# Gun ban I be blunt



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

*Gun ban I'll be blunt*

The Supreme Court already ruled that gun ownership is a individual right, and the 2nd Amendment was actually for military style weapons and the AR-15 and like gun are about as close as we can get.The only two things that can change that is a Constitutional Amendment or an act of treason. Tell me where I am wrong.


----------



## mikes69baja (Nov 2, 2012)

I dont think the liberals would even attempt to change the 2nd amendment, just because it opens up the door to change any other amendment in the bill of rights... If i can remember right from my high school US history there has never been an change to the bill of rights.... If im wrong i hope some one will correct me.


----------



## D"artagnan (Nov 18, 2012)

stand back and watce all the arguments this will start 
all done just to distract us from other things 
any attempt to pass gun control will end most politions careers [ and let us make sure they hear that every day ]
and will have to pass a supreme court dicision
D"


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

I'm not a gun expert but I gather the Sandy Hook shooter's Bushmaster rifle wasn't capable of fully-auto fire, and he only fired single rounds, so the governments witch hunt against AR's doesn't hold water..


----------



## trainershawn (Dec 14, 2012)

I don't own any "assault" weapons. Mine are for defensive purposes.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

D"artagnan said:


> stand back and watce all the arguments this will start
> all done just to distract us from other things
> any attempt to pass gun control will end most politions careers [ and let us make sure they hear that every day ]
> and will have to pass a supreme court dicision
> D"


That is what happened in 1994 and I hope they remember. I just worry about Obama issuing an executive order, which would be unconstitutional but all the federal agencies would possibly follow it and our politicians or too cowardly to oppose it setting up Obama with dictatorial powers.


----------



## Old Man (Dec 10, 2012)

Our goverment can't fix our national debit, so you can bet this will become a hot topic among our congress to take the eye off the ball.


----------



## Alpha-17 (Nov 16, 2012)

Lucky Jim said:


> I'm not a gun expert but I gather the Sandy Hook shooter's Bushmaster rifle wasn't capable of fully-auto fire, and he only fired single rounds, so the governments witch hunt against AR's doesn't hold water..


How right you are, but Libtards don't let reason or the facts get in the way of their goals.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

rickkyw1720pf said:


> That is what happened in 1994 and I hope they remember. I just worry about Obama issuing an executive order, which would be unconstitutional but all the federal agencies would possibly follow it and our politicians or too cowardly to oppose it setting up Obama with dictatorial powers.


I can certainly see Obama issuing a Diktat (that's communist for "executive order"). Everyone knows it is unconstitutional, but it will be implimented while it winds it's way through the judicial system. Oh, any judicial action will be delayed long enough, a couple years, enough time for Obama to stack the Supreme Court with two more radicals (he already got two radicals, Kagan and Sotomeyor on the bench). Then the Supremes will rule that the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean what it says, and that obama's action was constitutional. At this point Obama will have free rein to do what he dreams of - turning America into a socialist state.
Far fetched? I think not.


----------



## Alaska (Nov 28, 2012)

rickkyw1720pf said:


> The Supreme Court already ruled that gun ownership is a individual right, and the 2nd Amendment was actually for military style weapons and the AR-15 and like gun are about as close as we can get.The only two things that can change that is a Constitutional Amendment or an act of treason. Tell me where I am wrong.


HE can just invoke an Executive Order like he has done the whole time.

For those who say it wont pass, I give you a home work assignment.

Think back 20 + years and look at what use to be ok and now is illegal.

They have been slowly taking our rights away and once we are not armed the flood gates will open.

IT is rapidly approaching gut check time folks.


----------



## nadja (May 1, 2012)

Lucky Jim said:


> I'm not a gun expert but I gather the Sandy Hook shooter's Bushmaster rifle wasn't capable of fully-auto fire, and he only fired single rounds, so the governments witch hunt against AR's doesn't hold water..


Lucky Jim, The assult rifle was still in his mommies car. He never used it at all. He used a sig .9mm and a glock .9mm. They are hyping it up to make it look like another assult rifle shooting spree.


----------



## AsteroidX (Dec 11, 2012)

There making alot up about Assault rifles this week.


----------



## AsteroidX (Dec 11, 2012)

The new one was a kid shot his friend with a shotgun after a paintball fight. Not sure where Frankenstein will run with it but shes got her eye on all guns.


----------



## AsteroidX (Dec 11, 2012)

Also they will be drastically increasing the number of ineligibles through backdoor mental health (whats the criteria), No Fly (1m-2m added per year and growing each year)


----------



## momentum (Dec 21, 2012)

nadja said:


> Lucky Jim, The assult rifle was still in his mommies car. He never used it at all. He used a sig .9mm and a glock .9mm. They are hyping it up to make it look like another assult rifle shooting spree.


Actually from what after examinating the bodies they said every single one had several gunshot wounds and all of them was with the smaller caliber 5.56 from the AR......I just read this could be wrong but thats what i read. Then I also have read that they found the bushmaster in the car...dont know which is true.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

For what it's worth, this Wiki article says-
1- He had two handguns with him but only used the Bushmaster rifle.
2- It wasn't capable of fully-auto fire and he therefore only fired a series of single shots.

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bushmaster- Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## AsteroidX (Dec 11, 2012)

The coroner report backs that version up. I think the report about a gun in the trunk was just misinformation/confusion in the immediate afterwards.


----------



## Dunbar (Sep 17, 2012)

Let's say there is a ban on assault weapons, along with guns with 10 round mag capacity (or more). Then what? Make them illegal to own? Do they have a voluntary buy back?

"If a person does not turn in their weapon, and they get caught with it, they will be prosecuted"? 

And then some crazy person kills with a Mossberg 500 with 8 round capacity. Do they ban anything over single round? And on and on...


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

Dunbar said:


> Let's say there is a ban on assault weapons, along with guns with 10 round mag capacity (or more). Then what? Make them illegal to own? Do they have a voluntary buy back?
> 
> "If a person does not turn in their weapon, and they get caught with it, they will be prosecuted"?
> 
> And then some crazy person kills with a Mossberg 500 with 8 round capacity. Do they ban anything over single round? And on and on...


They will probably just grandfather everything in and just stop the manufacturing and selling high cap. magazines and semi-auto rifles. 
If you look at this chart it is plain to see that going after all rifles wouldn't make much difference so they must have their own agenda.
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/w620-afe014391829c8524fb15fd0f0647360.jpg


----------



## trainershawn (Dec 14, 2012)

rickkyw1720pf said:


> They will probably just grandfather everything in and just stop the manufacturing and selling high cap. magazines and semi-auto rifles.
> If you look at this chart it is plain to see that going after all rifles wouldn't make much difference so they must have their own agenda.
> http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/w620-afe014391829c8524fb15fd0f0647360.jpg


Just wait till they ban people from being born with hands, fists and feet. The rest of us will be grandfathered in though.


----------



## TxBorderCop (Nov 19, 2012)

trainershawn said:


> Just wait till they ban people from being born with hands, fists and feet. The rest of us will be grandfathered in though.


ROFLMAO - they may make that illegal with no grandfathering in as well!!!


----------



## TxBorderCop (Nov 19, 2012)

rickkyw1720pf said:


> They will probably just grandfather everything in and just stop the manufacturing and selling high cap. magazines and semi-auto rifles.
> If you look at this chart it is plain to see that going after all rifles wouldn't make much difference so they must have their own agenda.
> http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/w620-afe014391829c8524fb15fd0f0647360.jpg


Don't count on it. From what I have read about Feinstein's proposed ban:
1. All guns will be restricted to 10 rounds - for now
2. No grandfather clauses
3. You will NOT be able to bequeathe your firearms to your heirs, they MUST be turned in after your death.

Sorry, folks, this is just a start. They will take everything away. Or they will die trying. Or I should say, you will die trying. That is their mentality. Read the following story:

From Infowars:



> Kurt Nimmo
> Infowars.com
> December 21, 2012
> 
> ...


----------



## AsteroidX (Dec 11, 2012)

Keep networking people are listening. 

I guess this is where I will introduce my family history.'

My ages ago direct relative was at the signing of the British to the Americans. He was a British naval Officer of the Highest rank in New York Harbor. He accompanied the original signing of the surrender of the British directly. So I am all over this like a cat in a chicken coupe. People are getting there rights stripped. By the way if you do your homework General Cornwallis called in sick that day. Then later signed another surrender.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

AsteroidX said:


> ..My ages ago direct relative was at the signing of the British to the Americans..


Having their precious tea dumped in Boston harbour dealt a shock to Brit morale from which they never recovered


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Dec 22, 2012)

What I'd like to know is when the pharmaceutical industry will be held at least partially responsible for these juveniles tweaked on heavy doses of doctor-prescribed mind-altering meds who snap and commit heinous acts like CT and Aurora


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

Nothing PO's me more than hearing a politician say they supports the 2nd Amendment then starts talking about what hunters need and don't need, if you listen to them the 2nd Amendment is just about hunting, and personal protection and the truth is that couldn't be further from the fact.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

AsteroidX said:


> Keep networking people are listening.
> 
> I guess this is where I will introduce my family history.'
> 
> My ages ago direct relative was at the signing of the British to the Americans. He was a British naval Officer of the Highest rank in New York Harbor. He accompanied the original signing of the surrender of the British directly. So I am all over this like a cat in a chicken coupe. People are getting there rights stripped. By the way if you do your homework General Cornwallis called in sick that day. Then later signed another surrender.


I am a direct descendant of a Private in the Continental Army, a foot soldier for George Washington. Many in my family line have served in the military. The blood of patriots runs in my veins. The genes of liberty, freedom, and resistance to tyranny are woven in my DNA.
I know where I stand. And the damn government better understand I'm peacefull to a point - and not one inch past that. That most likely is also partly due to my Scottish ancestry.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Filthy McNasty said:


> What I'd like to know is when the pharmaceutical industry will be held at least partially responsible for these juveniles tweaked on heavy doses of doctor-prescribed mind-altering meds who snap and commit heinous acts like CT and Aurora


Yeah doctors are often sloppy in what they prescribe, here's a dialog I had with my doctor a few years ago-
ME- "I'm feeling cold, weak and sluggish"
DOC- "Your depressed"
ME- "No I'm not"
DOC- "Yes you are"
ME- "No, honestly I'm not!"
DOC- (writing) "I'm prescribing Prozac anti-depressants for you"

So I gave up and tried the Prozacs and they sent me to another planet, I had trouble knowing if I was asleep or awake, or dreaming or not dreaming, it was as if my brain was stretching and twisting like a lump of soft rubber. I flushed the rest of the Prozacs down the loo..


----------



## ozo (Dec 21, 2012)

Like dick-tater Rahm Emmanuel said.....
never let a good crisis go to waste.....


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Guns are just a tool, no better or worse than the purpose they're used for--


----------



## Purkeypilot (Dec 21, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I can certainly see Obama issuing a Diktat (that's communist for "executive order"). Everyone knows it is unconstitutional, but it will be implimented while it winds it's way through the judicial system. Oh, any judicial action will be delayed long enough, a couple years, enough time for Obama to stack the Supreme Court with two more radicals (he already got two radicals, Kagan and Sotomeyor on the bench). Then the Supremes will rule that the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean what it says, and that obama's action was constitutional. At this point Obama will have free rein to do what he dreams of - turning America into a socialist state.
> Far fetched? I think not.


Not far fetched at all unfortunately Rice...


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

I know most want to believe our cherished 2nd Amendment will be protected by the court; well to those remember health care was once just regulated and is now mandated thanks to the court.

I know most want to believe the Republican Congress will stand in the way of changes against firearms. If I recall in the previous AWB as inept as it was - was passed by Newt's Repubilcan
congress for BJ Clinton was it not? I may be mistaken there but wasn't it 1994 to 2004? I got mine in 1993 so I didn't pay that much attention. 

Will they vote to confiscate guns - no. Lets be real. I have heard comments though about them eyeballing the "enormous" success of the Full Auto license / stamp program. What would
stop them from applying that to AW's as we know they are labeled today (even if wrong)? That law has not been reversed by the Supreme Court and stands. The best argument against
that I'd make to the liberals who'd support is simple - look at the 200k full auto gun stamps - look at who owns them today? The RICH ELITE. They hate the RICH ELITE - right?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Ripon said:


> I know most want to believe the Republican Congress will stand in the way of changes against firearms. If I recall in the previous AWB as inept as it was - was passed by Newt's Repubilcan
> congress for BJ Clinton was it not? I may be mistaken there but wasn't it 1994 to 2004? I got mine in 1993 so I didn't pay that much attention.


No, both houses of congress were controlled by democrats when the AWB was made and signed by Clinton. It was a direct result of this that republicans swept the mid-term elections in 1994 and Gingrich became Speaker of the House. Democrats paid close attention to why they lost so badly (thank you NRA) and were eager to let the law sunset when it came up for renewal in 2002.
That's why I have hope that there will be no draconian legislation regarding gun control to pass either house, especially the House of Representatives.
Unles, of course, Obama can pin the coming recesion on the republicans and get them voted out of office.
Then all bets are off. Perhaps even a big push for a third term for Obama. The idea of going through the courts to make obama eligible for a third term (there is a constitutional amendment for two terms max) has already been floated by the administration.


----------



## Dr. Prepper (Dec 20, 2012)

There are some very good posts above. Now let's add something else to the discussion . . . the a$$hole in the Whitehouse will be appointing two (maybe three) new supreme court justices in the next 48 months. We all know they will be left wing, gun control, queers. It's in the plans. And the citizens will sit by and watch without any action.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

ABC news just reported this but I could not find it on their website. I did find this link. If you think many people won't give up their firearms, think again.

Gun Buyback Program in Deadly NJ City Nets Over 1,000 Firearms, Breaks Record | Video | TheBlaze.com


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

Dr. Prepper said:


> There are some very good posts above. Now let's add something else to the discussion . . . the a$$hole in the Whitehouse will be appointing two (maybe three) new supreme court justices in the next 48 months. We all know they will be left wing, gun control, queers. It's in the plans. And the citizens will sit by and watch without any action.


Exactly. That's why this past election was so critical.

"They" won't touch the 2A and won't need to. Based in past history of neutering the constitution they will "regulate" gun, ammo and anything else. You can own and bear arms but it will be prohibitivelt expensive and time consuming to do so.

There is already discussion in DC about the use of a tax stamp on all semi auto's, not just "aw". they think this will fix part of the problem, generate revenue and create a better database for confiscation. Oh, btw, despite what you think the ATF already has a good database.


----------



## ozo (Dec 21, 2012)

inceptor said:


> ABC news just reported this but I could not find it on their website. I did find this link. If you think many people won't give up their firearms, think again.
> 
> Gun Buyback Program in Deadly NJ City Nets Over 1,000 Firearms, Breaks Record | Video | TheBlaze.com


And where is the money from to purchase these ????


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

ozo said:


> And where is the money from to purchase these ????


Your tax dollars are working for you :grin:


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

It would truly be iconic for a supreme court to reverse its policy. Scalia wrote specifically in Heller gun rights are personal, individual and not just for the state or militia. If a left minded court reversed that the anti multi generational agenda can begin.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

Ripon said:


> It would truly be iconic for a supreme court to reverse its policy. Scalia wrote specifically in Heller gun rights are personal, individual and not just for the state or militia. If a left minded court reversed that the anti multi generational agenda can begin.


The trouble with the Supreme court is they make their rulings so vaguely that even after their decision there seems to be more questions unanswered. They needed to state that the 2nd Amendment was mainly for military style weapons, But like always they weaseled out.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

rickkyw1720pf said:


> The trouble with the Supreme court is they make their rulings so vaguely that even after their decision there seems to be more questions unanswered. They needed to state that the 2nd Amendment was mainly for military style weapons, But like always they weaseled out.


Exactly. All that has to be done is for another case, similar but slightly different, to be brought before the court. A court that has been stacked by Obama.
Never in my 64 years of life have I ever seen a more anti-American administration.


----------



## OldTex (Dec 21, 2012)

mikes69baja said:


> I dont think the liberals would even attempt to change the 2nd amendment, just because it opens up the door to change any other amendment in the bill of rights... If i can remember right from my high school US history there has never been an change to the bill of rights.... If im wrong i hope some one will correct me.


The Bill of Rights were the first ten amendments to the Constitution, considered as part of the original since it wouldn't have been approved without them. These ten have not been changed but another 17 amendments have been approved since then - everything from income tax to prohibition and it's repeal.

Regarding the Supreme Court, there are 3 Justices now in their 70's. One is a diehard liberal. The other two are conservatives, including Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in Heller (the case holding that the 2nd Amendment protects our rights to be armed). The Heller case was a 5-4 decision, meaning that we were one heart attack away from losing our rights. That's how fragile our rights are as long as Obama is in office.

Any new gun bill could say whatever the libs could get passed. They could grandfather guns and mags we already own (like the Clinton ban) or they could make them all illegal. The more they crush our rights, the less likely they could get it passed. IMO. What scares me is some kind of Royal Decree by King Barry. He has already issued several presidential orders that flat violate existing law (like the one creating the Dream Act). His appointees in the BATF and the Justice Department would enforce his orders just like they are enforcing the other illegal ones. Meanwhile, no one in government or in the press is doing anything about the illegal orders. The press has always been an important part of the people's control of government, but it has almost completely shirked its obligations.


----------



## SSGT (Jul 29, 2012)

Gun Control? It only hurts legal owners!


----------



## Puppage (Nov 11, 2012)

I find it amazing that people wonder if the 2A is an individual right....liberals, mostly. So, our Founding Fathers write The Bill of Rights. 10 amendments.......Of The People, by The People, for The People. All of of them EXCEPT the 2nd? Makes no sense whatsoever. I ask that of the left and I get a blank stare.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Please think about the arguements you put forth on what they can and can not do with the 2nd.
Once they have 5 of 9 votes they can do what ever they want. The last ruling we had was a 5 to 4 vote that went for us that believe in the 2nd as it is or even that it gives us more rights.
The president that will appoint the next court Justice said loud and clear "They got it wrong and I will fix that When I appoint One more justice to the court". You can not change that.
Congress can do nothing nor can any of your readings of past court ruling have any effect on it ,One more vote the 2nd is GONE.
There was a time precedence meant something but this current Government has no respect for it. and neither will any of his court appointees.
Holder his AG and one that could be appointed has said loud and clear NO American has a right to own any fire arm.


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> Please think about the arguements you put forth on what they can and can not do with the 2nd.
> Once they have 5 of 9 votes they can do what ever they want. The last ruling we had was a 5 to 4 vote that went for us that believe in the 2nd as it is or even that it gives us more rights.
> The president that will appoint the next court Justice said loud and clear "They got it wrong and I will fix that When I appoint One more justice to the court". You can not change that.
> Congress can do nothing nor can any of your readings of past court ruling have any effect on it ,One more vote the 2nd is GONE.
> ...


Luckily the Supreme court already ruled that the 2nd is an individual right so that won't be brought up again. even though they can go around that in different ways, I guess the bottom line is that our forefathers wrote a bill of rights for all the people to read and left it up to future generations whether they will allow any government to throw it out.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Obama made it clear once he appoints another Justice it will be gone they can bring it up any time they want all they have to do is take the case and it will be brought by Holder. They already have it ready to GO Holder made that clear.
Slam dunk.
To many people think there is some kind of order or law protecting us there is not. The Court can over turn any ruling with 5 of 9 votes. That is what people need to understand.


----------



## brimstone (Nov 9, 2012)

I will just make some fake documents that show that I am allowed to have my weapons. It worked for Obama. It seems that even if they can be shown to be very fake that the government will still accept them with no questions asked.


----------

