it...




Acknowledged, THAT NO DAMN EXECUTIVE ORDER BY A LOUSY PIECE OF SHIT TRAITOR LIKE OBAMA SHALL VOID OUR RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES!!
Should in outright treason issue one -he is to be removed for his treason by any means possible!

And far more will choose that path than the dems/leftists/libs and the other ffing traitors to this nation think possible..

Every honorable ex-military will side against the stinking traitor obama as will millions more.
Every Marine IMHO WILL SIDE AGAINST HIM... FOR THEY MORE THAN ANY OTHER WILL ADHERE TO THEIR CODE.. --Tyr

[fj1200]

^Sorry, but that just makes you look silly.

[fj1200]

You're right, I also assumed he was talking about amendments. I'm assuming the 2nd Amendment won't be amended using the process currently in place. I'm also assuming the Democrats and even some Republicans would like to change the 2nd Amendment in the worst way, so bad they can taste it, along with some other things. I think a crisis would go a long way to helping that happen and I wouldn't expect the people who want the crisis to act in any way to prevent the crisis.

I don't see that going anywhere. Most state legislatures are Republican controlled and I don't see that changing anytime soon let alone 2/3 of the House and Senate coming out with a proposal.

[Motown]

Acknowledged, THAT NO DAMN EXECUTIVE ORDER BY A LOUSY PIECE OF SHIT TRAITOR LIKE OBAMA SHALL VOID OUR RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES!!
Should in outright treason issue one -he is to be removed for his treason by any means possible!

And far more will choose that path than the dems/leftists/libs and the other ffing traitors to this nation think possible..

Every honorable ex-military will side against the stinking traitor obama as will millions more.
Every Marine IMHO WILL SIDE AGAINST HIM... FOR THEY MORE THAN ANY OTHER WILL ADHERE TO THEIR CODE.. --Tyr

You shouldn't assume veterans will all side with you on this. This is Point of no Return stuff here and some would side against you just to prevent the chaos this would cause and then find another way to deal with it.

[Motown]

I don't see that going anywhere. Most state legislatures are Republican controlled and I don't see that changing anytime soon let alone 2/3 of the House and Senate coming out with a proposal.

Excellent point, I don't see it happening today. The GOP would never be able to figure out a way to hide behind them Dems on this right now at the state level.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You shouldn't assume veterans will all side with you on this. This is Point of no Return stuff here and some would side against you just to prevent the chaos this would cause and then find another way to deal with it.

You are free to choose and seek whatever solution you think appropriate amigo.-:beer:

Well, I did add in the qualifier= "honorable"......
And it was given as an after the fact statement-- meaning position to take when/if the bastard makes good on his deeply held traitorous desires..
Additionally, I feel sad for anybody too damn stupid to not know by now what a damn traitor and outright fraud the son of a bitch truly is!
Let him stand in my yard , spouting his treasonous shit to me and I'll spit in his face come hell or high water. . ff him!! and the damn horse he rode in on.. I don't play.. A fact.. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

^Sorry, but that just makes you look silly.

Said, while you ignorantly fail to grasp your right to say that, believe that is insured by the first amendment and even more so by the second amendment!!!!
I am now very sure that you are far younger than me and a gullible and ignorant product of the liberally destroyed public education system..... Or , if thats not so-- then a lib shill practicing its evil trade. --Tyr

[Gunny]

Certainly the process exists to give the feds a new power but that doesn't mean the specific action of allowing government to restrict the private citizen's possession and use of his/her personal arms, would be constitutionally legitimate.

The Constitution is predicated on certain incontrovertible and immutable tenets. An armed citizenry is certainly a fundamental tenet of the Republic established by the Constitution. Those foundational principles are permanent and unalterable by the governing structure created from them -- the child can not change its parents (see Marbury v Madison).

Additionally, many states made their ratification of the Constitution contingent upon Congress submitting a bill of rights with NC & RI withholding their signing outright (after Sept 29, 1789). Since each of those provisions were deemed vital to the original ratification, to revisit them now and extinguish the protections therein secured, could be argued to threaten the original ratification.

If any of the 10 stipulations that satisfied the original thirteen can be subject to modern revisiting and rescinding, certainly each state's assent to the original compact can be revisited and rescinded. Would the the Constitution remain in force if say five original states were to formally rescind their 1787-1789 ratification?

The problem is we have to live for however long while they just screw around with the process. Obama gets away with an Executive Order today, and it takes a decade to get overturned. The line-item veto didn't get to the Supreme Court until Clinton was out of office and the damage was done.

[Motown]

Well, I did add in the qualifier= "honorable"......

Tell me what you think 'honorable' means in this case.

[fj1200]

Said, while you ignorantly fail to grasp your right to say that, believe that is insured by the first amendment and even more so by the second amendment!!!!
I am now very sure that you are far younger than me and a gullible and ignorant product of the liberally destroyed public education system..... Or , if thats not so-- then a lib shill practicing its evil trade. --Tyr

Silly because you mindlessly blather the same lines over and over. With bold and all caps too. :rolleyes:

And the more you keep talking the more ignorant you expose yourself to be. You hide behind ignorant proclamations that are untrue and irrelevant. I've never spoken against 2A, in fact have spoken for it very recently. Long live 2A.

I will accept your apology once proffered. :)