Gun Control Laws And Opposition

[GURPS]

Jerry Nadler's Lesson on Guns Goes All Kinds of Wrong​

If you are familiar with the Heller decision, you’ll be aware that the test put forth by now-deceased Justice Scalia is that the Constitution protects guns that are in “common use.” He came to that conclusion by supposing that at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, the Founders clearly intended for common weapons such as muskets to be owned and kept by Americans.

Personally, I thought Scalia’s argument was arbitrary and didn’t go nearly far enough in protecting the true intention of the Second Amendment, which was to allow citizens to possess weapons of war in order to wage war (including things like cannons). Still, there’s no doubt that an AR-15, the most common sporting rifle in the country, is in “common use,” meeting the standard put forth by Heller. That means that any attempt to ban them at the federal level is clearly unconstitutional. Nadler is apparently too stupid to realize that he’s providing the basis by which any law he passes would be overturned.

Yet, Nadler may have been one-upped in the same hearing by another Democrat. Rep. David Cicilline decided to talk about pistol braces, claiming they become bump stocks and make guns automatic.

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

Good Guy With A Gun​

A phrase frequently used by members of the National Rifle Association, Focus on the Family, and other conservative Christian groups aimed at abusing representative democracy to impose biblical law on non-Christians. Originally used to describe a concealed-carry permit holder who shoots a would-be attacker before they can accomplish real harm, but has since been co-opted to refer to white supremacists, especially current and former members of the military, American law enforcement (don't even get me started on the SROs), and other ammosexual evangelist control freaks. Not something Jesus Christ would approve of if he were alive today.

Thank god the NRA went bankrupt after the Capitol Insurrection.
After watching the news coverage of the insurrection at the Capitol Building, I'll never hear the phrase, "Good guy with a gun," the same way ever again.

Have you noticed how many, "good guys with guns," are just straight up Nazis and klansmen?

by jlloyddaman January 31, 2021

 

[glhs837]

So, they water gun bullshit. I would never ever decide to use a water gun on someone in uniform, even if its just a Taco Bell uniform. Second, if I'm a cop, and you decide you can point a weapon shaped object at me, how am I to know whats coming out is water? Do we think some antifa nutjob would get his jollies off with a mic muriatic acid solution?

 

[Hijinx]

After watching the news coverage of the insurrection at the Capitol Building, I'll never hear the phrase, "Good guy with a gun," the same way ever again.

Me either the alleged good guy with a gun, A police Lieutenant, murdered a young female veteran with it.

 

[itsbob]

s we’ve seen, shootings in major cities have exploded since their Democrat mayors and district attorneys (DAs) decided to let criminals out of jail and keep them out with no-bail laws. Democrats could stop the carnage, which mostly affects black communities, but every shooting is another stat that leads them to their ultimate nirvana: taking away your guns.


Here’s how it works:

• Democrats let criminals out of jail and keep them on the streets, knowing they will commit more crimes, many with guns
• Slaughter ensues
• Democrats use the gun death statistics to call for more and more gun laws

Chicago is the poster boy for the gun-grabbers. Almost 19% of the guns recovered at Chicago crime scenes come from Indiana, which is only a few miles away.

So the problem must be Indiana, right? Former President Barack Obama thought so. He spoke about it back in 2015.



It’s safe to assume “hop across the border” refers to Indiana, as it’s only a few miles from Chicago. If Indiana is to blame for Chicago’s violence, then Indianapolis should look like Berlin in 1945, right?

If Indiana Is to Blame for Chicago's 'Gun Violence,' Why Isn't Indianapolis a War Zone too?

pjmedia.com

Not to mention if they are traveling to Indiana to get their guns, and bringing them back to Chicago, they have broke several state, city and even Federal laws.. so the CRIMINALS are still getting their guns (illegally) while the law abiding citizens can't, and have neither the ability nor the right to protect themselves from the same criminals.

 

[GURPS]

Newsom Signs California Gun Control Bill Modeled After Texas Abortion Law​

The bill was developed in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Texas Heartbeat Act, wherein private citizens would be able to sue people who illegally sell firearms to individuals under 21 years old for up to $10,000, Fox reported. The Texas law provides private citizens in and outside the state with the power to sue abortion clinics and those who help women obtain abortions.

Newsom signed the bill at Santa Monica College, the location of a 2013 mass shooting, the outlet noted. “Our message to the criminals spreading illegal weapons in California is simple: you have no safe harbor here in the Golden State,” Newsom wrote in a press release on Friday. “While the Supreme Court rolls back reasonable gun safety measures, California continues adding new ways to protect the lives of our kids. California will use every tool at its disposal to save lives, especially in the face of an increasingly extreme Supreme Court,” the statement continued.

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

Acyn's tweet - "Raskin is pretty good at this " - Trendsmap

Detailed Tweet Analytics for Acyn's tweet - #votebluetosavedemocracy, #gopdomesticterrorists, #secondamendment, #2a, #chiproy

www.trendsmap.com

 

[DaSDGuy]

Newsom Signs California Gun Control Bill Modeled After Texas Abortion Law​

The bill was developed in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Texas Heartbeat Act, wherein private citizens would be able to sue people who illegally sell firearms to individuals under 21 years old for up to $10,000, Fox reported. The Texas law provides private citizens in and outside the state with the power to sue abortion clinics and those who help women obtain abortions.

Newsom signed the bill at Santa Monica College, the location of a 2013 mass shooting, the outlet noted. “Our message to the criminals spreading illegal weapons in California is simple: you have no safe harbor here in the Golden State,” Newsom wrote in a press release on Friday. “While the Supreme Court rolls back reasonable gun safety measures, California continues adding new ways to protect the lives of our kids. California will use every tool at its disposal to save lives, especially in the face of an increasingly extreme Supreme Court,” the statement continued.

And the Kalifornia taxpayers will fund all the legal challenges, including up to the Supreme Court, where this ignorant law will be found unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. $Millions wasted on nothing more than press clippings for his POTUS election attempt in 2024.

 

[Merlin99]

And the Kalifornia taxpayers will fund all the legal challenges, including up to the Supreme Court, where this ignorant law will be found unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. $Millions wasted on nothing more than press clippings for his POTUS election attempt in 2024.

Like the idea of wasting a few mil has ever worried Cali

 

[stgislander]

Acyn's tweet - "Raskin is pretty good at this " - Trendsmap

Detailed Tweet Analytics for Acyn's tweet - #votebluetosavedemocracy, #gopdomesticterrorists, #secondamendment, #2a, #chiproy

www.trendsmap.com

Based on the comments, that sh!t head has some groupies.

 

[GURPS]

Dem faces House ethics complaint for heated back-and-forth with Heritage scholar: 'How dare you'​

Swearer wrote in a recent op-ed that Jordan’s line of questioning included "a series of general questions about" gun features Democrats wanted to ban, and he did not reference "any particular bill or bills by name" when asking if law-abiding citizens will be "less safe to protect themselves." But at the time of the hearing, Democratic Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline had introduced a bill with a grandfather provision that would allow gun owners to retain firearms they already owned.

Flash forward to June of this year, Porter argued that Swearer "falsely testified under oath" about Cicilline’s bill, sparking a heated back-and-forth between the two.

"So you knew that the bill would allow any gun owner to maintain possession of any semi-automatic assault weapon that was lawfully possessed before the bill became law," Porter said, before adding later twice "you falsely testified under oath."

The exchange was highlighted by repeated interruptions, with Swearer trying to respond to the accusation and charging at one point, "How dare you."

"How dare you misstate the law," Porter continued.

"How dare you ask questions you don't even want an answer to," Swearer responded.

Roberts said the exchange was "premeditated," pointing to Porter sharing a clip of the exchange on social media that garnered hundreds of thousands of views.

"In addition to making a false perjury claim about someone whose integrity is impeccable, that's Amy [Swearer], and therefore calling into question the entire credibility of Heritage, this is premeditated. And we know that because the representative immediately went to Twitter and other social media platforms and doubled and tripled down," Roberts told Fox News Digital.

Porter's office said the comment that Swearer "falsely testified under oath" is not "a perjury claim, which requires intent and which Rep. Porter did not allege."

 

[GURPS]

 

[Bare-ya-cuda]

 

[itsbob]

Dem faces House ethics complaint for heated back-and-forth with Heritage scholar: 'How dare you'​

Swearer wrote in a recent op-ed that Jordan’s line of questioning included "a series of general questions about" gun features Democrats wanted to ban, and he did not reference "any particular bill or bills by name" when asking if law-abiding citizens will be "less safe to protect themselves." But at the time of the hearing, Democratic Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline had introduced a bill with a grandfather provision that would allow gun owners to retain firearms they already owned.

Flash forward to June of this year, Porter argued that Swearer "falsely testified under oath" about Cicilline’s bill, sparking a heated back-and-forth between the two.

"So you knew that the bill would allow any gun owner to maintain possession of any semi-automatic assault weapon that was lawfully possessed before the bill became law," Porter said, before adding later twice "you falsely testified under oath."

The exchange was highlighted by repeated interruptions, with Swearer trying to respond to the accusation and charging at one point, "How dare you."

"How dare you misstate the law," Porter continued.

"How dare you ask questions you don't even want an answer to," Swearer responded.

Roberts said the exchange was "premeditated," pointing to Porter sharing a clip of the exchange on social media that garnered hundreds of thousands of views.

"In addition to making a false perjury claim about someone whose integrity is impeccable, that's Amy [Swearer], and therefore calling into question the entire credibility of Heritage, this is premeditated. And we know that because the representative immediately went to Twitter and other social media platforms and doubled and tripled down," Roberts told Fox News Digital.

Porter's office said the comment that Swearer "falsely testified under oath" is not "a perjury claim, which requires intent and which Rep. Porter did not allege."

Jerry Nadler's Lesson on Guns Goes All Kinds of Wrong​

If you are familiar with the Heller decision, you’ll be aware that the test put forth by now-deceased Justice Scalia is that the Constitution protects guns that are in “common use.” He came to that conclusion by supposing that at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, the Founders clearly intended for common weapons such as muskets to be owned and kept by Americans.

Personally, I thought Scalia’s argument was arbitrary and didn’t go nearly far enough in protecting the true intention of the Second Amendment, which was to allow citizens to possess weapons of war in order to wage war (including things like cannons). Still, there’s no doubt that an AR-15, the most common sporting rifle in the country, is in “common use,” meeting the standard put forth by Heller. That means that any attempt to ban them at the federal level is clearly unconstitutional. Nadler is apparently too stupid to realize that he’s providing the basis by which any law he passes would be overturned.

Yet, Nadler may have been one-upped in the same hearing by another Democrat. Rep. David Cicilline decided to talk about pistol braces, claiming they become bump stocks and make guns automatic.

Again, common use by whom?? If it's intended to be for a well regulated militia, it would be a common rifle, common caliber, common cartridge to what the military uses. If you are going to have a militia, and it gets called up, what good is somebody going to be if they show up with a bolt action rifle in some exotic caliber, with 10 rounds in his back pack?? Now if somebody shows up with their privately owned semi automatic ar-15 in either 5.56 or .223, then he has access to the military's spare parts, and MILLIONS of rounds of ammunition to help protect his country.

 

[itsbob]

Again, common use by whom?? If it's intended to be for a well regulated militia, it would be a common rifle, common caliber, common cartridge to what the military uses. If you are going to have a militia, and it gets called up, what good is somebody going to be if they show up with a bolt action rifle in some exotic caliber, with 10 rounds in his back pack?? Now if somebody shows up with their privately owned semi automatic ar-15 in either 5.56 or .223, then he has access to the military's spare parts, and MILLIONS of rounds of ammunition to help protect his country.

OH, I forgot to mention, the ARMY has decided on a new caliber, 6.8mm fury.. to do my part, I will have to buy a new semi automatic plinker in 6.8mm. It's our civic duty, our responsibility. IN fact, I think the government should pay for it, as it would be a part of being a good US Citizen, ready to be called up at the time of need.

When I was in High School the government supported our shooting team, providing us with rifles, and ammo through DCM (Development of Citizens Marksmanship). End of every season we got a chance to purchase our competition rifles at a huge discount, and at practice we had to pay a dollar for range time, with unlimited competition ammo (that we could also buy at huge discounts so we could practice at home).

 

[spr1975wshs]

When I was in High School the government supported our shooting team, providing us with rifles, and ammo through DCM (Development of Citizens Marksmanship). End of every season we got a chance to purchase our competition rifles at a huge discount, and at practice we had to pay a dollar for range time, with unlimited competition ammo (that we could also buy at huge discounts so we could practice at home).

Our high school team had .22's made at the Springfield Armory, which was just across the river.

The local USMC battalion sponsored the range at our Boy Scout camp.

My wife and I shot in DCM matches for many years.