Posted on 09/18/2019 10:13:54 AM PDT by rktman
In our political debates over gun policies, those who favor increased regulations and restrictions on firearms often claim that they're only asking for widely-supported, modest changes in the law. We're not coming for your guns, they promise; we're only looking to make a few 'common sense' alterations to the status quo. They cite polling that favors their position, and they ridicule as paranoid those Second Amendment supporters who warn about a so-called slippery slope. But emboldened leftist Democrats have been vindicating many conservatives' worst fears in recent days, with two answers at last Thursday's presidential debate standing out on this front. This response on confiscation from former Congressman Beto O'Rourke has gotten a lot of attention, with the candidate tripling down on it, going so far as to sell t-shirts featuring his confiscatory vow:
Another debate exchange that has received less attention, but is quite revealing was this answer from Elizabeth Warren:
We agree on many steps we could take to fix it. My view on this is, we're going to -- it's not going to be one and done on this. We're going to do it, and we're going to have to do it again, and we're going to have to come back some more until we cut the number of gun deaths in this country significantly.
She is straight-up saying that Democrats will keep returning to take bites at the gun control apple, over and over again. It's almost as if when conservatives say giving in inch will only result in more inches, feet, and yards sought, they're exactly right.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
And now princess running beaver has put the fossil(?) fuel folks on notice that they are done by 2035. Which is odd because we’re all supposed to be dead and gone by then.
Beto “Cornwalis” O’Rourke: We have been here before. History repeating itself.
I want common sense indian status reform. Fraudsters get jail time and must pay retroactive restitution.
Nowadays, the issue is much more straightforward and direct: the left aims to conquer, control and rule. IMO, most people understand the present domestic threat is as real and unforgiving as what the Nazis, imperial Japanese and Soviets posed in their day.
Rather than (individual) gun control, the discussion should be focused on federal/state/agency gun "balance". That is, either their capabilities should be subject to 'control', or citizen access to military grade weapons - consistent with the original meaning of the 2A - should be expanded.
In reality, the high water mark for gun control was probably the bump stock ban, and that was really just a concession made by a political novice fighting a media coup. If Trump can get two more conservative SC judges, RvW may not be the most important decision they will decide.
The 1934 NFA is the act that could really be subject to close scrutiny. Any informed reading of the law today would lead many to conclude it's unconstitutional.
Let’s take a “poll”. How many of you are in favor of restricting Warren’s and O’Rourke’s First Amendment rights? We don’t want to repeal it, or take away their ability to speak, just restrict it a bit.
Our Founders would have had these rats dancing a jig at the end of a rope.
Beto doesn’t want any of us to own a firearm because he can’t. He has a criminal record.
“IMO, most people understand the present domestic threat is as real and unforgiving as what the Nazis, imperial Japanese and Soviets posed in their day.”
“Rather than (individual) gun control, the discussion should be focused on federal/state/agency gun “balance”. That is, either their capabilities should be subject to ‘control’, or citizen access to military grade weapons - consistent with the original meaning of the 2A - should be expanded.”
“The 1934 NFA is the act that could really be subject to close scrutiny. Any informed reading of the law today would lead many to conclude it’s unconstitutional.”
To me, looking at the Founders’ statements about “arms,” it is utterly plain that they were talking about ALL types of arms - not just muskets, handguns or even Kentucky rifles. People like John Hancock owned dozens of cannon (the WMD of the day), and were authorized with Letters of Marque and Reprisal to attack the Brits by the Continental Congress (and that very thing led to the power of Congress to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal in Article 1, Section 8 (and those were issued by the hundreds during the War of 1812).
It is absolutely anathema to the idea of what our Republic is supposed to be - a protector of the individual rights of its citizens, a necessary evil - that the federal government, with not only its outward-facing standing army, but with its inward-facing security services (i.e. a standing army, but one looking at and controlling US) can and does have full autos by the freight car load, and we cannot. The NFA was, ironically, argued to be Constitutional by the feds because it only levied a tax, rather than prohibiting ownership of full autos (and, of course, destructive devices, suppressors and everything else regulated by the NFA) - yet the 1986 FOPA prohibits any civilian from acquiring any full auto manufactured post-5/19/86. So they defeated their own argument.
I relish the idea of the NFA going to the Supremes, but I’d like to have 2 more solid Constitutionalists on the Court first. If Breyer and Ginsberg resign or die, we’ve got the first half of that equation, and it looks likely that at least one of them won’t be on the Court in the next 2-3 years (and, of course, this assumes that Trump wins, which I believe that he will). The NFA and most gun control is so incredibly far from the Founders’ ideas about the relationship between the citizens and the government that we created for OUR benefit, that it needs to be struck down.
Assuming that such occurs (a big assumption, I know), I would think that within 2 years there would be about 5 million full autos - either newly produced, or converted with a “happy switch.” At that point, there would simply be nothing that our government could EVER do to impose a dictatorship.
I can see infringing on their 1A rights.
After all, the 1A has wiggle room to infringe (crowded theater, libel, etc), as opposed to the 2A which has the key words "Shall Not" infringe.
In many respects, Hussein might have represented the furthest reach of the progs. Consider that while patriots cannot mount (yet) an attack on the respective agencies, neither can the federal and/or state governments launch actions against the citizenry.
While the state apparatus certainly controls the cities and main lines of commerce/communications, any foray outside of those protected citadels would be met with resistance. If we assume that the feds/states could mount a force of say, 3m, then only 3% of the 100m patriots would have to commit to a 1:1 sacrifice to destroy that action.
That's why there's this stand-off; both sides can do the calculus. The politicians jaw away, while all the time knowing it's just talk. However, so too patriots who talk about marching on DC. Neither is going to happen, but as time moves on, the advantage continues to build on the side of independence.
We get 1-2 more constitutionalists, and the 100 year reign of terror by the left comes to an end.
Let’s take a “poll”. How many of you are in favor of restricting Warren’s and O’Rourke’s First Amendment rights? We don’t want to repeal it, or take away their ability to speak, just restrict it a bit.
Now THIS is a fine post!
Okay, I’ll play.
24 Hr. “Cooling off” period between the time they think of something and when they are allowed to speak it.
Ten day wait before their comments can be reported in the press.
Limit of one comment per month.
They lose their 1A rights completely if anyone claims they are a threat to themselves or others, no due process required.
Not taking away their 1A, just imposing a few “Reasonable restrictions”!
So they should be just fine with this.
Miller ruling has been abused since day one.
“Nobody, and everyone knows it. Instead they’ll put in a billion $ or so to hire additional goons and try to TAKE your guns.”
Khaddafi tried gun confiscation in the 2011 Libyan civil war. He had his elite palace guard, thousands of South African mercenaries and his well-armed southern mercenary army.
They were shot, tortured, hanged and butchered and bulldozed into mass graves. Khaddafi was found hiding in a sewer pipe, dragged out and executed with his own gold-plated glock.
Thanks, but the real thanks goes to Law Dog. Thank him by passing this around (with attribution, please) and by going to his blog.
The analogy you make is wrong.
The 1st Amendment equivalent to the prior restraint of gun control would be removing your tongue or vocal cords, because you MIGHT yell “fire!” in a crowded theater (when there was, in fact, no fire). In reality, yelling “fire!” IS permitted; however, if there wasn’t any fire and someone or several people were hurt, you would be punished for causing the injuries without justification. The gun equivalent would be to punish you if you shot someone without justification.
I wish that the 2nd Amendment was given the same legal deference as the 1st, but it isn’t. Frankly, it should be given more definite answer, because there is no wiggle room in “shall not be infringed.”
... more deference....
Thanks rktman.
Joe Manchin: Beto O’Rourke ‘Not Taking My Guns Away’
Breitbart | 09/18/2019 | Awr Hawkins
Posted on 09/18/2019 1:40:51 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3779625/posts
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.