‘Take Weapons of War Off Our Street’

[LiveLife]

When technology improves to the point where we have various portable energy weapons such as laser blasters, disruptors and even perhaps light sabers, I am sure the antis will call them "weapons of war" too.

End game for antis is to ban all guns.

The end game for the anti-gunners and their allies is ban all choices ... your defense, your transportation, your occupation, your possessions, or anything else

Removing your right to defend yourself and what you believe in is the opening play, not the end game.

Yes, very true as my post was narrow.

I should have posted, "End game for antis is to ban our liberty, starting with banning of all guns" < Post revised >

 

[labnoti]

Start with Chinese fentanyl.

 

[Pat Riot]

What these people do not understand is firearms are already taxed. They act as if a tax is going to change something. Well, it will. It will support funding of another un-American government empire.

I believe that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I believe that the first amendment should also be taxed.
A falsehood or exaggeration spoken by anyone running for office should be taxed. The first tax is $100. Each time that candidate espouses a falsehood or exaggeration the tax is multiplied times 10. And so on.
If we cannot trust those that want to lead they must pay. The funds derived from this must go to the same place the firearms taxes go... towards conservation.

This was a spoof. We all know this would never happen...

 

[labnoti]

At least one Democrat is worried about a candidate splitting the left with a third party. If they were shrewd, they would look at the large base of one-issue voters and split the right. If a Democratic candidate made a campaign vow to veto any gun control legislation that congress passed in their term, and to sign pro gun rights measures that also passed, they would be promising to deliver more to one-issue voters than the Republican candidate has. I believe it could split the right. The left doesn't even need to see the value of it to them. It's not like they'll vote for the Republican candidate. Their candidate could simply acknowledgement that the nation is divided on the issue, and now is not the time to act to in a way that further divides the nation. Their candidate can address the people concerned about this issue on both sides but must assure the pro gun rights single-issue voters that they will only support a solution that maintains the integrity of all our liberties and traditions. To get those votes would be impossible if the candidate simply promised to "do nothing" and did not offer to support something positive for gun rights -- 50 state valid Federal concealed carry licenses with premption, shall issue to any law abiding (not prohibited from possessing under current law) citizen or resident. The left has no better cause with which to split single-issue voters from the right. They would never get permission from their base to capitulate even temporarily on abortion. Gun control won't win the election for the Democrats. It will only cost them. Gun rights, on the other hand, would almost certainly win it. Yet their candidates seem to be racing against one another for the most extreme left position they can claim.

If the left doesn't give on gun control, the Republican candidate is forced to consider whether to risk possibly alienating single-issue voters and give in to some people's desires for some amount of gun control. He has certainly shown the signs of temptation. It would be a foolish choice. It would certainly cause some single-issue voters to withold their votes and focus on seats in Congress, and it almost certainly wouldn't gain anything meaningful from the center-left, who can be certain that any Democratic candidate would deliver more on their issue. The only thing the Republican candidate can ever hope to win the center left with is money, promises of wealth, the prospect of greater prosperity, and a hyped economy -- the things he is an icon of. Even if the Democratic candidate made the vow I suggested in my first paragraph, the Republican campaign would be hopeless if they didn't make an equal or stronger vow to gun rights advocates. So if they did that, would the Democrats lose everything that they could have gained by making such a vow? No. Despite the incessant propaganda that the nation is already too polarized, the Republican candidate gives plenty of cause for voters on both poles to loathe.

Being pro gun rights is the only thing that can certainly win the election for the Democrats.

 

[badkarmamib]

Being pro gun rights is the only thing that can certainly win the election for the Democrats.

But gun rights are antithetical to most of the other "improvements" that liberals stand for.

 

[AlexanderA]

I respectfully disagree; the 2nd amendment is about all arms, not just simply those used in war. It certainly applies to those used in war, but there is no restriction in the 2A concerning others. "Infringed" means "to intrude into/onto," or "to diminish."
If you start to say non war weapons aren't included, you are, in effect, "diminishing" the right (ie., making it smaller).

You have a point. The 2nd Amendment applies to all weapons, since, in an emergency, all weapons could be pressed into military or militia service.

The antigun line is to exclude "weapons of war" from the protection of the 2nd Amendment. That interpretation really stands the Amendment on its head. I would rather that "sporting arms" be excluded than "weapons of war" be excluded, if it comes to that. Maybe sporting arms are included in the 2nd Amendment, but you have to admit that wasn't the intent of it originally. The Founders weren't concerned about sports and hunting.

 

[GEM]

Since 3,3,3 , 5 is enough and a revolver is the best EDC - From recent threads, I see no need for Modern Sporting Rifles.

Think about my deep meaning before you reply to the surface statement.

 

[theotherwaldo]

-If they can ban the "weapons of war" - the weapons that are specifically guaranteed to us by the Constitution - then the hard part of banning guns is accomplished,

 

[AlexanderA]

Being pro gun rights is the only thing that can certainly win the election for the Democrats.

Although I hate to admit it, that horse is already out of the barn. The only thing that separates the Democrats from one another, on guns, is the degree to which they are antigun.

Here in Virginia, the election that is coming up in a few days is primarily being fought over gun control. The Democrats are unanimously in favor of the governor's gun control package (which includes a draconian AWB). In my district, both the state Senator and the member of the House of Delegates, who are Democrats and have F or D ratings from the NRA, are running unopposed. (The Republicans couldn't even find token candidates to put up against them?) There's no point in even voting.

 

[AlexanderA]

-If they can ban the "weapons of war" - the weapons that are specifically guaranteed to us by the Constitution - then the hard part of banning guns is accomplished,

Exactly. Anything can be a "weapon of war." For example, a classic scoped hunting rifle, in another context, is a "sniper rifle."

This idea of "weapons of war" not being protected is tied closely to the concept of "need" -- as in, "you don't need an AR-15 to go hunting." (That's the utilitarian argument for gun control.) But the "need" is the unstated presupposition for the 2nd Amendment, and it has nothing to do with hunting.

 

[HighRoadRover]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What people often misinterpret is the term "well regulated." In the language of the 18th Century, it meant able to shoot an arm (weapon) accurately. Guns are "regulated" by their sights, and we still can find use of that term in gun-related literature today. That is what the framers of the Bill of Rights meant when they wrote the 2A. (When I first read the term "well regulated" I thought it mean well organized with lots of regulations... but it means, simply, able to shoot accurately)

To shoot accurately, for the militia to be well regulated, its members need to be able to keep and bear weapons so they can practice with them. The framers knew from experience that rapid and accurate fire was (and still is) the sine qua non of an effective military force. You need to have access to weapons in your home so you can be prepared to use them. If you cannot shoot accurately, if the militia is not well regulated, it is not going to be effective in its defensive role. And the essence of the militia is that it must be ready at all times; there will not be time for it to be trained when it is needed.

So the point is not that the people will keep and bear the specific arms that they would bring to a war, although that could be the case. The militia could issue weapons to the people called to duty, if it has them, because that would make military sense so the same ammunition and spare parts could be used. Or, if there is no armory in your village or town, the people who rally to the call for the militia could bring their own weapons. The point of the 2A is that they must shoot well -- the militia must be well regulated.

Back in the day, it would have been a muzzle-loading musket or rifle that you would keep and bear during your everyday life. Today, it could be a rifle, or even a pistol, so that your shooting skills are good -- but an AR would be awfully close to what the intent of the 2A was about keeping and bearing.

The militia at the time was all able-bodied men, and the framers were thinking of things like defending frontier villages from the marauding Hurons during the French and Indian Wars or defending Concord and Lexington from the British Army during the American Revolution. Today we would include women in the militia too, because the Constitution is a living document and changes with the times.

And don't ever think you are too old to be in the militia, to have the right to keep and bear arms. Remember Samuel Whittemore, a 78 years old militia member when he defended his community from the British 47th Regiment of Foot in 1775. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Whittemore

 

[D.B. Cooper]

If your weapon of choice isn't useful for maintaining 'the security of a free state' then you have no Constitutional right to keep or bear it. Only weapons of war qualify.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the primary argument underpinning theSupreme Court's decision to ban "sawed off shotgun?" (The court essentially said sawed off shotguns have no role in a militia.) Seems to me that such a precedent, and at that level, would also support the private ownership of AR15s.

 

[Insignificant bill]

I seem to recall the same thing being said about our current president. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

She doesn't have the backing of wall street they hate her. She isn't going to win.

 

[GEM]

Throw all you need for the most ‘likely’ self defense scenario in the mix and the ambiguity of Heller, Dump the Bump Trump - and the case for the ‘ modern sporting rifle ‘ ( the term so loved by industry and some organizations) is hard to make for the average person who doesn’t want their school, worship joint, theater ,etc. shot up.

Why do you need a modern sporting rifle when Jerry can shoot so fast with a six shooter? They are better guns for the untrained, anyway.

 

[JERRY]

isn't there a federalist paper that states the people (you and me) should maintain the same arms as the standing army (the military).

 

[bdickens]

That's it!!
First they have to ban the brain - everything else will follow!!!

They're working on that....

 

[Old Stumpy]

The term "weapons of war" essentially means ALL GUNS as every type of firearm has been used in "battlefield": Musket, revolver, bolt action, lever action, magazine fed semi-auto, etc. So whenever antis mention banning "weapons of war", they ultimately mean banning all guns, regardless of what they "claim" for the moment.

So true.

In their eyes, a Ruger Bearcat in the hands of a sportsman on a fishing trip is no different than a sub-machine gun in the hands of a psychotic gang member engaged in a drug war.

But then, they would ban kitchen knives and pointed sticks if they could. (No more wienie roasts, you evil Boy Scouts!)

 

[Officers'Wife]

Where is Trench Coxe now that we really need him?

I submit for your approval this except from 1788-

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/t_coxe.htm

Quite frankly, the latest crop of politicians frighten me far more with their pens and votes than do the Chicago gang bangers with their handguns.

 

[DustyGmt]

Unlike O'Rourke, Warren and Buttigieg have not made gun control a central plank in their campaigns. I even recall Warren talking about an exemption for gun collectors (from an AWB), in one of the early debates.

But it's premature to be talking about the gun stances of specific candidates. The whole political landscape (in both parties) may look quite different by the early part of next year.

Likely the only reason Warren has taken a softer approach to gun control is because warren knows the hardcore rhetoric (beto spews) makes you wildly unpopular with huge swaths of people in every state. Polling probably shows a considerable amount of "gun people" open to more "reasonable restrictions" so firing off about taking everybody's guns isnt a wise political move, but their end goals are likely right in line with betos nonsensical braindead proposal. Beto only had the courage to say it because he knows he isnt going anywhere near the white house but still wants to make a name for himself and create buzz for notoriety and other political gains....

 

[Deanimator]

Unlike O'Rourke, Warren and Buttigieg have not made gun control a central plank in their campaigns. I even recall Warren talking about an exemption for gun collectors (from an AWB), in one of the early debates.

But it's premature to be talking about the gun stances of specific candidates. The whole political landscape (in both parties) may look quite different by the early part of next year.

They're ALL for confiscatory racially invidious gun controls. Anything to the contrary is mere taqqiya.

 

[DustyGmt]

I'm also pretty sure I heard that nobody ever got elected president who ran on an anti gun platform. I am pretty sure that's right. We might feel like the minority sometimes because of all the anti 2A media coverage but I think there is still a good few of us out there. I think the media's job is to manipulate the image and portray a majority to pick up any stragglers or those leaning on the fence....

 

[labnoti]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What people often misinterpret is the term "well regulated." In the language of the 18th Century, it meant able to shoot an arm (weapon) accurately. Guns are "regulated" by their sights, and we still can find use of that term in gun-related literature today. That is what the framers of the Bill of Rights meant when they wrote the 2A. (When I first read the term "well regulated" I thought it mean well organized with lots of regulations... but it means, simply, able to shoot accurately)

Yes, of course. Otherwise what on earth would it mean by "free State?"

"A heavily regulated militia with rules and restrictions, permits, licenses, bans, prohibitions, and bureaucratic processes being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, subject to license, restricted, limited, undermined, banned, and prohibited."

Not only does regulation, as in "ruled by authority" contrast with "free state" it also contradicts "shall not be infringed."

 

[edwardware]

The court essentially said sawed off shotguns have no role in a militia.

I'm not familiar with the case, but I would hold than an SBS is quite useful in a militia.

 

[edwardware]

They're ALL for confiscatory racially invidious gun controls. Anything to the contrary is mere taqqiya.

Hey, I learned a word! Taqqiya is the best description of that lie that I've seen.

 

[MedWheeler]

Edwardware writes:

I'm not familiar with the case, but I would hold than an SBS is quite useful in a militia.

US vs Miller, 1939.

In a nutshell, a man convicted of unlawfully possessing a SBS lost his SCOTUS appeal when the Court decided that such a weapon had no relation to the preservation of a militia, in effect, that it was not a weapon suitable for the common needs of one.

Yes, times have changed, and the short-barreled shotgun has found a relevant role in some of the potential functions of a military force. That was not recognized by the Court in 1939.