# The END for gun owners???



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

I'm not going to try and reinvent the wheel. FWIW:

American Defense Network - Headline News - Powered by ForumCo.com - The Forum Company


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

It gets even more interesting when you add in this SCOTUS ruling.

The Bill of Rights has been Revoked!

I hope this is BS but somehow, I don't think so.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)




----------



## RogerD (Mar 31, 2014)

My 2cents


----------



## jro1 (Mar 3, 2014)

This is your chance to be heard! or you can sit back at the old computer and hope it all goes away!


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

The Lautenberg amendment is the Domestic Violence clause that instructs police to remove an offenders firearms from the home leaving one for the victim (at their request) to defend their self. I am not a proponent of this amendment. It utterly takes away the due process of the alleged assailant and presumes him or her to be automatically guilty.Taking firearms away for a misdemeanor assault is, in my opinion an unwarranted seizure and as such, a violation of the 4th amendment of the US Constitution. I find domestic violence as abhorrent as anyone else. I just think there has to be a better way.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Last Friday I heard that Tennessee became the 22nd state to demand a Constitutional Convention to address several issues the House and Senate have been ignoring, including: term limits, clarifying language on the 2nd Amendment, a balanced budget amendment, strengthening the 10th Amendment, as well as several other issues. A year ago I would have thought that wholesale messing with the Constitution would be a REALLY bad idea. Now, I am starting to come around to the idea that this may be the only way to bring Federalism back into the federal government without bloodshed.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Well, I once again will state, that it is a WAR. The gungrabbers want to dissarm us anyway they can, piece by piece, little by little.
How do you eat a whale- One bite at a time.
If they (house and senate) cant balance a budget, how the hell can we trust them to take care of ALL the other stuff. I mean, there are so many things that have gotten out of hand, But WE have to start somewhere. WE have to let the WHOLE WORLD know that we will not tolerate "laws for them, laws for us". Until all laws are good for politicians, and office holders, as well as Joe Shmoe, then they will continue to do whatever they want.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

csi-tech said:


> The Lautenberg amendment is the Domestic Violence clause that instructs police to remove an offenders firearms from the home leaving one for the victim (at their request) to defend their self. I am not a proponent of this amendment. It utterly takes away the due process of the alleged assailant and presumes him or her to be automatically guilty.Taking firearms away for a misdemeanor assault is, in my opinion an unwarranted seizure and as such, a violation of the 4th amendment of the US Constitution. I find domestic violence as abhorrent as anyone else. I just think there has to be a better way.


I don't know what bearing the Lautenberg Amendment has on micro-chips in firearms, but the Lautenberg Amendment is absolutely *UNCONSTITUTIONAL*, despite the fact the SCOTUS upheld it. To add to your list, Lautenberg is _ex post facto_ { and ex post facto laws are prohibited in Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution.}

Then again, the SCOTUS uses the Constitution for toilet paper.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Inor said:


> Last Friday I heard that Tennessee became the 22nd state to demand a Constitutional Convention to address several issues the House and Senate have been ignoring, including: term limits, clarifying language on the 2nd Amendment, a balanced budget amendment, strengthening the 10th Amendment, as well as several other issues. A year ago I would have thought that wholesale messing with the Constitution would be a REALLY bad idea. Now, I am starting to come around to the idea that this may be the only way to bring Federalism back into the federal government without bloodshed.


With the amount of conniving liberals and misguided Social(ist) Conservatives in this country I don't think that putting* unalienable* Rights on the table is a very good idea. Both sides have an agenda that would take them from you for their personal gain.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

The Resister said:


> With the amount of conniving liberals and misguided Social(ist) Conservatives in this country I don't think that putting* unalienable* Rights on the table is a very good idea. Both sides have an agenda that would take them from you for their personal gain.


I agree it is risky. But at this stage of the game, our choices are rather limited.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

SCOTUS has been addressing domestic violence in the same session. I have chips in all of my firearms. I handle them too much I guess, Some have Doritos in them, others pringles.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

MMMMMM...Pringles. I love Pringles.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

I don't worry about, must be something going around. Lost all my firearms in a boating accident and never replaced them.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

I'm so glad someone else has this figured the way I do. A CC is a chance for liberals to rewrite it their way. Since liberals have bought far more votes from the sheeple its a really really bad idea to let them rewrite anything. Nothing good will come of that - Michigan is the last state and some argue the 34th - requiring a convention but some states have repealed their request - so who knows.



Inor said:


> Last Friday I heard that Tennessee became the 22nd state to demand a Constitutional Convention to address several issues the House and Senate have been ignoring, including: term limits, clarifying language on the 2nd Amendment, a balanced budget amendment, strengthening the 10th Amendment, as well as several other issues. A year ago I would have thought that wholesale messing with the Constitution would be a REALLY bad idea. Now, I am starting to come around to the idea that this may be the only way to bring Federalism back into the federal government without bloodshed.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

Ripon said:


> I'm so glad someone else has this figured the way I do. A CC is a chance for liberals to rewrite it their way. Since liberals have bought far more votes from the sheeple its a really really bad idea to let them rewrite anything. Nothing good will come of that - Michigan is the last state and some argue the 34th - requiring a convention but some states have repealed their request - so who knows.


The argument now is whether or not a state can withdraw it's request once it has asked for a Constitutional Convention. But I agree, it's a REALLY bad idea. I see it going south quickly.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

bigdogbuc said:


> The argument now is whether or not a state can withdraw it's request once it has asked for a Constitutional Convention. But I agree, it's a REALLY bad idea. I see it going south quickly.


A really bad idea. But either way, we loose.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

A CC is a very bad idea, unless of course you want to fundamentally change the country. Now who would want to do that? never mind. There is so much BS (propaganda) being generated these days I'm beginning to wonder if there is anybody left in this country who actually does know the truth.


----------



## StarPD45 (Nov 13, 2012)

Isn't there a specific method for a state to request a Constitutional Convention?
My copy is in the other room.

I've said it before: Be very careful what you wish for. You might just get it.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Can anyone show me in the constitution where the supreme court is granted the power to decide what rights we have?

I don't want you to waste your time so I will tell you - nowhere!

As part of the federal government the supreme courts powers are limited to those provided in the constitution and they do not have the power to make decisions on what our rights are. They can protect our rights, when the issue is between the government and the people but they do not have any power to limit or enumerate which rights we have.

Nullification is a constitutionally protected right that allows the people to ignore unconstitutional laws. It is useful until harm is done by a law then it is the court's, states, and people's duty to repeal the law.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

This ruling or what ever you want to call it, has nothing to do with stopping domestic violence. Pretty simple really if it were about domestic violence it would have addressed the causes and not the methods.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

It's all about protecting the children. You do want to protect the children, don't you? 

If they really wanted to protect the children there would be more schools with ROTC as a mandatory class like Walla Walla schools.


----------

