Peter1469 (12-13-2019)
Do you think the Demos will cause things to jump off for the whole Country with Virginia as the ignition point?
History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~
I think this proposed bill goes a bit too far and it wouldn't have a significant effect on gun violence. That being said, this isn't a law, it's a proposed bill that is subject to change. Also, whatever happened to advocating for states rights? I'm often told that federal laws aren't acceptable and states themselves should make these decisions.
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
countryboy (12-13-2019),MMC (12-13-2019),Peter1469 (12-13-2019),Rationalist (12-13-2019)
I know you're just aiming for hyperbolic and macho when you suggest that threatening lawmakers' persons and families might be appropriate in situations such as this, but that kind of talk really doesn't do anything positive for the image of Second Amendment supporters. Some elements of the anti-gun crowd like to portray firearms owners as violent, ignorant thugs and potential criminals; proving them to be right isn't a great idea.
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
...but they're not attempting to deprive citizens of the right to bear arms. They're attempting to restrict certain arms. The federal government already does that with regards to certain arms like fully automatic weapons of war. I get that some feel the constitution gives citizens the right to bear any weapon they choose (rocket launchers, chemical or nuclear weapons), but the courts have argued that it doesn't.
Actually, the issue was decided in 1791. The Framers placed certain restrictions on the Second Amendment. For example, Madison said "Naval Cannon" were specifically excluded from the right to keep and bear arms. Any time someone starts talking about chemical and nuclear weapons, you know they don't have a clue regarding what the Second Amendment is about. What the Framers wanted was for the general populace to be able to possess the same types of arms as standard infantry soldiers. The purpose of this was twofold. First, to enable the citizenry to come to the defense of the nation, if necessary. Second, to enable the citizenry to defend themselves against their own government should it ever betray them and abandon its constitutional constraints and responsibilities.
It is really that simple. There is nothing complicated about Second Amendment.
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” - Barry Goldwater
MMC (12-13-2019),Peter1469 (12-13-2019),Rationalist (12-13-2019)