Pelosi: We want registration; Holder: 2A won't stand in our way

Madam Speaker needs to be removed from her office as well as a few other members.

US Constitution does not grant the Federal government the Right to regulate Firearms.

The US government does not have that authority.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



These last two amendments, in conjunction, are not only brilliant, but a complete Bulwark against Federal Government Tyranny...

If they are upheld.

Alot of what th Federal Government is doing is completely unconstitutional, noone will stand up to them though.


-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick


Despite many fine posts in this thread, yours was the one I chose to star because it sums it all up nicely. The 10th and especially the 9th are the two that define the limitations of the federal government. By overstepping these two amendments they display absolute tyrannical actions. The people and/or the states can address these grievances by petition under the first or enforce them under the second should the petitions not be addressed.

This is what desperately needs to be taught in schools. It was taught in mine some 20 years ago. Sadly, I think true education, citizenship, morality and responsibility fall under "zero tolerance" for lesson plans today.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse


And BTW, in case you didn't know law abiding citizens CANNOT buy, or legally own FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS anymore.... That's an infringedment of the Second Amendment....

[edit on 10-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Actually, it is completely legal for US citizens to own fully automatic weapons, but you must apply for the tax stamp which costs $200 for each weapon.

You must get the signature of the chief law enforcement officer in your area, get fingerprinted, then send the form to the FBI for approval. If you have a squeaky clean record, you get the approval and your tax stamp. You then pick up your nifty fully automatic weapon. Some of the cheapest weapons will run you around $3,000 for a cosmetically inferior 9mm sten. A fully automatic m-16 will run around $12,000 or more. The price of the weapons is sky high because a law in 1986 mandated that no new machineguns/fully automatic weapons could be manufactured for the general public.

By definition, the 1986 law is unconstitutional, but no one has made a big enough fuss about it.

What is very interesting about this legislation is that if you are a business/corporation, you can still acquire and sell the latest fully automatic weapons and destructive devices. Who can you sell these weapons to? Law enforcement agencies and the military.

This tells me the new legislation was created for the empowerment of corporations and the infringement of the rights of the individual. Clearly a fascist agenda.

[edit on 11-4-2009 by xman_in_blackx]

reply to post by synthesizer
Perhaps you need to tone down your rhetoric. You have no idea what we have been doing. Most of us are working within the system, contacting our congressmen and representatives, writing letters to the editor, and writing op-ed peices.
We are using legal means at this time, trying to bring the knowledge to the American people that their rights are being taken away. Unfortunately a lot of people are totally apathetic.
But fortunately, there are a tremendous number of people who, like those on this board, are working to protect our rights.
My question to you is, what are you doing to protect our rights?

reply to post by The Bald Champion
The statement that 90% of the guns coming into Mexico are coming from America is a fallacy. Many of the weapons are military grade. And if you look into it closesly, I beleive you find these weapons are Chinese or Russian.
Yes, some guns are getting into Mexico from America. But I feel sure these guns are primarily stolen weapons.

reply to post by mandroid

Great post Mandroid!

Thanks for doing some digging and and then actually coming back here to link it for everyone else. To often when people dig they come back and argue the point in their own words. Good job showing that the OP is written to be more inflamatory than it should be.

There are real dangers in their rhetoric though.

We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered. We don't want them crossing state lines as this legislation would do in the District of Columbia. [1]-Pelosi

Registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation. It is the red alert to anyone with their finger on the pulse of this issue. It would give them carte blanche to round them up at will. Hiding them would no longer be an option because if they are registered to you and you don't give them up then you would be charged with something or other until they had them. Registration is equal to confiscation as they are both simply terms for disarmament. One just takes longer.


A side point to The Bald Champion

I want one of you to U2U me when someone has ACTUALLY taken your guns.

In 2006 some friends and I lived in a large and beautiful house, we lived there for several years and could afford it because of the 4 way split. half of our basement was converted into a party room with foosball couches music and a bar. One night at a rowdy party one of my roomates and I got into a fight. No fists were ever thrown although there was some yelling and shoving. It was a typical drunken argument between two friends.

One of the girls (a regular at these parties) called the cops. No big deal the argument was over before they got there and we told them so. Then they asked if there were any guns in the house. What?? But we told them that all of us kept firearms in the house and 3 were NRA members. I was charged with domestic violence because my roomate and I lived in the same house. A domestic violence conviction means never owning a pistol again. So after a year and a hlf fighting in court I was convicted of operating a firearm while intoxicated (a lesser charge even though my pistol was in its case under my bed the whole time, but still allows me to own a pistol) A large fine, 40 days in jail AND forced to surrender my pistol.

There's one....
If you are ever in a seemingly minor incident, be very aware of what happend to me.

Registration does lead eventually to confiscation. In the state of Illinois the firearm is not registered the person is. Yes they know were you live, and yes they will come after you when the Democratic weapons ban goes into affect.

In the end, have the means to protect yourself, spread out your firearms not only in your house but in other place’s as well as so when the police (Obama’s Army) comes knocking at you door they don’t confiscate everything!!

On another note as a firearm owner please be safe and smart!!!!

This is an outrage. How do people who believe that their cause is greater than the Supreme Law of the Land get into office? Personally, i believe they aren't elected, they're placed. Pelosi seems to be this administration's NWO liaison. She isn't pulling the strings herself, but she has obama on a tight leash. Disarmament of the American people is part of the agenda set forth by the UN to slowly take away our sovereignty, and essentially, nationalize the US. Once that's complete, we'll all be bowing to our one world government masters. Guard your weapons.


TheAssociate

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

If you are an American perhaps you should make yourself more familiar with the Second Amendment...

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.

www.law.cornell.edu...

When the government implements laws restricting ANY firearms, even fully automatic, which most Americans who own firearms do not have, these laws are UnConstitutional.

I disagree and I think the Supreme Court will have to take this up eventually and periodically as our armaments evolve. There HAS to be a limit on guns BUT that doesn't mean that our rights are infringed upon. Does the Constitution define what is an arm? You said firearms but your quote says "arms". Should we all be able to drive around with machine guns mounted to the top of our cars? Does a cannon qualify as "arms"? The Constitution does not say that we should be able to keep every kind of armament ever invented. It says:

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.

The Constitution leaves the matter of the definition of "Arms" open to interpretation and thus the interpretation of "infringed" is open as well. Obviously I am not a second amendment scholar and am not familiar on the SC rulings that affect our modern interpretation of this amendment so, to me at least, this is not a cut and dry case.

I suggest that we not all be allowed to have personal HAARP arrays.

Our right is to be able to keep arms and bear them as well. It could be argued (unsuccessfully) that a Bowie knife is an arm and as long as we all get to keep and bear Bowie knives around we have not had out right infringed upon. This isn't my personal belief so save the flames for someone else.

reply to post by mandroid

Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Mexico that the Second Amendment would not “stand in the way” of administration plans to crack down on alleged gun trafficking to Mexico.

I agree that the Second Amendment is open to interpretation. But for a government official to say that the Second Amendment would not "stand in the way" of plans to crack down on a trumped up weapons exporting scheme by cracking down on our right to bear arms is, at the very least, concerning. The notion that weapons used by the mexican cartels came over the boreder from the US has been proven false. The mexican government should be handling these cartels themselves. Further restrictions on our Second Amendment rights is not going to solve this problem. That's only going to leave more and more US citizens vulnerable to violence spilling over the border.

back to the point:

NO government official should regard the Constitution as a roadblock to furthering his/her agenda. The Constitution should be regarded as what it is: The Supreme Law of the Land. Period. If a politician find the Constitution an inconvenience to fighting for his/her cause, i say it's time to get that politician out of office.


TheAssociate

Does anyone see the Irony in the fact that obama and his Liberal goons won’t support Americans who cling to their religion and guns, yet they are so supportive about reaching out to Islamic barbarians who cling to their religion and bombs? The lines are blurred my friends the wolves are inside the fence and ready to start eating the sheep. We are fastly approaching the precipice of our time will we overcome and change, or fail and be enslaved by our own government.

They are taxing every thing they can, and soon It would not surprise me to see a tax on air. There will come a time when we either stand up or change things ourselves or we submit to enslavement you can trust others to change things for you we must make the change ourselves.

Originally posted by AlienChaser
reply to post by mandroid

Registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation. It is the red alert to anyone with their finger on the pulse of this issue. It would give them carte blanche to round them up at will. Hiding them would no longer be an option because if they are registered to you and you don't give them up then you would be charged with something or other until they had them. Registration is equal to confiscation as they are both simply terms for disarmament. One just takes longer.

I don't know if I agree about registration but what I do believe is the US government has had a sick hold on the citizens of DC for far too long. Pelosi is a defacto racist in my opinion for thinking she was elected by the citizens of California to come and dictate laws to the citizens of DC as if they were not smart enough to do so for themselves. The gun grab in DC was wrong. I just think for some of the heavy caliber arms such as machine guns, bazookas, grenades etc. the line has to be drawn somewhere for the protection of the citizenry against violence if just for the risk of crossfire between factions.

I know that is not a popular view but I guess I would feel more comfortable with some sort of way to keep track of where things are. Maybe the licensing process where you get tested for at least a minimum aptitude of proficiency and safety in the use of a gun like we go through to be able to drive a car would cover the bases.

I had to get a few days worth of instruction and then a test in order to apply pesticides in Washington state. I don't think it's too much for society to set some sort of limits on things that could be dangerous to many people if used haphazardly.

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by mandroid

 

Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Mexico that the Second Amendment would not “stand in the way” of administration plans to crack down on alleged gun trafficking to Mexico.

I agree that the Second Amendment is open to interpretation. But for a government official to say that the Second Amendment would not "stand in the way" of plans to crack down on a trumped up weapons exporting scheme by cracking down on our right to bear arms is, at the very least, concerning. The notion that weapons used by the mexican cartels came over the boreder from the US has been proven false. The mexican government should be handling these cartels themselves. Further restrictions on our Second Amendment rights is not going to solve this problem. That's only going to leave more and more US citizens vulnerable to violence spilling over the border.

back to the point:

NO government official should regard the Constitution as a roadblock to furthering his/her agenda. The Constitution should be regarded as what it is: The Supreme Law of the Land. Period. If a politician find the Constitution an inconvenience to fighting for his/her cause, i say it's time to get that politician out of office.


TheAssociate

I believe Holder's statement is interpreted differently depending on what set of glasses a person is wearing. To me it reads as if Holder (and Obama) knows for sure that the second amendment exists but that he thinks we can find a way to cut whatever the flow of arms to Mexican drugsters is without affecting our second amendment rights. For one, the laws that are already on the books should be enforced.

In my opinion the same people behind 911 and the Patriot Act, which was already prepared before 911 happened, is the same group trying to do whatever they can to stop Obama and the new Congress from making any substantive changes to the anti-Constitutional game plan they had going until they can get back in office. I'm talking about the PNAC and the neocons that are not even real conservatives.

Why is the SAF making this attack and not the NRA? The SAF wrote the hit piece that this thread is based upon.

Gun sales have jumped sharply since November. Literally millions of guns have went through FFL hands in this short time. Many more than in any other time in recent history anyway. The sharp rise in the NCIS check system has stressed their resources to their limit. Being the FFL dealer does this check you don't think our leaders in DC are not paying attention? The percentage in people agreeing with assault weapons bans seems to be lowering as well. This I'm sure has to do with people running out an getting anything they can in fear that a ban will come. Try to but an AR 15 right now. It's not all that easy and you will pay much more than this time last year even. All these sales are not to the stereotype gun nut trying to stockpile but people that might have thought once or twice about it but never got around to it. Now these people are scared not only of a ban but the possible repercussions.

The DC jet set is paying attention to all this. They are getting more and more fearful that the population are becoming more and more angry and many more are arming themselves. Not just with a nightstand revolver. but those dreaded black rifles that the liberal mind set says needs wiped off the map.

The hoopla in Mexico is a convenient event to try and curtail all this new found desire of the American people to arm themselves. They believe they will be able to brow beat the states into allowing this. But many states have already taken steps showing the federal government that they still remember their sovereignty. This is something that the feds don't think anyone will actually think will work for the states but the undeniable rumble for the people daily reminds these states that have already declared their sovereignty and many others are putting bills on their floors to follow suit.

This puffing us the federal chest I do not believe end well. for those in federal office. Eve if they find a way to pull off a ban I really don't see the people laying down. Not all of them anyway.

reply to post by mandroid

I know that is not a popular view but I guess I would feel more comfortable with some sort of way to keep track of where things are. Maybe the licensing process where you get tested for at least a minimum aptitude of proficiency and safety in the use of a gun like we go through to be able to drive a car would cover the bases.

I see what you're saying about registration, but you must realize that this is a very dangerous middle ground you are thinking of.

Registration in the sense of knowing who, what, and where the weapons are seems innocent enough on the cover, but in the pages is where the danger of confiscation lies. It has been proven to be the case over and over whenever and wherever the citizens are disarmed by goverment mandate or force.

I agree with your idea of a licensing similar to driving, wherein the permit to own especially a handgun is granted after passing a written test demonstrating that one has a good grasp on proper saftey and how to treat a firearm with the respect it deserves. Then being accompanied to the range and by an instructor and proving the test by actually fireing the weapon and handling it propery with live rounds.

This would seem to make more sense than our current system which licenses you by looking primarily at past criminal offences in an attempt to predict what you might or might not do in the future. Believe me (hypothetically) if I ever go off the deep end and decide to go postal, it will make no difference if I have a legal permit or not.

Proper gun saftey and education is essential, and if it were taught in primary school we would not have near the gun related violence and accidents in the younger population.


Also on the post.

Any guns being funneled through America into Mexico are not getting their by some group buying 1000 deer rifles and trucking them to the cartels. In fact the only groups that can buy fully automatic assault rifles anymore are law enforcement. Mabey all the department chiefs should be under investigation as possible smugglers.

What a farce... Fortunately it doesn't seem to be headed anywhere.

This administration surely feels the currents of the country right now, everything is on backorder even ammunition is scarce, the manufaturers just can't keep up. Public sentiment is firmly in support of gun rights, any new legislation will be quickly "shot down" even the democrats have stood in opposition to any new restrictions. openly declaring in a preemtive warning that they will not support new legislation.

This may be simply pandering to the masses in echoing public opinion but it means 2A is safe, for now at least.

For the love of god California, you guys have to Vote Nancy Pelosi out. She annoys the hell out of me. and She's dumb as hell.

And now she thinks she is above the Constitution? Are you going to take this Cali?

You have to abide by her laws, but she is free to ignore HER constitutional laws.

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith

tement that 90% of the guns coming into Mexico are coming from America is a fallacy.

The flow of arms across the U.S. border leads right to the systemic corruption that afflicts the Mexican government and the United States’ own trade policies.

The deadliest weapons now in the hands of criminal groups in Mexico, are getting in through private-sector arms exports sanctioned by our own State Department.

Grenade launchers, explosives and “assault” weapons are then corruptly transferred to drug trafficking organizations via the Mexican military and law enforcement agencies.

The shipment of military-grade weapons to the Mexican government under a State Department program, given the extent of corruption within that government, is essentially like “shipping weapons to a crime syndicate.”

The U.S. State Department’s Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) program allows private companies to sell defense hardware or services to foreign purchasers — which include both government units and private buyers in other countries. State reports provide evidenc of the extensive volume of U.S. private-sector arms shipments to both Mexico and Latin America in general.

According to DCS reports, $1 billion in defense hardware was approved for export to Mexico via private U.S. companies between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2007. During the same period, a total of some $3.7 billion in weapons and hardware was approved under the DCS program to all of Latin America and the Caribbean.

In addition to the military hardware exports approved for Mexico, $3.8 billion in defense-related “services” also were approved for “export” to Mexico over the same four-year period, according to the DCS reports.

The total value of State Department-approved defense-related hardware and service exports by private U.S. companies to Mexico tallied nearly $5 billion over the four-year window.

And that doesn’t even count the $700 million in assistance already authorized under the Merida Initiative or any new DCS exports approved for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, which ends Sept. 30.

jw

Originally posted by mandroid
Amazing, the power of the press to whip people into a frenzy over their interpretation of separate events. I submit that the SAF- Second Amendment Foundation is looking for more donations.

baahhhhh

"I don't think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of what we have begun"
Holder

When a politician uses this kind of language it is safer to believe they mean the worst. And frankly becouse of the wording. You have to be a fool to use language like that not expecting it to be construed as a genital slap in the face at the minimum. Its not reasonable sentence structure considering the issue unless your simple ass covering. Primarily becouse these people care little for the second amendment to begin with and have a history going back for decades that shows this, any comment that is not clearly worded to divest listeners of their angst should be considered defensive double speak.

Remember this is the party that scoffs and looks down on 2ndA supporters as "clingers to god and guns". So they get none from me when they talk with rocks in their mouths. They are already out of the closet 2nd A non-supporters and hate the fact that this thing is to big to slay with a single blow.

Nancy, I've told you before, I want you for my love slave. If you're good, I might let you wear something, no matter how skimpy, when mowing my lawn; especially if company's due over