Posted on 02/14/2021 5:50:13 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
President Joe Biden on Feb. 14 urged Congress to strengthen existing laws concerning gun ownership on the third anniversary of the mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida.
“The Parkland students and so many other young people across the country who have experienced gun violence are carrying forward the history of the American journey. It is a history written by young people in each generation who challenged prevailing dogma to demand a simple truth: we can do better. And we will,” Biden said in a statement.
“This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”
In the afternoon of Feb. 14, 2018, a man identified by authorities as Nikolas Cruz, now 22, walked into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland and opened fire with an AR-15 rifle. The shooting left 17 dead, including 14 students. Cruz, who is currently awaiting trial, could face the death penalty.
After the shooting, a number of Parkland students and parents began agitating for stricter gun control laws, arguing that Cruz shouldn’t have been able to obtain a gun. But others pointed to failures by law enforcement, including safety officer Scot Peterson, who has pleaded not guilty to criminal charges for not entering the school building to confront Cruz, and urged restraint on new measures.
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
Yep!
All we need to know about the gun control agenda are the bios of the overwhelming majority of gun grabbers. They have serious ethical and legal issues of their own. For example why do many overpaid mannequins from HELLywood love to throw their star power behind the gun grabbers? Could it be that the rampant sex abuse and child molestation in the sleazy world of show biz has been a poorly kept dirty little secret for over 100 years? Seems to me potential sex abuse victims capable of shooting back would be BAD FOR BUSINESS
Regarding “assault weapons” and “weapons of war” ...
The 1939 “Miller” decision, regarding a tax stamp and a sawed-off shotgun, was as a practical matter incomplete, because at the time it was heard “Miller” was dead and nobody showed-up to argue his side.
Ultimately, the court held that the NFA was constitutional because there was no evidence presented that short-barreled shotguns had any military utility when, in fact, they were very useful in trench warfare.
The implication, then, is that the ONLY weapons the Second Amendment protects are “assault weapons” and “weapons of war”.
A couple of times in Unintended Consequences John Ross makes the assertion “Stripping motivated people of their dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea.”
Sorry T, This is not breaking news. It falls under the category of Shark Week On the discovery channel. Sharks like to eat stuff. Sometimes they mistake A surfer for a seal. Big government statists are not much smarter.
LOL!
The implication, then, is that the ONLY weapons the Second Amendment protects are “assault weapons” and “weapons of war”.
That attempt at reading Miller was repudiated by Heller and McDonald.
District of Columbia v Heller, 554 US 570, 580-81 (2008)
If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.
Heller at 624-25:
“In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment.
Heller at 627-28:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e. g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e. g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
No kidding. Even under Trump, most of the Fed goobermint probably couldn’t find its own arse with a flashlight and a GPS.
This is just the commies plan to start the war.
They are swamp creatures who live off of the government dole. There is a reason why eight of the top 15 wealthiest ZIP Codes Are within 25 miles of Washington DC. That’s where all of your money goes. Trump tried. If he were a little bit more pragmatic And had a deescalating sense of humor Like Reagan It would’ve been better. Put in the words of the great poet and philosopher Popeye “I am what I am and that’s all that I am!”
He doesn’t need to apologize for nominating 1/3 of the Supreme Court. They are in there late 40s and early 50s. Much like being a rock ‘n’ roll star they can still practice and perform until their 80s
Hop Sing Xiden needs to be told that Congress cannot do this. Gun ownership is one of the Bill of Rights. Xiden needs to be arrested along with all the gun grabbers in Congress. They need to be taught they are not God and cannot take away our God given rights. Arrest the bastards and lock them all up.
https://cwbchicago.com/
Bookmark it and read it for 15 minutes every day. There are a lot of people running that place that should be dropped in the lake with heavy weights attached to them.
Well........I'm 69. If they think they can put me in prison for 40 years they really are stupid. An advantage of my age is the fewer years they can take away if they come after me.
If these filthy fascists make me leave before I am ready, I'm not going alone.
How about focus on criminals with guns in about a dozen counties around the country and solve likely 90% of gun violence?
I wonder what part of “shall not be infringed” the retarded pedophile doesn’t understand. Go rub your own hairy legs, JOE.
Herblock’s cartoon is for the sniper variant of the Mosin-Nagant 1891/30.
Sure as hell wished I had gotten mine for $12.78. Still, I got in below the Mendoza Line ($200).
As long as you can see a 20-inch by 20-inch target at 800 meters with the iron sights, in competent hands, it will hit the target at least 8 times out of 10.
With the 3.5 power PU fixed focus scope, you can easily ruin someone’s day out to 2400 meters.
For close-in cleanup, the M. 1891 bayonet is a thing of beauty. Vampires, Zombies, and most sentient threats run at the sight of its cruciform blade as its length allows you to engage them over in the next ZIP Code.
The 7.62 x 54R ammunition is readily available and only slightly more expensive than NATO 7.62 x 51 mm / WIN .308 rounds.
However, the chiropractor bills after a day at the range really add up.
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.