I hope someone points out to her that Harris used a 9mm with limited-by-law 10 round magazines at Columbine and a shotgun. Or not.
Printable View
I hope someone points out to her that Harris used a 9mm with limited-by-law 10 round magazines at Columbine and a shotgun. Or not.
And then she'll propose more restrictive legislation. Crazy never changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Seriously gentleman if they do a ban and criminallize possession of semiautomatics do you really think people will hand them over. Recently a liberal ask me why I have firearms and my answer to him was to protect myself and my family from people like him who think the same way and attempt to take our rights a way. Boating accidents what ever, we should not have to hide our freedom because if we do are we truly free? The recent elections and these shootings have put us at a crossroads. We are all going to have become politically active to keep our rights. Personally I want to see politicians focus on coming up with something that mandates mental health professionals to to report concerns. One of main reasons you don't see many kids these days shooting up schools is because school officials are mandated to have practices in place to twart violence and quite frankly it has worked quite well. Mental health professionals have to change their tactics. Hold them accountable dammit
Exactly! Do they intend to violate my other rights to enforce these bans if they occur? Is that still acceptable to the anti-gun crowd? How happy are they going to be when the police show up to search their residences for firearms and/or high cap magazines? Shall we throw away the 4th and 5th Amendments as well?
If the government tries to take away people's firearms they will start a civil war and they will lose the civil war. I know countless men and women currently serving and they would not go to war with the current American population in order to strip them of their 2A rights.
Nope. Look at CA.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDee
Not when the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause is in the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
FTFY... because infringing upon constitutional rights is nothing less than treason... [Mad]Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
I smell a registration clause. "You an own them before the new AWB goes into effect, as long as you register them with your local LEO." Defacto registration, i.e., they're not illegal after a certain date UNLESS you can't provide documentation that you owned/posessed/registered them before any new law goes into effect.
OK I have to say it... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Why the hell would we allow anything (1934/1968 included) to "limit" our rights? When are we going to stand up and say enough is enough!?