Posted on 04/25/2021 8:57:25 AM PDT by rktman
On Sunday, Vice President Kamala Harris on CNN’s “State of the Union” called on lawmakers to pass an “assault weapons ban.”
Anchor Dana Bash said, “More broadly, there have been at least 50 mass shootings in America in a little over a month. Your administration has made clear that infrastructure is the next big legislative priority. Why not guns? Anthony Fauci told me over the weekend that gun violence is a public health emergency.”
Harris said, “Well, I would disagree. We actually, as an administration, have taken action. The president issued executive orders, for example, on ghost guns, and there is only so much, however, that a president can do through executive action. This president, Joe Biden, has a long-standing history of speaking very clearly and unambiguously about the need for smart gun safety laws, back from the time that he was in the Senate through today. But I guess that emphasizes the point that both he when he was in the Senate when I was in the Senate, same thing, we were pushing for legislation. Congress has to act. Because we have to codify, that’s a fancy word for make permanent, make the law, that we agree.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
It doesn’t matter to me if they ban them or not. At best, they’ll place a ban on newly manufactured “assault weapons’ and those already in circulation will remain legal. The previous AWB didn’t impact. anyone who was prepared and a new AWB won’t either. As for me, I’m sticking with guns that aren’t attracting attention. Revolvers, lever actions, pump actions, bolt actions and single shot break actions.
“gun violence”
Propaganda term.
Guns cause violence in the same way that spoons cause obesity.
FYI all you Scott (self proclaimed left of Bernie Sanders) Adams worshipers. Kamala was his presidential hopeful in the 2020 Democrat debates.
Kameela toes can shut the heck up.
Yeah sure, Kah-mee. We should nuke China too.
Start looking and Executing criminals up, execute in the Public Square, great deterrent in the old west.
Best be armed if you want CCW my gun.
We need a DemocRat ban.
“Anthony Fauci told me over the weekend that gun violence is a public health emergency.”
https://breggin.com/dr-faucis-covid-19-treachery/
Now that she has solved the border crisis she has time to solve the assault rifle crisis...
That has been the plan since 1962.
As I have posted many times, military style rifles are just a smokescreen. Their ultimate goal is the total abolition of the RIGHT to own firearms of any type.
It has always been about handguns. Assault rifles are just a decoy to try and get their anti-gun foot in the door.
Once they get a ban on AWs then they will use the same reasons to go after handguns.
John Kennedy killed with a 5 shot bolt action rifle.
Medgar Evers, shot with a 5 shot 1917 bolt action Enfield rifle.
Martin Luther King, shot with a 4 shot Remington 760 pump action Gamemaster rifle.
Bobby Kennedy with a .22 Iver Johnson Cadet revolver.
George Wallace wounded with a 5 shot Charter Arms .38spl revolver.
Howard Johnsons shooter killed nine, wounded thirteen with a 4 shot RUGER .44 mag Deerslayer rifle.
Gerald Ford attacked with a 7 shot 1911 semi auto.
Edmond OK post office with two National Guard 7 shot 1911 pistols.
Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady with an RG-14 .22 revolver.
What do they all have in common? NONE over 7 rounds, yet after each one came a cry of panic to ban all of them.
And if you still have doubts consider this by Nelson P Shields, founder of Handgun control Inc.
Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.
“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest.
Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.
So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again.
Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.
My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered.
And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”
-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58
For those who may still doubt, Up until the 1980s HCI said they “Only wanted to control handguns. Long guns would not be affected.” Then they decided to go after semi-auto military style rifles along with handguns.
Yessir, thanks for asking.
We should fit you for a rope tie and find a lamppost looking for an ornament
Why don’t we start with your mouth Kamala?
It will wind up doing more harm to the nation than guns ever
will.
50 Mass Shootings in
Chicago, perhaps.
.
Ssssh.
Awesome!
The first thing they are gong to have to do to write a law is to narrow the definition of an assault weapon. Webster defines it as any various automatic or semiautomatic firearm. This means that some automatic or semiautomatic firearms are and are not within the definition.
Furthermore, congress can regulate firearms through its commerce and taxing powers—powers enumerated in the US Constitution. The principal powers available to Congress to regulate firearms are the “commerce power,” arising from the Commerce Clause, and the “taxing power,” arising from the Taxing and Spending Clause. But there is no law that says the federal government can remove firearms based upon their determinations. They can make them expensive through taxation, but it is not in the powers of the Constitution to remove or regulate based upon type of firearm especially when the final determination is states’ rights.
wy69
It’s not the attacker, it’s the bat. Someone would sue Hillerich & Bradsby Company.
wy69
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.