Another Fail Gun Banner Politician

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Her solution to fix future instances of potential gun running such as in the Yee case? Call on the White House to ban the import of “assault weapons.”

“Since Congress can pass no meaningful gun-control laws, even after the mass killing in Newtown, President Obama should use his pen to slow the import of these weapons, which have no place in our homes,” wrote Speier.

Really?.

Does this person even have a brain?

 

[Vylo]

While I disagree with those who wish to ban guns, I understand their motivations in wanting to reduce violence. What I don't understand is how with the 2nd amendment, and the recent SCOTUS ruling reinforcing it, that states and cities can be allowed to ban them. If you want to ban guns, you have to amend the 2nd amendment.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

While I disagree with those who wish to ban guns, I understand their motivations in wanting to reduce violence. What I don't understand is how with the 2nd amendment, and the recent SCOTUS ruling reinforcing it, that states and cities can be allowed to ban them. If you want to ban guns, you have to amend the 2nd amendment.

The fail here is that the [Brady Campaign endorsed] Leland Yee was conspiring to import and distribute illegal weapons.

“This FBI investigation of [the Brady Campaign endorsed] Leland Yee reveals how easy it is to import lethal assault weapons that were previously banned,” said Speier in an emailed statement from the Representative’s office to Guns.com.

There is no reasoning with that level of stupid.

 

[GarfieldJL]

While I disagree with those who wish to ban guns, I understand their motivations in wanting to reduce violence. What I don't understand is how with the 2nd amendment, and the recent SCOTUS ruling reinforcing it, that states and cities can be allowed to ban them. If you want to ban guns, you have to amend the 2nd amendment.

What are you talking about? The SCOTUS has thrown out the Chicago and DC gun bans...

Also relevant to this issue:

Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations - CBS News

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

What are you talking about? The SCOTUS has thrown out the Chicago and DC gun bans...

Also relevant to this issue:

Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations - CBS News

Still not as funny as the [Brady Campaign Honored] Leland Ye.

The useless oxygen thief in my OP thinks that a guy conspiring to import illegal weapons and support terrorist activity (also a violation of law) is a reason why we need more gun laws completely escapes me.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Still not as funny as the [Brady Campaign Honored] Leland Ye.

The useless oxygen thief in my OP thinks that a guy conspiring to import illegal weapons and support terrorist activity (also a violation of law) is a reason why we need more gun laws completely escapes me.

I don't consider this to be a laughing matter, I consider this to be a prime example as to why we should question the motives of politicians that push for more gun control laws.

 

[Vylo]

What are you talking about? The SCOTUS has thrown out the Chicago and DC gun bans...

[/URL]

That is what I'm talking about. The DC ban was thrown out and there was precedent set for the 2nd amendment definition that most conservatives follow (that the well regulated militia part and not infringing part are separate, not linked).

So how are states and other cities allowed to have all these laws restricting gun use and ownership? Why aren't these being thrown out as well, and why do people keep trying to ban guns when now it is absolutely and clearly against constitutional law?

 

[cow451]

While I disagree with those who wish to ban guns, I understand their motivations in wanting to reduce violence. What I don't understand is how with the 2nd amendment, and the recent SCOTUS ruling reinforcing it, that states and cities can be allowed to ban them. If you want to ban guns, you have to amend the 2nd amendment.

I don't agree with the idea that municipalities should invoke blanket bans. It makes no sense on any level. However, I do think that private property owners, religious institutions, colleges and businesses should have the right to enforce whatever limits they deem appropriate. I also think government facilities and properties should be governed by the governments, not the NRA.

Off-topic, Tribute to the late Tim Wilson:

The First Baptist Bar and Grill

 

[morningstar2651]

Really?.

Does this person even have a brain?

Does any politician?

*reads article*

This isn't a ban on gun ownership...it's a ban on gun imports. She's probably calling for this because she doesn't want to be associated with Leland Yee's scandal. She sees this as an opportunity to "protect children"...and by protect children, I mean pander to voters.

 

[Billnew]

Does any politician?

*reads article*

This isn't a ban on gun ownership...it's a ban on gun imports. She's probably calling for this because she doesn't want to be associated with Leland Yee's scandal. She sees this as an opportunity to "protect children"...and by protect children, I mean pander to voters.

Can't own them, if you can't get them. Ie step 1, ban imports, step 2; ban "evil guns"(ie assault weapons, Saturday night specials, not grandpa's huntin rifle or old war .45.

Gun grabbers look to divide and conquer,one step at a time.

 

[Burghman]

Continued reference to the 2nd Amendment in defense of gun ownership is ludicrous. The 2nd Amendment was written in and for a different time. This is the 21st Century. Today, we have a modern judicial system and multiple layers of law enforcement for protection. We no longer need a "militia" and an armory for protection.

 

[Vylo]

Continued reference to the 2nd Amendment in defense of gun ownership is ludicrous. The 2nd Amendment was written in and for a different time. This is the 21st Century. Today, we have a modern judicial system and multiple layers of law enforcement for protection. We no longer need a "militia" and an armory for protection.

The supreme court deemed that the militia clause is separate from the one stating that the state shall not infringe upon people's right to bears arms, and that it is within citizens' rights to own common firearms for use in defense of person and property. The only weapons that are not protect by this are weapons deemed "unusual".

 

[conamer]

Continued reference to the 2nd Amendment in defense of gun ownership is ludicrous. The 2nd Amendment was written in and for a different time. This is the 21st Century. Today, we have a modern judicial system and multiple layers of law enforcement for protection. We no longer need a "militia" and an armory for protection.

What we don't need is you telling us what we don't need, ntyvm.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Continued reference to the 2nd Amendment in defense of gun ownership is ludicrous. The 2nd Amendment was written in and for a different time. This is the 21st Century. Today, we have a modern judicial system and multiple layers of law enforcement for protection. We no longer need a "militia" and an armory for protection.

LOL, actually, you couldn't be any farther from the truth. Just because the 2nd Amendment was written when it was does NOT mean it was written ONLY for that day and age. That'd be a totally preposterous assumption to make, particularly given the wealth of information we have regarding the background, purpose, and intent of the amendment from those who wrote it. The 2nd Amendment cannot be compared to something "modern" like speed limit laws (which is the sort of comparison you're attempting). The 2nd Amendment is a PRINCIPLE, first and foremost.

Moreover, it's utterly irrelevant how "modern" our current judicial system may be, or "antiquated" the judicial system may have been back then. In point of fact, how we prosecute the law has changed very little at all from then to now. Very little. Sure, we've built up our precedents over time, but still... the method of prosecution is still virtually the same.

As to having "multiple layers of law enforcement for protection," again, using such a justification for disarming the citizenry is utterly absurd. And frankly, it actually REINFORCES the need for an armed citizenry. I suggest you re-read the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and why it was written.

 

[keith99]

Really?.

Does this person even have a brain?

They were American students. The least we can do is make sure that in any repeats they get killed by American made guns and ammo!

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Continued reference to the 2nd Amendment in defense of gun ownership is ludicrous. The 2nd Amendment was written in and for a different time. This is the 21st Century. Today, we have a modern judicial system and multiple layers of law enforcement for protection. We no longer need a "militia" and an armory for protection.

The police have no legal obligation to protect you, as an individual citizen.

 

[conamer]

The police have no legal obligation to protect you, as an individual citizen.

Let alone the ability...

 

[conamer]

Where were the police? They must Man Who Broke Into Florida Family’s Home Really Had No Idea What Was Waiting for Him | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[mafwons]

I don't consider this to be a laughing matter, I consider this to be a prime example as to why we should question the motives of politicians that push for more gun control laws.

It would appear in this instance that the motive for banning wepons is to het a higher street price for the illegal ones. It's kind of like Regans war on drugs without all that money Ollie made having tje CIA peddle dope there would have been no Iran/Contra fun. See these things work out so everybody wins.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

It would appear in this instance that the motive for banning wepons is to het a higher street prive for the illegal ones. It's kind of like Regans war on drugs without all that money Ollie made having tje CIA peddle dope there would have been no Iran/Contra fun. See these things work out so everybody wins.

Huh?