[[Biden Proposals Include Framework for Gun Registry and Confiscation]]
And I’m sure mental health evaluatiosn will work it’s way i nthere as the vp discovers NY’ers did NOT stand up for hteir rights when NY violated them with their impossible gun laws
“Incidentally, if you wanted to keep the AR-15 you currently have, you would have to have a 6-month FBI background check, be fingerprinted, and get a machine gun-type license. “
Yeh everybody will rush to register those “privately” purchased AR’s and AK’s. As far as the others well they all got sold mos ago to some guy at a gun show. Can’t remember his name.
A bit of levity ...
I’ll just never forget the MSM interview of a small-town Texas Sheriff back when the Brady Bill was being debated. They set him up to look like a big, dumb hick in his ten-gallon hat and bolo tie with his boots kicked up on his desk. When the reporter asked him how gun control would make his job easier, he drawled “We ain’t got no gun problem down here. Last guy kilt ‘round yere was beat-ta-death with a rock!”
P.R.I.C.E.L.E.S.S.
Biden could yet be the 45th president; people in DE will be thrilled.
Biden Kiss my Butt!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
Hmmm. In 1777, this gun was capable of firing 16 or 20 balls in 5 seconds.That seems to blow a hole in the libtard argument that the 2A was written within the context of guns capable only of firing single rounds.
The Second Amendment was put in place specifically so the public at large could protect itself from a tyranny that develops at the Federal level. There is no moral justification for tolerating the removal of that safeguard by the very offices the safeguard was intended to stop.
I will fully support any honorable resistance - in any honorable form - to the disarming of the public.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Scalia also makes clear that one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to protect against tyranny:
There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.
... That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.
Sadly, however, it probably doesn't matter. I see the Constitution (that "little book") bearing little or no importance to the liberals now in power.
Let’s Roll!
Civil war is coming.