Replies

The entire first mistake is in accepting the gungrabber’s premise that ANY guns should be banned, except for 50 cal machine guns, which already are. The COTUS says, the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. When we start frittering THAT position away, we’re dooming ourselves to eventual failure. To my mind, Swalwell is a duplicitous snake.

To my mind, Swalwell is a duplicitous snake.

Exactly.

The nicer, the smoother, the more agreeable the con artist is....the more dangerous he is.

“The entire first mistake is in accepting the gungrabber’s premise that ANY guns should be banned, except for 50 cal machine guns, which already are.”

Sounds a bit like you’ve already accepted an infringement of the 2nd Amendment and the COTUS. For one thing, the .50 full autos are banned not because of the .50 cal. part, but because they are full auto. That’s part of the ‘34 NFA. However, that is BLATANTLY unconstitutional, despite the 1939 “US v. Miller” decision (which is so full of holes and missing facts to such an extent that a fleet of trucks could be driven through it).

Why?

Well, if you look in Section 8 of Article 1 of the COTUS, you will find among the powers of the Congress the ability to give individual citizens “Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” Well, you may say, WTF are those? They are, basically, the right to act as a privateer on behalf of the United States, which necessarily includes taking on merchant and naval forces of foreign nations. The Continental Congress granted such Letters, as did the US Congress during the War of 1812 (and, quite possibly, as late as WW2). Now, how does one take on foreign naval forces without the aid of modern military equipment? You don’t. Back in the 1700s and 1800s, it meant that the individual in question would own a ship AND CANNON. Today, it would necessarily mean having automatic weapons, including automatic cannons...well, it would, but for the gross infringement of the 2nd Amendment that is the entire 1934 National Firearms Act.