Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes Pledges to Resist Any Assault Weapons Ban - Hundreds Agree...

reply to post by VikingWarlord

"fully automatic assault weapons" are already banned. You cannot buy a full auto anything.

Not quite true in most of the states but a few fully automatic weapons are completely legal with a $200 tax stamp so the feds can keep track of them. However you are correct the anti-gun crowd is trying to ban semi-autos.

Originally posted by Kryties
I wonder what the American people will think about their precious guns as they are being shelled from a safe distance, crushed with tanks and blown to smithereens by missiles fired from jets, helicopters and drones?

Actually, they won't be thinking much at all seeing as they just got turned into pink mist.......

First who is it you think will be manning those tanks and jets etc? Second lot of good it did them in Vietnam Iraq and Afghanistan...

www.fox19.com...

A nice 3 minute vid on 2a and purpose

reply to post by hawkiye


Once you take ANY freedoms away, its easier for a Government or a Dictator to take ALL of them away......


One of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the arming of the workers and the disarming of the bourgeoisie (the middle class). -- Vladimir I. Lenin


One man with a gun can control 100 without one....Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms. --Vladimir I. Lenin


S&F

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by VikingWarlord

 

"fully automatic assault weapons" are already banned. You cannot buy a full auto anything.

Not quite true in most of the states but a few fully automatic weapons are completely legal with a $200 tax stamp so the feds can keep track of them. However you are correct the anti-gun crowd is trying to ban semi-autos.

True, and the hefty price tag. See, ever since the machinegun ban of 1986, no new fully automatic weaponry may be transferred to a private, non FFL (and it isn't just the 01 dealer FFL) citizen. You may transfer full auto weaponry that was manufactured before 1986, but not anything built after.

What this has done is artificially shrink supplies. Yeah, you can buy a Mac 10. It's about 4 grand. Full auto M16? Last time I ran across one it was over $10k.

They are legal, yes, but the average everyday citizen can't afford them.

Hundreds?

Perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands. Try going to a gun show lately or go down to a local gun store - it will be packed. Suppliers can't keep up with demand.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
Hundreds?

Perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands. Try going to a gun show lately or go down to a local gun store - it will be packed. Suppliers can't keep up with demand.

Well at least all this gun ban talk is good for the economy and ought to be a warning to any gun grabber politicians that Americans will not be turning in their weapons. Else why buy tens of thousand of new weapons just to hand them over to a corrupt government?

Originally posted by DaTroof
So they take an oath to defend the Constitution, but cry when there is public support for Constitutionally repealing an amendment?

They don't really understand what the Constitution is, do they?

There is not going to be a repeal of the 2nd amendment. Obama and co are just going to go around the Congress and Constitution by signing the UN Small Arms Treaty. They will try to squeak by with an assult weapons ban, but they will have to get Congress to approve.

reply to post by DaTroof

You need a license to drive, which can be revoked if you break enough traffic laws.

The fact that there are so many accidents proves that people can make mistakes, even when vetted and licensed to operate a vehicle. Guns are no different. The safest, most responsible gun owner can make one mistake just like the safest driver.

DID YOU ACTUALLY JUST SAY THAT???

Read it again, and keep up your pointless agenda based arguement. Your first sentence shows your ignorance and lack of understanding the English language! A license is only revoked when a person is convicted of a crime! Quite different than the arguement you are using on gun control don't you think? You are convicting people whom have never commited a crime, based on the action of those who have!

Originally posted by 727Sky
www.fox19.com...

A nice 3 minute vid on 2a and purpose

How about we just imbed the vid.

Originally posted by DaTroof
So they take an oath to defend the Constitution, but cry when there is public support for Constitutionally repealing an amendment?

They don't really understand what the Constitution is, do they?

Actually it is YOU who does not understand the constitution. The first 10 amendments CAN NOT be repealed. That is why they are the bill of rights... that is why they are UNALIENABLE. What you fail to realize is that the Bill of Rights exists whether or not it is on paper. "We hold these truths to be self evident" means exactly that. The founders felt it necessary to write them down, even though they are indeed self evident, just in case a bunch of morons came along and didn't get this very easy to understand concept.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Actually it is YOU who does not understand the constitution. The first 10 amendments CAN NOT be repealed. That is why they are the bill of rights... that is why they are UNALIENABLE. What you fail to realize is that the Bill of Rights exists whether or not it is on paper. "We hold these truths to be self evident" means exactly that. The founders felt it necessary to write them down, even though they are indeed self evident, just in case a bunch of morons came along and didn't get this very easy to understand concept.

For ANYONE that doesn't understand the Constitution, THIS should be held directly as a Definition for it !!!!!!

This deserves its OWN thread, and deserves to get a million stars !



Thank You for it........

Originally posted by RedmoonMWC

Originally posted by 727Sky
www.fox19.com...

A nice 3 minute vid on 2a and purpose

How about we just imbed the vid.

Thanks still learning my way around

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... relevant info to your post(well done btw)

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

so it seems it would be almost impossible to get rid of the 2nd amendment or add a new one preventing the 2nd from being allowed as not just 2/3rds majority is needed 3/4's of the states have to agree on it and call for a convention(rember all the red states in this election? and not all blue states are anti gun) so i think we are safe for the foreseeable future they might try an awb but we will have to see the proposed law to see if it will pass or not

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Actually it is YOU who does not understand the constitution. The first 10 amendments CAN NOT be repealed. That is why they are the bill of rights... that is why they are UNALIENABLE. What you fail to realize is that the Bill of Rights exists whether or not it is on paper. "We hold these truths to be self evident" means exactly that. The founders felt it necessary to write them down, even though they are indeed self evident, just in case a bunch of morons came along and didn't get this very easy to understand concept.

For ANYONE that doesn't understand the Constitution, THIS should be held directly as a Definition for it !!!!!!

This deserves its OWN thread, and deserves to get a million stars !

Thank You for it........

Well, thanks... at least I'm not alone in my understanding

Maybe we should just ban everything.

Because we stupid sheep are too stupid to do anything perfectly without risk. And life should be without risk of any kind.

Lets all just sit here.

And safely graze.

While awaiting slaughter.

Originally posted by freedomwv
I do not mean to stir up some s*** but I have to wonder; Why would someone need a fully automatic assault weapon? That kind of gun is usually used to kill a lot of people really fast. How many times does the average person find themselves in that kind of situation during the course of their life?

When I lived in America I had three guns; a shotgun, rifle and a handgun. I never felt the need to own a fully automatic assault gun...ever. Daily life was never so dangerous that I needed the kind of fire power which could kill a mass amount of people at once. I grew up in America and lived there for 27 years and never once did I feel I needed a super high power gun. Are there really places in the USA so dangerous that someone needs a AK-47?

A fully auto assault weapon hasn't been used in ANY of these shootings. A full auto weapon, when legally purchased costs upwards of $10,000. Get your facts straight.

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... relevant info to your post(well done btw)

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

so it seems it would be almost impossible to get rid of the 2nd amendment or add a new one preventing the 2nd from being allowed as not just 2/3rds majority is needed 3/4's of the states have to agree on it and call for a convention(rember all the red states in this election? and not all blue states are anti gun) so i think we are safe for the foreseeable future they might try an awb but we will have to see the proposed law to see if it will pass or not

You need to look no further the Article 5 of the Constitution... the amendment process is spelled out there.

Originally posted by LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by DaTroof

 

You seem to be confused between rights and privileges.

You cannot just "raise support" to get rid of someone's rights.

Quoted for truth.

Originally posted by Doc Gator

The supreme court is NOT the constitution and there IS a level above them. It's us. The founders were very clear on this point. Sovereignty in this country lies in the citizens, not the states and not the federal government. The founders made it very clear that if the government became tyrannical by violating the enumerated rights in the constitution it was our DUTY to overthrow that government by whatever means necessary. Hence the inclusion, and the phrasing, of the second amendment to the constitution.

I hope people are taking notes.

Great stuff being posted