Getting serious

[CSM]

And so it begins. This is a really serious attempt to "infringe" on the rights of the American citizen.


https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/images/Assault_Weapons_Ban_of_2018.pdf

It would seem that the fears of those who support the Second Amendment are well founded after all.

[Black Diamond]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11267&stc=1

[Elessar]

And so it begins. This is a really serious attempt to "infringe" on the rights of the American citizen.


https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/images/Assault_Weapons_Ban_of_2018.pdf

It would seem that the fears of those who support the Second Amendment are well founded after all.

That crap will never fly.

Wasted paper. You can put that thing on the Floor of the House and see it reduced to ash.

[Black Diamond]

That crap will never fly.

Wasted paper. You can put that thing on the Floor of the House and see it reduced to ash.
For now.....

[Gunny]

That crap will never fly.

Wasted paper. You can put that thing on the Floor of the House and see it reduced to ash.Neither would Obamacare and DACA.

What WILL fly is: Once this gets shot down, the "compromise" possibly offered by the RINOs to mollify the Dems. Which all the Dems can hope for or want. A foot in the door.

[Elessar]

Neither would Obamacare and DACA.

What WILL fly is: Once this gets shot down, the "compromise" possibly offered by the RINOs to mollify the Dems. Which all the Dems can hope for or want. A foot in the door.

Both of those were rammed down our throats.

One by the refusal of Pilosi and Reid to publish the document ( and exempt themselves from participating);
the other by Obama's CONSTITUTIONALLY illegal Executive Order.

[Gunny]

Both of those were rammed down our throats.

One by the refusal of Pilosi and Reid to publish the document ( and exempt themselves from participating);
the other by Obama's CONSTITUTIONALLY illegal Executive Order.Rammed or not, they stay where they lay. We will never get rid of either.

[gabosaurus]

The proposed legislation is deliberately vague. It is meant to be an outline.
In its present form, the bill would never get through the current Congress. But what if the balance of power is shifted in the mid-term elections?
The second amendment gives you the right to bear arms. It doesn't mention which ones. There is no clause stating that all firearms have to be legal.
I am all in favor of everyone having the right to own a handgun and a hunting rifle. I am against any rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic weapon. Because there is NO reason why a civilian needs any firearm designed for military use. Any weapon designed to fire bullets in rapid succession from large, detachable magazines is not necessary for the average person.
I have a handgun. I don't need anything else. Nobody does.

[Gunny]

The proposed legislation is deliberately vague. It is meant to be an outline.
In its present form, the bill would never get through the current Congress. But what if the balance of power is shifted in the mid-term elections?
The second amendment gives you the right to bear arms. It doesn't mention which ones. There is no clause stating that all firearms have to be legal.
I am all in favor of everyone having the right to own a handgun and a hunting rifle. I am against any rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic weapon. Because there is NO reason why a civilian needs any firearm designed for military use. Any weapon designed to fire bullets in rapid succession from large, detachable magazines is not necessary for the average person.
I have a handgun. I don't need anything else. Nobody does.Doesn't matter how the Dems try to screw us anyway. Easier to get guns across the border than people, and look how many of those y'all are ILLEGALLY harboring?

Funny how you can't look around you and smell your own mess but think you are somehow above the same game being run on you.

Like every other Amendment to the Constitution you lefties want to try and turn the 2nd into a suicide clause. Wrong. It doesn't say what kind of firearm I can own period, nor does it state you can restrict them in any way. ANY restriction currently placed on firearms is unconstitutional. Period.

[CSM]

The proposed legislation is deliberately vague. It is meant to be an outline.
In its present form, the bill would never get through the current Congress. But what if the balance of power is shifted in the mid-term elections?
The second amendment gives you the right to bear arms. It doesn't mention which ones. There is no clause stating that all firearms have to be legal.
I am all in favor of everyone having the right to own a handgun and a hunting rifle. I am against any rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic weapon. Because there is NO reason why a civilian needs any firearm designed for military use. Any weapon designed to fire bullets in rapid succession from large, detachable magazines is not necessary for the average person.
I have a handgun. I don't need anything else. Nobody does.

Hmmm...you don't suppose that no specific type of arm is listed in the 2d because the founders did not (intentionally!!) want to restrict ownership of any specific weapon?? Naw, couldn't be that! There is no specific clause that all firearms (or any specific firearm) are illegal either. As for any weapon designed to fire bullets in rapid succession from large, detachable magazines being necessary for the average person you are correct. They are only necessary for persons interested in protecting themselves from a despotic, corrupt government with no respect for inalienable rights.... and those such as yourself who fully support such a government.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

PRESIDENT Trump will never sign any of this garbage.

[Elessar]

The proposed legislation is deliberately vague. It is meant to be an outline.
In its present form, the bill would never get through the current Congress. But what if the balance of power is shifted in the mid-term elections?
The second amendment gives you the right to bear arms. It doesn't mention which ones. There is no clause stating that all firearms have to be legal.
I am all in favor of everyone having the right to own a handgun and a hunting rifle. I am against any rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic weapon. Because there is NO reason why a civilian needs any firearm designed for military use. Any weapon designed to fire bullets in rapid succession from large, detachable magazines is not necessary for the average person.
I have a handgun. I don't need anything else. Nobody does.

You are telling a bunch of stories!

I already posted the ATF Laws. Want to try and read them? They are all in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations:

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/laws-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives

Tell me, what about that ILLEGAL HK-47 you bragged about using?

[Gunny]

I have decided I'm getting a Winchester Model 94, Trapper, with the Lucas McCain/John Wayne hoop lever. Wonder how fast I can work the lever (with a little "adjustment" to the sear)? I'd prefer the rifleman's rifle because he was left-handed. We're evil, y'know ...:laugh:

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I have decided I'm getting a Winchester Model 94, Trapper, with the Lucas McCain/John Wayne hoop lever. Wonder how fast I can work the lever (with a little "adjustment" to the sear)? I'd prefer the rifleman's rifle because he was left-handed. We're evil, y'know ...:laugh:
I've got a Uberti, Cimarron Arms, Winchester Trapper carbine replica in .45LC I'll sell ya... $1,300 rifle, but I'll cut ya a deal.

A truly beautiful rifle too... spectacular fit and finish.

[Gunny]

I've got a Uberti, Cimarron Arms, Winchester Trapper carbine replica in .45LC I'll sell ya... $1,300 rifle, but I'll cut ya a deal.

A truly beautiful rifle too... spectacular fit and finish.Yeah. CA are REAL proud of their firearms.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Yeah. CA are REAL proud of their firearms.
This was made in Italy and finished in America.

I bought it to have a rifle that also fires the same .45LC as my Ruger Vaquero Birdshead revolver.

Nice shootin' rifle... you'd like it... great varmit gun... ;)

[hjmick]

"Take the guns first, go through due process second” - Donald J. Trump


President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights. (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second)


What criteria would be used to determine whether or not a person is "dangerous" if there is no due process first?

[Gunny]

"Take the guns first, go through due process second” - Donald J. Trump


President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights. (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second)


What criteria would be used to determine whether or not a person is "dangerous" if there is no due process first?Money says that when all this drama is done, and people's Rights violated, some kook will shoot up another school. If anyone wanted to know how to hamstring the US for 2 weeks, they got the recipe.

In Israel they just sweep up and go about business as usual. But then, what would Israel know? They only live in a war zone.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

"Take the guns first, go through due process second” - Donald J. Trump


President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights. (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second)


What criteria would be used to determine whether or not a person is "dangerous" if there is no due process first?
I'm sure that what he was speaking of is a clear nut case like the one in Florida.

Secondly, the president can't disarm anyone anymore than the man in the moon can. It'll take congress and a new law to do that.