Posted on 07/21/2022 5:41:29 PM PDT by george76
The problem is that they’re in common use..
New York Congressman Jerry Nadler openly admitted at a House Judiciary Committee hearing this week that the point of gun control legislation being pushed by Democrats is to confiscate firearms in “common use”.
When questioned by GOP North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop if Democrats dispute that the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2021,” proposes to ban guns currently in “common use” nation-wide, Nadler, chairman of the committee, replied “That’s the point of the bill.”
“So, to clarify, Mr. Chairman, you’re saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today,” Bishop again asked.
“Yes,” Nadler responded, adding “The problem is that they’re in common use.”
Bishop went on to tell the Democrats that “What you suggest that this order can possibly comply with what the Supreme Court has held (as regards the Second Amendment) in now three separate cases is absolutely absurd.”
Bishop also declared that “the Democrats of the 1960s are the Democrats of the 2020s.”
...
The legislation, H.R. 1808, would ban “semi-automatic assault weapons” that contain a magazine, a pistol or forward grip and a “folding, telescoping, or detachable stock,” as well as weapons that can fire more than 10 rounds or contain a threaded barrel or second pistol grip.
Yeah, that “common use” ruling is a sticky wicket.
They are also the same as the Democrats of the 1860s.
Will The Nad be going door-to-door?
They won’t be confiscating anything.
And the 1820s.
They figure they can get people to turn them in when we get fired from our jobs, banking accounts frozen, driver’s licenses removed, if we don’t comply. Mark of the Beast kind of thing.
Well, I guess we should just make them “common use” when they come for them.
Nadler is truly Jabba the hut. RIP Rush.
Someone with nothing left to lose can be... troublesome.
Well, I guess all I can say to that, Thank God I live in Texas.
Come and take them….
How’s Beto doing?
I saw a video of Nadler yesterday smirking about how 2nd amendment adherents can’t explain why the 2nd amendment does not allow citizens to possess fighter jets, etc.
Well, the answer to that is contained in the 2nd amendment, which protects a militia, a militia being a citizen army. The United States had warships and cannons back then, and if such concepts had been on their minds, they would have been spelled out. No, militia refers to an army, not an air force or navy.
When Andrew Jackson was fighting his Indian wars, he accepted the enlistment of militiamen. They were required to bring their own “arms” but the Federal government provided them with ammunition.
The states will likely have something to say about this. Most have constitutional carry.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html
Joseph Story commentary on the 2nd Amendment. Youngest SCOTUS.
Protect our borders, protect ourselves, protect us from our government!
>>How’s Beto doing?<<
You mean two time loser soon to become three?
Not good, thanx for askin.
But I thought that the proof of vaccine card was the mark of the beast?
Sometimes I get so doggone confused...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.