Posted on 10/05/2017 8:37:16 AM PDT by rktman
Foster said banning individuals from carrying assault weapons in public is absolutely not a violation of the Second Amendment.
A well-regulated militia is completely consistent with having military-style arms put under lock-and-key in a regulated environment, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
The leftists have been proposing this for the last fifty years. Gun club lock ups.
Reminds me of the ancient Greek politician who had everyone store their arms in a local temple during a meeting.
When the meeting was over, the people found the temple had been seized by the politician’s henchmen and the politician declared himself to be the sole ruler of the now unarmed public.
Idiot....
..., “the right of the People” to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
.
And how would you achieve that, but by constant drill?
.
They tried this crap here in MA and it didn’t even make it to a vote.
How very European (german) of the UNITED STATES congressman.
There is a reason we can’t trust the paper pushers in DC. Politicians hate civilians and bureaucrats hate everyone.
That being said, I have two comments about the inevitable push by the dems to use a tragedy to further erode our rights. One is that it doesn't make sense that there are devices that are legal that alter the performance of a legal gun to make it more deadly. The other is that I don't understand why people aren't terrified about the talk of a mental health provision for gun ownership. If that ever happened, everybody not in agreement with the gov would be declared insane and lose their Second Amendment rights!
You first Congressman. When NOAA and the IRS give up fully automatic weapons let’s talk.
Neveer forget what happened in Faneuil Hall,1775!
“Just after the Redcoats’ attempt to seize the arms of the rebel militia at Lexington and Concord in 1775, Gen. Thomas Gage ordered all the inhabitants of Boston to turn in their arms at Faneuil Hall for temporary safekeeping. When the people complied, troops seized the firearms, never to return them.”
NEVER FORGET!
Typically the lowest knowledge lawyers end up working for municipalities with such total ignorance of law and the inability to read the law. I suspect this person has zero understanding of law or legal process.
A well-regulated militia is completely consistent with having military-style arms put under lock-and-key in a regulated environment,
actually, it means nothing of the sort...
Hmmm, I wasn’t aware that Rep. Foster had been given a seat on the Supreme Court and could rule on what the 2nd Amendment does or doesn’t say....
All of us will have to “officially” declare ourselves a gun club.
More specifically, well regulated means to reload in time. People were still using flintlock muskets. If you were fighting as a group in close formation, you didnt want to be pouring gunpowder while the guy next to you was firing and sending sparks flying. Everyone loads, everyone aims, everyone fires in unison. Volley fire also helped with the terrible inaccuracy of the smoothbore muskets of the era.
Well Regulated = In good working order.
There was no Governmental Control of the various Militias. Being a Militia Member meant you were an Armed Civilian.
Trivia - 70% of the Cannons used by the Patriots were Privately owned. Most came off Armed Merchant Vessels.
Back in the early to mid 1990s, politicians up here in the Great White North, after a few high profile shooting related incidents, had similar ideas involving having guns kept locked up in the clubs and for hunters at rural U-Store It facilities. Basically making urban areas gun free supposedly. However, one columnist quipped “Oh, so whenever the criminals need to replenish their supplies, they will know just where to go”. Seems that the congressman has not figured that one out yet, eh? Take off, eh?
Yes, and not down at the “local gun club”, but at my friendly neighborhood militia leader’s farm.
‘A well regulated militia.’
FWIW, I think it refers to the fact that when it was concocted, a standing,professional army of sufficient strength did not exist; it was necessary to buttress with the various militias, which were private citizens who gathered together on a consistent basis, for training with their own weaponry...
I would remind the honorable congressman that the British tried that a couple hundred years ago.
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.