New DNC head is furious you can sell your own property without government permission

Well, people know how I am about the big picture and here it is:

They already have people where they want them and have bypassed the 2nd Amendment in the process. The HCR bill that was signed into law. It is a criminal act to not have medical insurance when the law comes into full effect. Which means if you do not have that insurance, you are a criminal. And criminals can not own firearms.

See how that worked? The constitution was bypassed to enact one law that the federal government had zero power over (the mandatory purchase of anything) and can use that to prevent those that suddenly figure out that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to defend their rights from both foreign and domestic enemies that wished to remove them.

But hey, it is just some gun owners, right? Not all gun owners will fall under those conditions, will they? The times are getting interesting to say the least.

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
The majority of the public want regulations for guns.

Lol have a source for that that isn't put out by an anti gun group?

Lets see it.

I won't hold my breath.

Since you see yourself as somewhat knowledgeable in Constitutional arenas, perhaps you could explain how any gun control law on the books is NOT an infringement. By the very words of the 2nd amendment, each and every gun control law on the books is by definition an infringement, and therefore unconstitutional.

Shall not be infringed is very clear on this topic. Unless of course you have your own definition of the term infringe.

Items within the confines of your home, and on your persons are personal property. That is defined within the law. Not a hard concept to grasp?

reply to post by CaptGizmo


So take your ball and go home?
How about this? Instead of going away, why not show me where in the constitution it gives the Fed Govt the right to create regulations regarding firearms?
Yes, you provided case law, big deal. Again, it is then regulation created by the Judicial branch, as opposed to going the correct route of amending the Constitution.

You have OK talking points, in regards to interstate commerce, states rights and such. But, in reference to that, please see above.