Feinstein Introduces assault weapons ban

[toddnjoyce]

I can find cases that uphold segregation. Doesn't mean they are right.

Show me a path for any state to exit the union. Unilaterally doesn’t work in any manner.

 

[oldag]

Show me a path for any state to exit the union. Unilaterally doesn’t work in any manner.

It can. Either with permission or without.

Following your logic, America would never have come into being.

 

[motorcarman]

I think Roberts and Coney-Barret have skeletons (re adoption entanglements) that the 'powers-that-be' are using to exert influence into some decisions.

Call me suspicious but they did join the 'others' on the court for the voter/election debacle.

Lots of 'conspiracy theories' about the adoptions they are involved in. (Robert's wife has a strange family history)

 

[toddnjoyce]

It can. Either with permission or without.

Following your logic, America would never have come into being.

Let’s traipse down this lane for a moment. The original thirteen colonies were founded by royal charters by the English crown to one of a couple private companies. Most all these charters reverted to the crown by the time the Revolution occurred.

We’ll fast forward thirty years or so thru the Boston Tea Party, no taxation without representation, the first Continental Congress and up to the Articles of Confederation. This was the first “opt-in” attempt as forming the modern United States of America. A few (six) short years later the Constitutional Convention to overcome the Articles of Confederation.

That convention wrote the part about “We the People,... in order to form a more perfect Union,”. As they laid out the mechanics, these folks that just fought a war of independence, chose not to include a method by which to dissolve this more perfect Union. You think that was an oversight?

I don’t think so, and contemporary writings suggest it was not an oversight, either. Let’s see what Madison, writing as Publius, says about this subject in Federalist 58.

”... the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us.”

The subject of dissolving the more perfect Union was significant enough for public debate by the framers, which indicates a deliberate decision on the subject. But one which only merited a paragraph. Counter that with Washington’s entire farewell address, which was essentially an admonishment to forego allowing factions to forsake good governance for political party favoritism and expediency.

 

[ST5MF]

Let’s traipse down this lane for a moment. The original thirteen colonies were founded by royal charters by the English crown to one of a couple private companies. Most all these charters reverted to the crown by the time the Revolution occurred.

We’ll fast forward thirty years or so thru the Boston Tea Party, no taxation without representation, the first Continental Congress and up to the Articles of Confederation. This was the first “opt-in” attempt as forming the modern United States of America. A few (six) short years later the Constitutional Convention to overcome the Articles of Confederation.

That convention wrote the part about “We the People,... in order to form a more perfect Union,”. As they laid out the mechanics, these folks that just fought a war of independence, chose not to include a method by which to dissolve this more perfect Union. You think that was an oversight?

I don’t think so, and contemporary writings suggest it was not an oversight, either. Let’s see what Madison, writing as Publius, says about this subject in Federalist 58.

”... the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us.”

The subject of dissolving the more perfect Union was significant enough for public debate by the framers, which indicates a deliberate decision on the subject. But one which only merited a paragraph. Counter that with Washington’s entire farewell address, which was essentially an admonishment to forego allowing factions to forsake good governance for political party favoritism and expediency.

There is nothing in these historical writings that read We The People should continue to subscribe to a nation of rigged elections and be governed under fraudulent circumstances.

Succession is the least violent COA. Texans regain our Republic and the Union can continue with their Banana Republic.

 

[cycleguy2300]

So you are saying you are going to organize an non registered SBR Rally at The Alamo or?

It seems you want others to be defiant of federal gun laws but won‘t cross that threshold yourself as you are at least aware enough to know that it ends very bad for you, and for anyone else for that matter. This is called reality.

The option to secede from the U.S. was baked into the Texas Constitution when we joined The Union, and it would be a perfectly legal COA if that is what the people of Texas wanted. If we don’t secede then we will effectually be beholden to any and all federal gun control laws and the penalties for breaking those laws will in fact be severe. Again, see Waco 1994 and Ruby Ridge 1992 as examples of those who defy federal gun laws.

You could hold a rally, but the feds are more patient than you can be. They would let the rally happen and over the next few weeks and months they pick off folks they ID'd as being there and try to get them to throw another few patriots under the bus.

Essentially, they would avoid a confrontation and find and ambush us at places we have a disadvantage (guerilla tactics) and they can use intel, speed, suprise and violence of action to gain the advantage and capture us one at a time. You can't be alert 100% of the time...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[Gedunk]

Here is the actual bill. All 125 pages. It’s awful.

 

[oldag]

Let’s traipse down this lane for a moment. The original thirteen colonies were founded by royal charters by the English crown to one of a couple private companies. Most all these charters reverted to the crown by the time the Revolution occurred.

We’ll fast forward thirty years or so thru the Boston Tea Party, no taxation without representation, the first Continental Congress and up to the Articles of Confederation. This was the first “opt-in” attempt as forming the modern United States of America. A few (six) short years later the Constitutional Convention to overcome the Articles of Confederation.

That convention wrote the part about “We the People,... in order to form a more perfect Union,”. As they laid out the mechanics, these folks that just fought a war of independence, chose not to include a method by which to dissolve this more perfect Union. You think that was an oversight?

I don’t think so, and contemporary writings suggest it was not an oversight, either. Let’s see what Madison, writing as Publius, says about this subject in Federalist 58.

”... the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us.”

The subject of dissolving the more perfect Union was significant enough for public debate by the framers, which indicates a deliberate decision on the subject. But one which only merited a paragraph. Counter that with Washington’s entire farewell address, which was essentially an admonishment to forego allowing factions to forsake good governance for political party favoritism and expediency.

All great and good. Was not their dream of the U.S.

But the founders never envisioned the Constitution being trashed either.

Not convincing.

 

[rdrllcinc]

At least the Democrats are consistent - once again they are going after law abiding citizens instead of criminals. Perhaps once they pass the "assault weapons" ban and we are classified as criminals they will leave us alone too!

Damned fine thinking!

 

[cycleguy2300]

Damned fine thinking!

Sad but true...

Travis County is de facto nullifying state laws here. The arrested party DESERVES to be presented before a judge with an affidavit for probable cause for the arrest.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[GMA8877]

Yes democrats have engineered the negative image of gun owners. However, just like a bully, at some point he’s gonna need his ass whooped.

Yeah and with the other “ hand” they are letting criminals out. I guess they want criminals out and remove our guns so we can’t protect ourselves. How crazy is that?

 

[motorcarman]

Yeah and with the other “ hand” they are letting criminals out. I guess they want criminals out and remove our guns so we can’t protect ourselves. How crazy is that?

ALL part of the plan!

 

[Analog Kid]

Ban the assaulters.. not the weapons.

 

[Frank59]

As of Sunday this bill has 30 something sponsors. (Knock on Wood) I don't see this coming up for a vote on the Senate floor in its current form.

 

[Analog Kid]

Kansas Gov. Kelly vetoes lowered concealed gun carry age requirement, permit reciprocity, tighter election laws

Kansas Gov. Kelly vetoes lowered concealed gun carry age requirement, permit reciprocity, tighter election laws | American Military News

 

[MTA]

Kansas Gov. Kelly vetoes lowered concealed gun carry age requirement, permit reciprocity, tighter election laws
View attachment 253785
Kansas Gov. Kelly vetoes lowered concealed gun carry age requirement, permit reciprocity, tighter election laws | American Military News

Wicked ole c you next tuesday

 

[cygunner]

Hey DiDi, some of the same DEMOCRATS that voted against your chit in 2013 are still in the senate today. Rots a Ruck.

 

[Analog Kid]

 

[Analog Kid]

Oklahoma is pro 2A.... I like it.

 

[jonevill]

Yes. Now where's Texas? Lagging behind, as usual.