Now they control both Houses, so they're gonna try, try again.

[Wolseley]

Good old Dianne Feinstein, the octogenarian who never gives up. This bill is virtually identical to every other one she has ever submitted, to-wit: she wants to ban all firearms with removable magazines and which have "one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock.”

Because, you know, a semi-automatic or single-shot rifle is just a rifle, until it's all tricked out with all sorts of fancy cosmetics---then it magically turns into a rapid-cycle machine gun, which can shoot farther, faster, and with bigger ammo---probably 70, or even 80 caliber!

These people know absolutely nothing about firearms except what the likes of David Hogg has told them; and on top of that, they know very, very little about the Constitution they allegedly swore an oath to uphold and protect. Obviously they have no idea what "shall not be infringed" means.

Senate Dems introduce 'assault weapons' ban bill on 205 gun models, incl. shotguns, hunting rifles | American Military News

 

[Wolseley]

It's just like with this little rifle here: a Ruger .22 sport rifle. Very small caliber, semi-auto, Doesn't fire any faster or farther either way, nor does it use bigger ammo. You still have to squeeze the trigger every time to make it fire---you can't just hold the trigger down and spray lead; doesn't work that way.

The ONLY DIFFERENCE between these two weapons is that one looks like a plinking rifle, and the other looks all black and threatening. Whoooo----scary, huh? The kicker? It's the exact same weapon.

 

[paul1149]

By some moral calculus she can do this while under the continual protection of razor wire fencing and thousands of national guard troops.

 

[Hank77]

It's just like with this little rifle here: a Ruger .22 sport rifle. Very small caliber, semi-auto, Doesn't fire any faster or farther either way, nor does it use bigger ammo. You still have to squeeze the trigger every time to make it fire---you can't just hold the trigger down and spray lead; doesn't work that way.

The ONLY DIFFERENCE between these two weapons is that one looks like a plinking rifle, and the other looks all black and threatening. Whoooo----scary, huh? The kicker? It's the exact same weapon.


View attachment 296207

Not all rifles that look like the plinger are exactly the same weapon. One holds 5 or 6 rounds while the other holds clips with up to approx. 30 rounds. Both can fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger.

I think there is also a psychological component to using an AR or AK because of the way it looks, not for everyone but for many. What do militia members, prefer and why? Is it because they look like a military-style weapon?

 

[SkyWriting]

We lost our majority hold on the White House, the Senate, and Congress, and we still need to defend all of the normal issues we consider important? What's up with that?

 

[pescador]

We lost our majority hold on the White House, the Senate, and Congress, and we still need to defend all of the normal issues we consider important? What's up with that?

Who is "we"? We hold the majority in both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

 

[pescador]

Not all rifles that look like the plinger are exactly the same weapon. One holds 5 or 6 rounds while the other holds clips with up to approx. 30 rounds. Both can fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger.

I think there is also a psychological component to using an AR or AK because of the way it looks, not for everyone but for many. What do militia members, prefer and why? Is it because they look like a military-style weapon?

The people who wrote the Second Amendment lived in the time when single-shot flintlocks were the most prevalent weapon. They had no conception of modern weaponry, including AR and AK weapons.

BTW, have you read the first part of the 2nd Amendment? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." People running around taking the law into their own hands violates this clause: 1) they're not a well-regulated militia and 2) they don't have the security of the country as their goal.

 

[Hank77]

BTW, have you read the first part of the 2nd Amendment? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." People running around taking the law into their own hands violates this clause: 1) they're not a well-regulated militia and 2) they don't have the security of the country as their goal.

Agree.

 

[Fervent]

The people who wrote the Second Amendment lived in the time when single-shot flintlocks were the most prevalent weapon. They had no conception of modern weaponry, including AR and AK weapons.

BTW, have you read the first part of the 2nd Amendment? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." People running around taking the law into their own hands violates this clause: 1) they're not a well-regulated militia and 2) they don't have the security of the country as their goal.

The technology has nothing to do with the principle. The people who wrote the second amendment wrote it so the people would have the ability to defend themselves from government in revolution should the government ever become tyranical. That principle still stands, unless you would have the government give up modern weapons of war the people should have access to them. The ability to be armed is the difference between a citizen and a slave.

 

[SkyWriting]

Who is "we"? We hold the majority in both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

I was pretending I was the OP. Trying not to be too offensive. Whaaaaaaaaaaaah......

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Good old Dianne Feinstein, the octogenarian who never gives up. This bill is virtually identical to every other one she has ever submitted, to-wit: she wants to ban all firearms with removable magazines and which have "one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock.”

Because, you know, a semi-automatic or single-shot rifle is just a rifle, until it's all tricked out with all sorts of fancy cosmetics---then it magically turns into a rapid-cycle machine gun, which can shoot farther, faster, and with bigger ammo---probably 70, or even 80 caliber!

These people know absolutely nothing about firearms except what the likes of David Hogg has told them; and on top of that, they know very, very little about the Constitution they allegedly swore an oath to uphold and protect. Obviously they have no idea what "shall not be infringed" means.

Senate Dems introduce 'assault weapons' ban bill on 205 gun models, incl. shotguns, hunting rifles | American Military News

On the evening of October 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock, a 64-year-old man from Mesquite, Nevada, opened fire upon the crowd attending the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada. Between 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. PDT, he fired more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition from his 32nd floor suites in the Mandalay Bay Hotel, killing 60 people[a] and wounding 411, with the ensuing panic bringing the injury total to 867. About an hour later, Paddock was found dead in his room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. His motive remains officially undetermined.

His arsenal of weapons, associated equipment and ammunition included fourteen AR-15 rifles (all of which were equipped with bump stocks and twelve of which had 100-round magazines), eight AR-10-type rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver.[20] A bump stock modifies a semi-automatic weapon so that it can shoot in rapid succession, mimicking automatic fire.[4]


I don't think we're commenting on "cosmetics". Even the NRA supported the ban of bump stocks.

 

[Elear]

The people who wrote the Second Amendment lived in the time when single-shot flintlocks were the most prevalent weapon. They had no conception of modern weaponry, including AR and AK weapons.

That's irrelevant. They knew that weapon technology changes and becomes more powerful over time, from clubs to swords and bows and arrows to crossbows to firearms and so on. The sort of rifles being discussed in this bill are just current civilian-level weapon technology, as flintlocks were back then, and bows and arrows were before that, and before that, rocks and slings...

 

[Hank77]

The people who wrote the Second Amendment lived in the time when single-shot flintlocks were the most prevalent weapon. They had no conception of modern weaponry, including AR and AK weapons.

Our founders were well aware of how weaponry was always becoming more advanced.

Do you think if there had been a permanent standing army they would have written that individual people don't have the right to bear arms to protect themselves and others? I don't think they would have. Armies don't do this job and there weren't any police at that time.

The police seldom can show up in time to protect someone during the commission of a crime.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all in danger if we don't have the right to defend our own lives and the lives of others from those who seek to physically harm us.
I mean this is the sense of being in immediate danger.

 

[pescador]

We lost our majority hold on the White House, the Senate, and Congress, and we still need to defend all of the normal issues we consider important? What's up with that?

Who is "we"? We gained our majority hold on the White House and Congress, (note: the Senate is part of the Congress). And yes, we Americans need to defend all of the normal issues we consider important, but were neglected by the former President.

 

[pescador]

Our founders were well aware of how weaponry was always becoming more advanced.

Do you think if there had been a permanent standing army they would have written that individual people don't have the right to bear arms to protect themselves and others? I don't think they would have. Armies don't do this job and there weren't any police at that time.

The police seldom can show up in time to protect someone during the commission of a crime.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all in danger if we don't have the right to defend our own lives and the lives of others from those who seek to physically harm us.
I mean this is the sense of being in immediate danger.

Yes, weaponry had progressed from matchlocks to flintlocks! Wow! No more ignition delay!

If you recall, the war was fought against an overseas monarchy with a powerful army. So the solution was "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". I agree that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all in danger if we don't have the right to defend our own lives and the lives of others from those who seek to physically harm us. That is why we have the police and the military -- "well-trained militias". Why do you think the first part of the Second Amendment is there? Why doesn't it just say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?

 

[Aldebaran]

The people who wrote the Second Amendment lived in the time when single-shot flintlocks were the most prevalent weapon. They had no conception of modern weaponry, including AR and AK weapons.

Does that mean that military should also be limited to single-shot flintlocks?
If the government shouldn't be limited in its power, the why should the people be? Yes, "We the People".

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, weaponry had progressed from matchlocks to flintlocks! Wow! No more ignition delay!

If you recall, the war was fought against an overseas monarchy with a powerful army. So the solution was "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". I agree that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all in danger if we don't have the right to defend our own lives and the lives of others from those who seek to physically harm us. That is why we have the police and the military -- "well-trained militias". Why do you think the first part of the Second Amendment is there? Why doesn't it just say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?

If you want to know who the militia was and the role arms played, just read what the founding fathers wrote about it. Here's just a small sample:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

Much more can be found here: Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers | Buckeye Firearms Association

 

[pescador]

Does that mean that military should also be limited to single-shot flintlocks?
If the government shouldn't be limited in its power, the why should the people be? Yes, "We the People".

The government is limited in its power. We are a nation of laws.

After January 6, you're actually questioning why the people's power shouldn't be limited? Do you think it was appropriate for "the people" to invade the Capitol with the clear violent (murderous) intent to disrupt the certification by Congress of the election of the President?

 

[Aldebaran]

The government is limited in its power. We are a nation of laws.

Are we? What happened to all those laws that regulate how the election process is carried out securely and fairly? They clearly weren't being enforced when they allow the things to take place that happened.

After January 6, you're actually questioning why the people's power shouldn't be limited? Do you think it was appropriate for "the people" to invade the Capitol with the clear violent (murderous) intent to disrupt the certification by Congress of the election of the President?

Sounds like we should have martial law. Do you agree?

 

[pescador]

If you want to know who the militia was and the role arms played, just read what the founding fathers wrote about it. Here's just a small sample:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

Much more can be found here: Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers | Buckeye Firearms Association

Sorry, but I'm a Christian. God is my authority. Selective quotes from the Buckeye Firearms Association don't take priority over what The Bible clearly says.

If you rely on secular quotes about the Second Amendment, try this one...

"Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century."

John Paul Stevens, retired Supreme Court Justice