Posted on 02/03/2023 1:06:34 PM PST by RandFan
@RepThomasMassie
The ATF's new rule on pistol braces is unconstitutional, conflicts with prior ATF guidance, and turns millions of law-abiding gun owners into criminals. But that’s Biden’s goal.
Clip...
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Every single law passed by Congress involving guns should be thrown out on its face by the supreme Court.
Shall not be infriged = pass NO law.
why do we have an ATF in the first place?
A Founder once said, “If the government wants to take away your guns it’s because they want to do something to you that you would shoot them for”
Ever noticed all the laws passed regarding guns won’t do a damn thing too keep criminals from using guns?
Again, anytime I see anything from Massie, he’s just solid. Love this guy.
“Shall not be infringed” means “Shall not be infringed”
That’s often said. But what is it that “shall not be infringed”? The answer of course is “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”. So, what is “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”? What does it cover? How far does it go?
One has the right to keep and bear arms on or in one’s own property, but what about on or in another’s property? At least some say that an owner’s property rights supercede the rights of another on that property and that someone armed against the owner’s dictate can be charged with trespassing if they don’t leave at the owner’s request. Would a law specifically against trespassing while armed be an infringement?
Would a law specifically against keeping and bearing a stolen firearm be an infringement when the property in question is a firearm the possessor has stolen?
Would a law against parents allowing a four year old child to routinely carry a loaded firearm be an infringement of the child’s right to keep and bear arms?
I think your right to keep and bear arms does not cover you trying to use said arms to murder me and I will take them from your warm dead hands.
What is “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”? What does it cover? How far does it go?
We need to have answers to those questions because the other side will claim their proposals are not infringements because what they propose to limit is not covered by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
(Written in haste.)
Sounds great to me! Abolish all the illegal laws.
Same applies to suppressors, and full auto firearms.
In face...dump the ATF completely along with their defacto registration scheme.
Prosecute all crimes, with compounding sentences for use of a firearm.
Enact nationwide concealed carry reciprocity. Leave the rest of it up to the STATES, where it should always have been.
The knee-jerk over-reaction to JFK’s assassination needs to be throttled by logic, ASAP.
Reciprocity? No. ANY licensing or registration is a clear infringement. Constitutional carry for all.
Property rights issue, not 2A
Would a law specifically against keeping and bearing a stolen firearm be an infringement when the property in question is a firearm the possessor has stolen?
Property theft issue, not 2A
Would a law against parents allowing a four year old child to routinely carry a loaded firearm be an infringement of the child’s right to keep and bear arms?
Reckless endangerment, minors don't have rights, not 2A
I think your right to keep and bear arms does not cover you trying to use said arms to murder me and I will take them from your warm dead hands.
Homicide/assault issue, not 2A
(Written in haste.)
Obviously, before you even thought it through.
If I carry concealed, how would a property owner know I was carrying, unless he tried to murder me. Then, surprise.
Right. If the property owner became aware you were armed he demand you leave. If you refused then you would be trespassing.
Property theft issue, not 2A
Reckless endangerment, minors don't have rights, not 2A
Homicide/assault issue, not 2A
On the face of it, it looks like you didn’t respond to my basic questions (…what is “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”? What does it cover? How far does it go?”), but you did respond though you probably didn’t mean to.
What you wrote would mean at least some things involve other issues that trump the 2A to the point it isn’t a consideration, but you didn’t go so far as to cover those things.
“Reckless endangerment…not 2A” Plays right into the hands of gun control proponents who would say that people owning what they term assault rifles (or any firearm) recklessly endanger the lives of others.
And what’s with “minors don't have rights”? Does the wording of the 2nd amendment exclude them as people? Are they also excluded from the right to life or the free speech right to say “No” to a sexual advance? In any case you seem to believe the second amendment doesn’t go so far as to cover them, which also responds to my basic questions.
You come across similar to a gun controller… just declare it’s not an issue and expect or require others to agree with your declaration. That’s what they are going to do if we don’t develop better arguments than the knee jerk “Shall not be infringed”. And they may convince the vast number of people who aren’t firearms enthusiasts and wrongly think they don’t have a dog in the fight.
So you equate a four year old handling a handgun to an adult having a semi-automatic rifle?
And what’s with “minors don't have rights”?
They can't vote, enter contracts, possess firearms or alcohol. The rest of that is just nonsense.
You do have a knack, though, for ridiculous examples.
I didn’t make a statement to that effect. I asked a question. You responded with an argument that is used against us.
They can't vote, enter contracts, possess firearms or alcohol.
Showing that they don’t have some rights does not support an open ended statement that “minors don't have rights”. Besides, some places minors can possess firearms and alcohol with their parent’s permission, at least in the sense of possession that they can hold and shoot a firearm and hold and drink a glass of wine.
The rest of that is just nonsense. ?
Just because you can’t see the sense of it doesn’t mean it’s nonsense.
Wise men, those founders.
A 17 year old, yeah. Your example was a four year old.
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.