Treason Alert: Dems Try to Move Gun Bill Forward Without Allowing Senators to Read It

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
reply to post by Phoenix

 

Originally posted by Phoenix
I really don't care who wants to debate semantics or preamble sentences. When it says "shall not be infringed" they meant just that period. No discussion, no debate, no prevarication - juist simply leave it alone!

It really is a simple as that. Period.

And it is suposed to be left alone, holy and set aside for a free people. And yet they move toward it like pedifiles toward a kiddy park.

The leadership of this country is waging political and social terrorism against the American people, it's plain and simple as that. We don't have a gun problem here, we have a Propaganda problem.

If these elected officials cared about saving lives, they would promote peace, firearm safety and education, or address any one of the leading causes of unnatural death that precede death by firearm.

reply to post by Logarock


They absolutely have no right or mandate from the constitution which they all have sworn under oath to uphold to do anything of the sort.

Even popular so-called peoples mandates hold no water here in this territory.

Each and every from both sides are violating oathes by even bringing to the floor.

reply to post by Logarock


And everyone trying to second guess what the wording of the 2nd amendment actually "means"? I mean really?!
The founders wrote more than enough commentary regarding the subject for it to be crystal clear to even the most obtuse: namely our right to protect ourselves from tyranny within our own government.

Originally posted by TauCetixeta
reply to post by Bioshock

 

Please don't have a heart attack. It will never pass the House of Representatives.

BTW, it's hard to read and understand all of that Legalese Gobbly Goop anyway.

Hire a good lawyer to read it fast.

That may be exactly the problem Ceti, 70% of them all are supposed to BE lawyers.
All the more reason they should know and be doing their jobs more diligently than
we poor earthlings can notice they are NOT. Heart attack, I'll take two over in Chitown.
Bump anyway, because your point on the House not letting this by is dubious:
and it more than merited mentioning for the thread.
And I've gobbled quite enougha their goop outa this scoop. Maybe a Judicial Review
during the remark period... and Senor Dante' needs another icewater at table three.

reply to post by Bioshock


There shouldn't be a doubt in a single mind in this world, that they are coming for our guns and one way or another they will get them. How do I know ? Only because of the reality we all witness everyday. That is, that the illegal
they do right away. It's the unconstitutional, that just takes a little longer. Regarding the elite and their puppets
in Washington.

My guess is there is enough legalese gobbly goop in the bill that they can make any rules they want after the bill passes.

Think agencies like EPA that make there own rules as they go.

I' don't know, someone has made a post about politicians and treason. I had to say to myself, 'What? the Lords & Ladies have decided that they shall pass some work, hope you get that analogy! What more could we possibly expect from the feral Government! Pardon me, I have to go make some pointy sticks! I'm a big believer in always having a pointy stick ready, and my survival knife, and my, oh, I forgot, the government is coming for ANYBODY that says they have a gun. Thank goodness. But treason? possibly, incompetent, absolutely! well, at least they're putting a few hours on the clock, nice part-time job if you can stomach it I suppose.

reply to post by benrl

My thanks Benrl, and complements on your more comprehensive post. Now I'm
back to the thread after marveling at how 70% of the Congress are lawyers who
evidently don't know how to a single body. I'd rather be embarassed and late than
promptly wrong..

Originally posted by Phoenix
reply to post by Logarock

 

Even popular so-called peoples mandates hold no water here in this territory.

This is were the corruption of the eductional system, from the ground up, comes into play. Most dont understand that there are areas that are cut off from social and political flow. This is an area not subject to "democracy". The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed....by law, by executive order, by representative body, or by democratic vote.

By the way you may know that "democracy" had always been a favorite word of the left. They have long seen it as a weak spot. When they took over the education system they set about teaching "democracy" over republic and individual rights.

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
reply to post by Logarock

 

And everyone trying to second guess what the wording of the 2nd amendment actually "means"? I mean really?!
The founders wrote more than enough commentary regarding the subject for it to be crystal clear to even the most obtuse: namely our right to protect ourselves from tyranny within our own government.

It must have made you ill to listen for so long now our elected leaders, news people and who ever talk about the 2nd amendment as a accomindation made ot hunters, sportman and home protection. As if they were all reading some other document or were so far south of ignorant as to be toxic to freedom.

Look what they have done to the chief editor post in most major news papers around the country. Try bringing this basic complaint to the editor and they will take action based on political and social winds and not on the justice of your complaint.

To those saying it has zero chance of passing the House - that is what all the nay-sayers of Obamacare had said in the first go around as well. Then I remember that late night vote that came out of left field and lo and behold - it passed regardless.

Everybody has a price.

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
reply to post by Logarock

 

And everyone trying to second guess what the wording of the 2nd amendment actually "means"? I mean really?!
The founders wrote more than enough commentary regarding the subject for it to be crystal clear to even the most obtuse: namely our right to protect ourselves from tyranny within our own government.

Fill in the obtuse. Point out the Federalist (anti-federalist), the notes, the letters. etc. so people can see where you are coming from.

reply to post by Bioshock


You do realize this is not a vote for the bill itself. If they don't get to read the bill by then, just vote no. Right now these wankers really need to STFU.

Don't expect the full truth from Alex Jones. He deals in about 10% reality, just to make himself seem legit. But seriously, Alex Jones has no BS filter.

reply to post by this_is_who_we_are


What about the "well regulated militia?" Oh, we just read the parts of the 2nd amendment that we like. Kind of like picking and choosing bible versus to suit your needs.

Has it occurred to any gun nut that in order to have a well regulated militia, we need to know who has the guns so that we can call them to arms?

The 2nd amendment provides for the state run national guard. The activist courts have extended it to an individual right. Now if you want to defend the country, more power to you. Join the national guard. Of course, they require you to leave your weapon at the armory. ;-)

Now regarding tyranny, we have a representative government. The government that we fought was the British, not the United States (well unless you were a rebel). The only tyranny I see here is wankers thinking they need weapons to fight the US government. Never in the history of the United States has citizen fought the government in a gun fight and won. The government has better toys (fighter planes, tanks, drones, sharks with freakin' lazers, etc.), so just tuck your tails between your collective legs and go cower in a corner if this legislation bothers you so much.

When the dust settles, unless you are such a pitiful marksman that 10 shots are insufficient to stop a criminal on your property, nothing has really changed. Well unless you are a mental case, uh not that I'm going to name names of some of the posters. Then you might lose your weapons. Or if you beat your wife or girlfriend. Or committed a felony. But the average person will not lose anything in this gun legislation.

I do enjoy seeing all these tea baggers getting their panties in a bunch.

Originally posted by gariac
What about the "well regulated militia?" Oh, we just read the parts of the 2nd amendment that we like. Kind of like picking and choosing bible versus to suit your needs.

Interesting. Did you stop at "well regulated milita" and then form an opinion? Or did you miss the "and the Right of the People..." part? Interesting you called out selective reading, while you yourself did the same.

Has it occurred to any gun nut that in order to have a well regulated militia, we need to know who has the guns so that we can call them to arms?

If that was the case, and that is your supporting argument; why didn't for the first 200+ years of the nation, did state maintain records? Oh; yeah that whole "and the Right of the People..."

The 2nd amendment provides for the state run national guard.

No argument here but I believe you think only the State (aka the Government if you don't understand what I am stating), should have firearms. Yet you have willfully ignored another part of the Second Amendment which explicitly states "and the Right of the People."

I do enjoy seeing all these tea baggers getting their panties in a bunch.

Was your view point disparaged that you felt to make such an attack? What a damn loser. Don't like the opposition; make a disparaging remark. Grow up and learn to have an adult discussion. I will be gladly waiting for your refutation on my points above.

They should pass it without reading it if they choose to. Are these not the people we voted into office to represent us? And when we reelect the same loosers over and over wE only have ourselves to blame.....

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are

 

What about the "well regulated militia?" Oh, we just read the parts of the 2nd amendment that we like. Kind of like picking and choosing bible versus to suit your needs.

Has it occurred to any gun nut that in order to have a well regulated militia, we need to know who has the guns so that we can call them to arms?

The 2nd amendment provides for the state run national guard. The activist courts have extended it to an individual right. Now if you want to defend the country, more power to you. Join the national guard. Of course, they require you to leave your weapon at the armory. ;-)

Now regarding tyranny, we have a representative government. The government that we fought was the British, not the United States (well unless you were a rebel). The only tyranny I see here is wankers thinking they need weapons to fight the US government. Never in the history of the United States has citizen fought the government in a gun fight and won. The government has better toys (fighter planes, tanks, drones, sharks with freakin' lazers, etc.), so just tuck your tails between your collective legs and go cower in a corner if this legislation bothers you so much.

When the dust settles, unless you are such a pitiful marksman that 10 shots are insufficient to stop a criminal on your property, nothing has really changed. Well unless you are a mental case, uh not that I'm going to name names of some of the posters. Then you might lose your weapons. Or if you beat your wife or girlfriend. Or committed a felony. But the average person will not lose anything in this gun legislation.

I do enjoy seeing all these tea baggers getting their panties in a bunch.

Oh ok, so we are "wankers" and "mental cases" and "tea baggers" if we desire that the govt not infringe on our 2nd amendment rights? Sure... whatever.

Your 3rd grade name calling doesnt help get your point across very well.

Also your argument about people being "out-gunned" by the US military and their advanced weapons is flawed. Havent you ever heard of vietnam or when the soviets tried to invade afgahnistan. Lesser equipped forces fought off the better equipped invaders using guerilla warfare tactics. Throughout history you can find examples of this. Oh wait I forgot they dont teach history in school anymore. Just liberal arts and social studies, right?

What makes you think the military would turn on civilians anyway? Most veterans, including myself, are pro constitution (we swear an oath to uphold it).

Sorry buddy but if you think you are going to convice anyone to give up their 2nd amendment rights with tough talk and name calling you are in for a rude awakening.

Originally posted by Nicks87
Also your argument about people being "out-gunned" by the US military and their advanced weapons is flawed. Havent you ever heard of vietnam or when the soviets tried to invade afgahnistan. Lesser equipped forces fought off the better equipped invaders using guerilla warfare tactics. Throughout history you can find examples of this. Oh wait I forgot they dont teach history in school anymore. Just liberal arts and social studies, right?

Easy now. While I tend to agree with much you said, the above is a stretch, The North Vietnamese were well funded and had access to small arms that we didn't think they did. The Afghanistani had the ample hlep of the United Sates with regards to arms; i.e., upgrading them. If we didn't bring them up to speed, that landscape could be quite different today.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Nicks87
Also your argument about people being "out-gunned" by the US military and their advanced weapons is flawed. Havent you ever heard of vietnam or when the soviets tried to invade afgahnistan. Lesser equipped forces fought off the better equipped invaders using guerilla warfare tactics. Throughout history you can find examples of this. Oh wait I forgot they dont teach history in school anymore. Just liberal arts and social studies, right?

Easy now. While I tend to agree with much you said, the above is a stretch, The North Vietnamese were well funded and had access to small arms that we didn't think they did. The Afghanistani had the ample hlep of the United Sates with regards to arms; i.e., upgrading them. If we didn't bring them up to speed, that landscape could be quite different today.

Very true but I think that the American people are very well armed and funded/prepared. Plus we have the home field advantage just like the NVC and afghans did. Also never underestimate the resolve of a man defending his home and his way of life i.e. gun ownership/freedom.