Not Infringed?

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The push is on to take out the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States. Watch for a push to put US gun owners under control of the UN as well. Check out the "gun tax" in this witches proposed bill. The Liberty tree is dying.

TAKE NOTE:

There is NO mention about doing this in a LEGAL manner under the US Constitution, no mention of amending the Constitution or a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the Constitution, they are just going to TAKE our RIGHTFUL power. Political or otherwise.



Feinstein Goes For Broke With New Gun-Ban Bill


Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004—has announced that on the first day of the new Congress—January 3[SUP]rd[/SUP]— she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. On Dec. 17[SUP]th[/SUP], Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21[SUP]st[/SUP] that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.


According to a Dec. 27[SUP]th[/SUP] posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:


· Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.


· Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.


· Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.



· Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:

· Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

· Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.

· Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.



· Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.


· Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.


· Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.


· Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.


· Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban.Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”



The Department of Justice study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”



“Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, availablehere. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s—all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”—rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation’s murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.




Traces: Feinstein makes several claims, premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (relatively infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.


Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative: As noted, Feinstein intends to introduce her bill on January 3[SUP]rd[/SUP]. President Obama has said that gun control will be a “central issue” of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it.



Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban. Our elected representatives in Congress must here from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal. You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our Write Your Representatives tool here: http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx

Millions of Americans own so-called “assault weapons” and tens of millions own “large” magazines, for
self-defense, target shooting, and hunting. For more information about thehistory of the “assault weapon” issue, please visit www.GunBanFacts.com.






http://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=bk7vdn7nb8t6o#mail
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
sounds to me this should go to the SC for defining....just how far does "bear arms" go?.....like a surface to air missile?...a bazooka?...There is also no mention that our guns must be the same size as the governments...one can only assume considering the time of writing 1776 things would have been more equal...
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I just wrote both my Senators and my Congressman asking them to do everything possible to defeat this worthless traitor and her treasonous violation of her oath of office and the Constitution she swore to protect. I find it interesting she "looked at photos", presumably to determine what was ugly and evil looking and should be banned. If she'd looked at Congressional photos she'd have been top of the list along with Pelosi, Waters, Boxer, Jackson-Lee and several others of their ilk.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
sounds to me this should go to the SC for defining....just how far does "bear arms" go?.....like a surface to air missile?...a bazooka?...There is also no mention that our guns must be the same size as the governments...one can only assume considering the time of writing 1776 things would have been more equal...

To bad you never took a civics class. You are missing everything. You also notice that there is NO mention of banning these rifles, not only "assault rifles" but ANY semi-auto, which are used ever day during deer season in many states.

The cartridge that the "assault rifles" they are complaining about are MUCH smaller and less powerful that EVERY popular hunting caliber out there. SO, IF they want us to use less powerful or 'smaller' they WILL have to out law EVERY caliber larger than .22.

This has NOTHING to do with crime control OR protecting children. It is a total take over of the States AND the Country by the Federal Government. They are no different that King George III was. Canada was willing to suck up to him, we were not. We will likely not again.

There are ONLY two kinds of people out there, friends of the Constitution or it's enemy.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
sounds to me this should go to the SC for defining....just how far does "bear arms" go?.....like a surface to air missile?...a bazooka?...There is also no mention that our guns must be the same size as the governments...one can only assume considering the time of writing 1776 things would have been more equal...
True enough there is no mention that our guns must be the same size as the government's, but there is equally no mention that ours can't be or shouldn't be.

How far does "bear arms" go? When the citizens of the United States sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. That's pretty far.

In addition, Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

The Founders of the U.S. Constitution included Marque and Reprisal in addition to authorizing Congress to declare war, so that in some cases, the U.S. government would not have to engage the military and have a costly war. The risk would then be concentrated on those who chose to engage in the reprisal. This implicitly empowers private citizens to protect themselves and other Americans.

In other words, if you can afford an aircraft carrier, you can own an aircraft carrier, including one complete with an olive drab bazooka and shiny pretty surface-to-air missiles. When the Constitution was written, the people had at their disposal, to keep and bear, the cutting-edge weapons of the day. And if you interpret the Second Amendment to mean personal Liberty in the same way that the First Amendment and all others are interpreted to mean personal Liberty, then we would all have the right to own rifles, pistols, shotguns, and clubs, knives, swords, artillery, bombs, missiles, or weapons of mass destruction including nerve gas tipped nuclear weapons that can be fired from my new M-1 Abrams main battle tank parked in my driveway.

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep and bear any and all weapons, no matter how destructive. Granted, in modern times there are certainly several unacceptable social risks posed by private citizens’ possession and use of today’s most powerful weapons, so society, but not the government, should be the one making that call.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Also, the People have the RIGHT to disarm the government, including it's agencies such as the police or even the military. The People have control over all government functions. The government has NO right to disarm the People. The United States was set up to insure that the government was subject to the People, NOT the other way around. The People also have the right to disband the government and/or defend themselves from it when it becomes oppressive.

Rights, including the right to bear arms, are NOT GRANTED by the government, therefor, the government cannot take them away.
 
Last edited:

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Shall not be infringed means just what it says, provided you read it with a brain and not with a liberal vacuum.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Settle down Leo you are sounding brain dead as well... Or just plain stupid.... Because I speak from within LEGAL constitutional change
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
You may be speaking legally and logically. The subject of discussion however is the evil female dog anti-American, anti-Constitution, unfit, treasonous empty headed vacuum brained criminal Feinstein.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
sounds to me this should go to the SC for defining ....
No, no, NO !

just how far does "bear arms" go? ..... like a surface to air missile? ... a bazooka? ...
As Turtle alludes: What can you afford ?

There is also no mention that our guns must be the same size as the governments ... one can only assume considering the time of writing 1776 things would have been more equal ...
One can gain some insight, and discern the thinking of the framers and what their intent surely was - with respect to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and specifically the Second Amendment - by reading Federalist No. 46, penned by James Madison, writing under the pseudonym of "Pubiius".

Most relevant portion highlighted in bold:

The Federalist No. 46

The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared

New York Packet
Tuesday, January 29, 1788
[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:

RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.

Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States. Into the administration of these a greater number of individuals will expect to rise. From the gift of these a greater number of offices and emoluments will flow. By the superintending care of these, all the more domestic and personal interests of the people will be regulated and provided for. With the affairs of these, the people will be more familiarly and minutely conversant. And with the members of these, will a greater proportion of the people have the ties of personal acquaintance and friendship, and of family and party attachments; on the side of these, therefore, the popular bias may well be expected most strongly to incline.

Experience speaks the same language in this case. The federal administration, though hitherto very defective in comparison with what may be hoped under a better system, had, during the war, and particularly whilst the independent fund of paper emissions was in credit, an activity and importance as great as it can well have in any future circumstances whatever. It was engaged, too, in a course of measures which had for their object the protection of everything that was dear, and the acquisition of everything that could be desirable to the people at large. It was, nevertheless, invariably found, after the transient enthusiasm for the early Congresses was over, that the attention and attachment of the people were turned anew to their own particular governments; that the federal council was at no time the idol of popular favor; and that opposition to proposed enlargements of its powers and importance was the side usually taken by the men who wished to build their political consequence on the prepossessions of their fellow-citizens.

If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration, as will overcome all their antecedent propensities. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered.

The remaining points on which I propose to compare the federal and State governments, are the disposition and the faculty they may respectively possess, to resist and frustrate the measures of each other.

It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage. But in a distinct and very important point of view, the advantage will lie on the same side. The prepossessions, which the members themselves will carry into the federal government, will generally be favorable to the States; whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government. A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of Congress, than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the particular States. Every one knows that a great proportion of the errors committed by the State legislatures proceeds from the disposition of the members to sacrifice the comprehensive and permanent interest of the State, to the particular and separate views of the counties or districts in which they reside. And if they do not sufficiently enlarge their policy to embrace the collective welfare of their particular State, how can it be imagined that they will make the aggregate prosperity of the Union, and the dignity and respectability of its government, the objects of their affections and consultations? For the same reason that the members of the State legislatures will be unlikely to attach themselves sufficiently to national objects, the members of the federal legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects. The States will be to the latter what counties and towns are to the former. Measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States. What is the spirit that has in general characterized the proceedings of Congress? A perusal of their journals, as well as the candid acknowledgments of such as have had a seat in that assembly, will inform us, that the members have but too frequently displayed the character, rather of partisans of their respective States, than of impartial guardians of a common interest; that where on one occasion improper sacrifices have been made of local considerations, to the aggrandizement of the federal government, the great interests of the nation have suffered on a hundred, from an undue attention to the local prejudices, interests, and views of the particular States. I mean not by these reflections to insinuate, that the new federal government will not embrace a more enlarged plan of policy than the existing government may have pursued; much less, that its views will be as confined as those of the State legislatures; but only that it will partake sufficiently of the spirit of both, to be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the preorgatives of their governments. The motives on the part of the State governments, to augment their prerogatives by defalcations from the federal government, will be overruled by no reciprocal predispositions in the members.

Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

PUBLIUS
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I wonder what other parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights these anti-gun nuts are willing to alter? I wonder what those who support them now will do when the rights THEY like are altered or removed?

How many who CLAIM they only want "LEGAL CHANGE" are willing to fight when the illegal take over that is coming take place, OR, are they going to say, "It's only guns and they are bad"?
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Settle down Leo you are sounding brain dead as well... Or just plain stupid.... Because I speak from within LEGAL constitutional change

You will have to explain that one. Are you suggesting a constitutional change? I don't think the clown will get her bill through. Or at least I hope not.

15_Clown-Dianne-Feinstein-23708.jpg
 

purgoose10

Veteran Expediter
To bad you never took a civics class. You are missing everything. You also notice that there is NO mention of banning these rifles, not only "assault rifles" but ANY semi-auto, which are used ever day during deer season in many states.

The cartridge that the "assault rifles" they are complaining about are MUCH smaller and less powerful that EVERY popular hunting caliber out there. SO, IF they want us to use less powerful or 'smaller' they WILL have to out law EVERY caliber larger than .22.

This has NOTHING to do with crime control OR protecting children. It is a total take over of the States AND the Country by the Federal Government. They are no different that King George III was. Canada was willing to suck up to him, we were not. We will likely not again.

There are ONLY two kinds of people out there, friends of the Constitution or it's enemy.

Load your own. I have a retired man in my neighborhood who reloads ammo for folks for a small fee. Cheaper than buying fresh ammo. Maybe a good side business for a retired expediter.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
You will have to explain that one. Are you suggesting a constitutional change? I don't think the clown will get her bill through. Or at least I hope not.

15_Clown-Dianne-Feinstein-23708.jpg

Even IF her law goes through it will not be legal Constitutional change since it does infringe on our ABSOLUTE RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Load your own. I have a retired man in my neighborhood who reloads ammo for folks for a small fee. Cheaper than buying fresh ammo. Maybe a good side business for a retired expediter.

Funny you should say that. I tried to buy a reloading business in 2010 but the guy sold it to his neighbor.

I do have a friend that loads but that will not matter. IF they ban the caliber they will ban the bullets and other components.
 
Top