Posted on 05/25/2022 2:25:47 PM PDT by rktman
Well said.
The gun probably had that infamous “thing in the back that goes up”.
They claim 2nd amendment doesn’t specifically mention “assault weapons.” Which to them means we can have the government ban them.
Then what’s to prevent the government from banning television, radio, internet videos, and movies, none of which are specifically mentioned in the first amendment as “press?”
“(andrea)Mitchell: ‘Nothing in the Constitution at All about Assault Weapons’ “
Hey Andrea, see the word “arms” in there?
Well as long as it wasn’t the dreaded, much deadlier, “GHOST” gun. These assclowns have zero conscience. She needs to bone up on her diatribes using this messaging guide:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf
Alexander Hamilton said cannons were OK.
The assault weapons of the day, were approved by the U. S.
Constitution.
FIDIOTS!
Like I said - single-sheet printing presses.
Yes.
She praised Castro after he died. She Should have lost her job.
Believe me, the Redcoats thought the Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles were assault weapons...
I have to say that whenever I see some comment by Andrea Mitchell in the back of my mind I hear Rush saying “Angrier Mitchell”. - ha!
He lives on!
Weapon must possess all 3 characteristics to be classified as an 'assault weapon, iirc. Lucky to recall basic HTML these days. Oy, gettin' old sucks!
Everyone should get a copy of the Senate Report on the RKBA published back in 1982 by the US Government. You will see why it is highly suppressed and now out of print.
I am old enough to have a paper copy. It is very hard to find on line but here is a link to it. It includes the history of the Militias, the meanings, and 1800s Court cases.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
Court Case GA:
19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
Now you see why it is out of print and highly suppressed.
Because “well regulated militias” don’t need assault weapons to hunt deer, right Andrea?
Actually “arms” are mentioned in the Bill of Rights not guns. It covers any weapon that the common soldier is a expected to use in armed forces whether it be a sword, musket, assault rifle or laser gun.
Andrea, “arms” has a specific meaning.
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.