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.
There's not a word in the Second Amendment about knives either.
Are you saying the same principle applies?
They're not mentioned so you can't own one?
No! I’m saying they’re not mentioned, so you CAN own one. The Second Amendment does not forbid any form of arms.
Civilian vessels carried naval ordnance to the late 1800s. These were not Navy guns and crews but privately owned ordnance. In wartime these vessels became privateers. In the West there were private forts like Fort Bridger and Bent’s Fort that had privately owned artillery. And there are privately owned jet fighters, disarmed but capable of carrying and releasing explosives. Michael Dorn who played Worf owns and flies an F80 Shooting Star and an F86 Sabre Jet. And there are many many more.
And this won't stop until that happens at both the Federal and state levels.
At least the Democrats have dropped the “we’re not looking to ban/confiscate your guns, we just want *common sense* gun safety regulations” lie.
They think the only safe thing to do is ban all guns. Now they’ve finally come clean on what we knew they wanted all along.
“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.”
But it does! ‘. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms . . .’ includes ALL types of weapons suitable for use in a fight. The Founders were not light weights, the knew history, they knew the changes in weapons technology, and they knew the dangers of Government pushing it’s bounds.
And they knew the language! “Arms” means weapons, especially military quality weapons. Of any type. In any time. And with any technology. They used a term which was applicable to them, and us, and did not limit ‘We the People’ who Ordained and Established this constitution.
The cannons of the day were available to whoever wanted and could afford one, but most were commonly owned by the community where the militia arose from, or by private companies to protect there operations in the Western lands or at sea. Some were owned by individuals.
Here in Kentucky, I visited the home of Cassius Clay. He published a newspaper in Lexington, KY, in the 1850’s. And he was an abolitionist in a slave owning state. He owned two 2 pounder cannons to defend his shop from crowds. In that day, a such gun might be loaded with shot, nails, etc, to fight off mobs, infantry, or whoever. After the ‘Late Unpleasantness’ he kept them at his home and used it in arguments w/ the state government over property taxes. He had closets and an indoor washroom, toilet and bath. KY determines property taxes by the number of rooms, and in those days, armoire were used instead of closets, and out buildings for toilets, and no special place for washing or bathing. He said the tax on the ‘new fangled’ things was improper, and refused to pay.
The guns were to dissuade the Sherriff’s posse from collect the taxes.
People have always been able to acquire what weapons they could afford, and want.
I must have been dreadfully wrong when I posted about “arms” EXCEPT I was figuring it from a present, public relation aspect. I think it would be borrowing trouble for any of us to be insistent on owning a fighter jet to be included in the public acceptance of “bearing arms” as the people who can own and fly a fighter jet are statistically nonexistent.
Yeh, ban the most popular sporting rifle in the US. Instantly turn 100 million people into criminals. Destroy any hope they ever had to get elected again. All of that just so the SCOTUS can strike it down.
That’s what desperation looks like. 😆
When you fear the government it’s tyranny when the government fears you it’s liberty.
Democrats will never give up on ending your liberty.
The true legacy of slavery in America is that the Democrat Party still exists.
Lighten up Francis, so tied up with being right, you completely missed or ignored the point I was making.
I understood your irrelevant addition to my comment. I was not discussing the many, many infringements on the right supposedly guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Thanks for the clarification. No argument with that.
My favorite quote...
Yes, but it’s important not to get drawn into even tacit agreement with that favorite leftist argument that the 2A applies only to members of a militia. It’s “the right of the people”, just that.
“That’s a terrible “answer”. Back then, citizens and companies owned cannon and warships. So you’re saying the 2A didn’t cover them at all?”
No, it is not a terrible answer, and since no one can own a machine gun without the Feds’ permission and a 24/7 right to enter a person’s home for surveillance for those who are given permission, I don’t think fighter jets are in play.
“You do realize that giving up and letting the enemy claim the ground they took isn’t winning, right?”
I’m not “letting” the enemy do anything.
I merely stated the fact that you do in fact have to get permission from the Federal government to possess a machine gun, and that permission grants them the right to drop in anytime night or day to check on it.
Now, if I were to say that Biden has opened the southern border to the world, that is stating a fact and it does not mean I think it is just fine.
I don’t think it is smart for those of us, which is most of the country, that support the 2nd amendment to all of a sudden jump up and declare that the 2nd amendments mandates that we own fighter jets, aircraft carriers, and atomic weapons. For this day and age it makes that kind of support seem unhinged.
You, yourself, may be just the person to responsibly handle such weaponry, but would you like to see them in the hands of the drug cartel, street thugs, drug runners, etc.?
“I think it would be borrowing trouble for any of us to be insistent on owning a fighter jet to be included in the public acceptance of “bearing arms” as the people who can own and fly a fighter jet are statistically nonexistent.”
I happened to be going through old posts, and you are quite right. Until my mortgage is cleared, I can’t even afford a second (or third) hand battle tank, to say nothing of a current model. Or fuel and ammo for one. (sigh)
The militia of old would chip in to acquire a cannon, or the community would. Or it could be provided by a State.
This is part of the justification for the National Guard, the Feds provide the expensive stuff, the States the people. Largely. The Feds help with people, too, I think. It gets complicated. I need a nap.
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.