Frankly, I believe that the federal government’s stance on ANTIQUE HMGs is STUPID.
(Btw, even a BATFE Senior Agent agreed with my assessment of the “stated current policy”)
Beyond stupid, UNCONSTITUTIONAL and I would go so far as to say Treasonous, along with all of the so called gun restrictions place against “shall not be infringed” since 1934 to the first out right ban of weapons found in the 1986 “law” that is NOT a law as it is along with all the others clearly unconstitutional.
I certainly would not recommend disobedience of any of them because of attitude and nature of law enforcement of all shapes and sizes.
...and to those of you who believe in the goodness and mercy of the NRA, I encourage you to study their complicity or lack of in each and every Unconstitutional gun law passed since their beginning in 1871 or so. In my opinion they have grown to be as much a part of the SWAMP as any good Socialist Communist Democrat or RINO.
A clean sweep is not a solution, for just as bureaucratic Government agencies are riddled with swamp creatures, as long as they exist, so too is the NRA. It would not be long after the clean sweep that the evil swamp creatures would once again take over. A growing Government is also the antithesis of Liberty and Freedom.
Even our Congress is subject to the same issues which is why we find ourselves in the quandary we do. Laws against Treason lie dormant when reality is the slightest deviation from Oath of office of those required an oath should bring down the hounds of hell on them for even the thought of not supporting and defending the Constitution.
...and don’t give me that servant of the people line after you have been in office more than eight years. As I see it Senators in today’s world need to be running every two years not six. After all we have deemed them Representatives of the people after the passage of the seventeenth amendment.
Thankfully Rant is at an end!!!!!!!
You will get NO argument from me.
Moreover a careful reading of THE MILLER DECISION of the SCOTUS seems to AGREE with your/my stance on the Second Amendment o the BoR.
(While the SCOTUS found that it was “unreasonable” for the central government to REQUIRE “members of the militia to appear for duty with weapons” of such price that an ordinary citizen would NOT likely possess such an item, IF the militia actually possesses such “unusual items”, that the member(s) MAY be ordered to duty WITH those pieces of equipment. = MILLER indicates that IF the militia is ordered to duty & NEEDS those “unusual items” that the central government will provide such items to the militia formations.)
Yours, TMN78247
You will get NO argument from me.
Moreover a careful reading of THE MILLER DECISION of the SCOTUS seems to AGREE with your/my stance on the Second Amendment o the BoR.
(While the SCOTUS found that it was “unreasonable” for the central government to REQUIRE “members of the militia to appear for duty with weapons” of such price that an ordinary citizen would NOT likely possess such an item, IF the militia actually possesses such “unusual items”, that the member(s) MAY be ordered to duty WITH those pieces of equipment. = MILLER indicates that IF the militia is ordered to duty & NEEDS those “unusual items” that the central government will provide such items to the militia formations.)
Yours, TMN78247