Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

House Democrats Push for Gun Control Vote… Again

House Democrats Push for Gun Control Vote… Again

“We’re not going away.”

https://youtu.be/1XIVDe7x2ks

You may recall the House Democrats’ big gun control sit-in back in June. They’ve now moved on to phase two of their gun control campaign, demanding a vote.

NBC News reports:

House Democrats Renew Push for Gun Control Votes

House Democrats made a renewed push for votes on gun control measures on Wednesday — nearly three months after they staged a sit-in on that chamber’s floor demanding action.

“Time and time again we ask for compassion, time and time again we ask for action, time and time again we ask for leadership. Our people are sick and tired of a do nothing congress,” Rep. John Lewis , D-Georgia, said on the floor pleading with Republican leaders to take a vote. “These bills should be passed. Bring them to the floor, let us have a vote.”

Lewis, a civil rights icon, led the revolt over gun policy reform in June. And while the sit-in did not result in a vote on two controversial gun control measures, he and other Democrats said their effort highlighted the need for action.

On Wednesday, a number of Democrats spoke throughout the late morning in remembrance of the victims of gun violence. As they spoke, the lawmakers held photos of the victims of gun violence.

Wednesday’s demonstration is a continuation of what the Democrats began in June after taking over the House floor for a nearly 25-hour sit-in.

“We’re not going away,” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said. “We’re not going to stop until we enact gun violence prevention laws. We’re not going to stop until we get the job done.”

Here’s a video from Roll Call of House Democrats holding up pictures of gun violence victims.

Republicans are apparently working on measures to prevent any future sit-ins.

Fusion reports:

Republicans are vowing to prevent any more gun control sit-ins from happening on the House floor

In June, House Democrats staged a 26-hour protest on the floor of the House chamber to call for any sort of gun legislation in the wake of the Pulse shooting in Orlando.

Three months later, there are still no new laws, and now House Republicans are preparing to make any future such protests by lawmakers more difficult.

Democratic Rep. John Larson told Roll Call that his caucus expected Republicans to enact a formal ban on sit-ins in the House before Congress adjourns for recess in a few weeks.

“The rumor that we hear is that [it will happen] on their way out the door,” Larson told Roll Call.

It’s not an unfounded rumor, because House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters last Tuesday that Republicans were wrapping up “an investigation” into the protest and that there would be forthcoming action taken. No information was provided on what the investigation entailed – perhaps watching the Periscope broadcasts of the protest on repeat for three months?

“We expect members of Congress to adhere to the rules and the decorum of what is expected by being on the floor,” McCarthy said.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

We are two Supreme Court Justices away from gun confiscation.

    Ragspierre in reply to MattMusson. | September 15, 2016 at 8:58 am

    No. We really aren’t.

      Vancomycin in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2016 at 9:26 am

      Says the Hillary shill.

        legacyrepublican in reply to Vancomycin. | September 15, 2016 at 9:37 am

        Rags is an honest and knowledgeable commentator with his feet firmly planted on terra firma, not a Hannity shrill on a soapbox which is what you would like him to be.

        Ragspierre in reply to Vancomycin. | September 15, 2016 at 10:11 am

        Thanks, Legacy.

        Vancomycin is just calling me stupid names because he/she can’t deal with me on a rational…or truthful…basis.

        Typical T-rump cultist.

      Common Sense in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2016 at 11:05 am

      Yes, we really are!

      agree with Rags. Have you seen the poster that says: (paraphrased) You can try to take my guns away. But remember, I am a hunter. I kill things where they live and they don’t know I am there.

      Alan Gura doesn’t have high hopes for the Second Amendment, and he was the lead attorney of the Heller case.

      http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/the-court-after-scalia-the-next-conservative-justice-may-not-save-the-second-amendment/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

      Well before Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing, judges figured out that District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago are optional precedents. For all their powerful content, these decisions have in practice proven meaningless in the face of near-total resistance throughout the federal courts, in combination with the transparent lack of interest at One First Street in defending the Supreme Court’s eponymous position atop the judicial hierarchy. To be sure, some judges seek to apply Heller and McDonald in resolving Second Amendment disputes. But most treat the Supreme Court’s precedent as a hassle to surmount before rubber-stamping any legislative restriction on the right to bear arms. If not today, then very soon, it shouldn’t be too hard for any sufficiently dedicated and creative legislature to effectively ban firearms or just about any firearm-related activity, without worrying much about Heller. Appointing one “conservative” Justice to replace Antonin Scalia won’t improve matters. Indeed, “conservative” judges are part of the problem.

      The Second Amendment’s sad condition is not imagined by gun rights advocates. Four years have passed since UMKC law professor Allen Rostron, a former Brady Center attorney, noted that Justice Stephen Breyer’s Heller dissent was proving to be the case’s controlling opinion. As Rostron saw it, the lower courts “have effectively embraced the sort of interest-balancing approach that Justice Scalia condemned,” under which even complete bans on possessing handguns and functional firearms at home would survive an alleged Second Amendment right. This year, UCLA law professor Richard Re noted the phenomenon as a positive example of what his article titled “Narrowing Supreme Court Precedent from Below”: “[T]he passage of time has seen Heller’s legacy shrink to the point that it may soon be regarded as mostly symbolic.”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nlhQafsx3o
      Clinton delegate on lying so as to ban guns.

    casualobserver in reply to MattMusson. | September 15, 2016 at 9:25 am

    We aren’t far away from significantly reduced rights, that’s without doubt. Total confiscation? That may be a stretch.

      I rather suspect that it could be a matter of where one lives. I would most definitely not want to be in a couple of California counties, for example, should a Hillary Clinton Supreme Court provide the local constabulary even marginal coverage for confiscation. Because some of them, I think, would give it a run.

        No. It really, really won’t.

        If it’s announced, individuals will either ship their guns to their relatives in more friendly regions or will hide them in a manner sufficient to withstand casual scrutiny. There would be a lot of grumbling, and you would see a significant movement of the population out of those states, and a whole bunch of focused political wrangling. You would also see crime sky-rocket as the criminal gangs moved in.

        If it’s unannounced, any attempt at forced confiscation by State-level law enforcement will likely be met with armed insurrection, resulting in (at minimum) a localized, brief civil war. There are A LOT of small militia, Constitutionalist groups, Millennialist groups, survivalist groups and ex-military clubs out there which can mobilize at the drop of a hat, have a LOT of ordinance, have a reasonable amount of demolition skills and will have no problem what-so-ever with going toe-to-toe with the local police forces. Strangely, most of the criminal gangs would fall into line and effectively become foot-soldiers as the interests temporarily align (exactly how that gets sorted out later would be an interesting process to watch too).

        You also have to remember, most of those groups named above ACTUALLY TRAIN in shooting. The State-level law enforcement individuals are likely to hesitate, as they have a positive bias against shooting civilians (or even suspects) as they’ve been trained to shoot only as a last resort. The insurrection groups? Their FIRST response is going to be: THREAT? SHOOT!!

        It would likely take the deployment of the Army in order to put down any insurrection, and THAT would likely trigger a MUCH broader influx of fighters, as a lot of the survivalist and anti-government organizations nationally would start jumping up-and-down saying “see! SEE!!! We warned you! Now come and fight it here so we show these damned tyrants that you can’t take OUR rights away.”

        Sacramento, California would become a war zone overnight, and the tactical considerations of fighting a building-to-building guerilla war in Sacramento are very daunting.

        You would likely see any State government that tried it fall. And by fall, I mean that those individuals who put the plan into motion would likely be rounded up, charged with treason and executed through the formation of a militia Court system with public Juries (either by hanging or firing squad [poetic justice]).

        It would even actually be a relatively simple trial, from a judicial standpoint, as there’s only one real question, and it’s answered by the public record: “Did you authorize, through legislative action, the attempted confiscation of firearms from individuals in violation of their United States Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?”

        Further likely would be that a whole bunch of counties in any State that tried to pull this off would openly revolt, and seek separate recognition from the US Government as a separate State, and would turn away the conflict by the Sheriff [highest County law enforcement officer] of those Counties refusing to enforce the confiscation.

        Long and short of it is that at the end of the conflict, there would be a MUCH, MUCH different political structure in place for anywhere that actually attempted something so fool-hardy.

          buckeyeminuteman in reply to Chuck Skinner. | September 16, 2016 at 2:51 pm

          Are you writing a plot for a movie? Too bad all the chumps in Hollywood are the ones who want confiscation.

          No. But I’ve spent quite a bit of time thinking about this from an academic and conceptual standpoint.

          There IS a fulcrum point or tipping point where, once reached or surpassed, will result in a wholesale breakdown of the Republican form of State governance. One of those tipping points is firearm confiscation. Another would be if there were some form of large-scale land confiscation of a broad swath of the populace. A third would be some form of massive wealth confiscation. The “Deep Blue” States are most susceptible to this form of breakdown from their “leadership” attempting to form Utopian governments by forcing equal outcomes upon all residents, through confiscation and redistribution. That can ONLY happen if there is no one with the POWER to object by force.

          Each of these tipping points had different players, and different short-term and medium term outcomes.

          Firearm confiscation is likely to be the most immediately violent, as those WITH the firearms are the most likely to immediately fight back in a meaningful way, AND because there are so many small, “patriot” or anti-government groups which have studied the history of other nations which HAVE confiscated weapons and then immediately become tyrannies or dictatorships.

          Rightly or wrongly, those groups see firearm confiscation as the first step to pacifying the public, and will REFUSE to comply and will react violently to any attempted forced confiscation, seeing it as the first step in destruction of personal and natural rights in favor of Marxist-Leninist Utopianism, which inherently ends up with tyranny in Stalinism.

          Those “patriot” groups will not stand for a wholesale invasion of a Natural and Constitutional Right, and enough of them ARE willing to die to protect it that armed conflict becomes inevitable.

      inspectorudy in reply to casualobserver. | September 15, 2016 at 10:56 am

      You might want to ask the Australians and the British people about how absurd it is.

        Ragspierre in reply to inspectorudy. | September 15, 2016 at 11:10 am

        And you might want to consider how greatly we differ from Australians and the Brits, and are more like the Swiss.

        Will you hand in your guns? I won’t. (Not that I have any after that terrible boating accident).

          So you’re not really saying you don’t think they’ll outlaw certain types of firearms, just that you won’t comply when they tell you to turn them in. You’ll become a criminal in other words.

          I agree that they probably won’t come door to door trying to “confiscate” our guns, but I have no doubt that, given the chance, they’d outlaw all but the most basic of firearms (and perhaps even those too)…meaning that if you ever had to use one for its intended purpose, you would be arrested and imprisoned.

          It sounds great to imply that the mass of gun owners would fight back, but I seriously doubt it would happen in any meaningful way.

          They wouldn’t outlaw all guns in one day and then start going door to door scooping them up: they’d only outlaw evil “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines…then a few years later they’d expand the definition of “assault weapon” to cover more guns, then years later, after we’ve gotten used to that, they’d ban another type. During this, they’d enact heavy taxes on guns and ammo to reduce the number of gun owners to cut down on the numbers of people who would complain…etc etc etc. It might take several generations to completely outlaw guns, but it could most definitely happen.

          During all this, you might see a single person or small group here or there resist. They’d be mercilessly put down and either killed or arrested and the rest of the citizenry would just shake their heads and wonder over those crazy gun-nuts. The incidents would likely even be catalysts for passing more stringent controls…especially if a cop or two is shot during the incident.

          And all it would really take to get the ball rolling is a couple of supreme court justices to change sides and provide the legal cover that the anti-gunners have been craving for decades.

          The danger is real. Not for next year, or even within our lifetimes, but given the opportunity to whittle away at the numbers of gun owners in our society a little at a time, it is a real threat. I may never personally have a gun confiscated or outlawed, but our “job” is not just to protect our own rights, but those of our grandchildren and their grandchildren as well.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2016 at 1:04 pm

          IF what you’re saying about your countrymen is true, we’re screwed as a nation of civil liberties and natural law already.

          You can just turn your toes up. Roll over, take your dirt nap.

          I’ll resist, thank you very much. AND I’ll teach, persuade, encourage others to resist, as well.

          IF it comes to that…TEXIT…!!!

          You’ll become a criminal in other words.

          Yep. I will. I will tell you that right now.

          And the Government would have a MUCH, MUCH larger problem with me, as I OWN the equipment to manufacture the firearms that would likely be banned/confiscated, which is all (call it) “dual-use” manufacturing equipment. I can make parts for cars, planes and gas grills just about as easily as I can make parts for firearms.

          Making a couple of simple assumptions, with the materials that my family manufacturing facility has on hand at any given time, we could probably produce anywhere between 3500 and 5000 AK-47s per week if we converted over to focus on doing that. The longest component to produce (and thus the limiting factor) would probably be the receiver (being the most complex), as we would likely mill it out of a solid steel block. Assume that because we’re trying to make them in bulk it also has to be produced on some of the older HAAS mill 5-Axis machines. They’re the slow machines. Say, 18 minutes per receiver, the machine runs 24 hours a day, at 80% initial efficiency. That means for the slowest machine, making the slowest component each machine generates 64 receivers PER DAY.

          Last time I checked, we had 7 HAAS mills, most of them are faster than the 5 axis machines, and an additional couple of OTHER manufacturer model production machines that are even faster than those but let’s leave it simple. Call it 10 machines. That’s 4,480 (64 x 10 x 7) receivers PER WEEK. A couple of other machines making stocks every couple of minutes. A couple of other machines making barrels every couple of minutes. The smaller, simple components can be produced on other, faster production machines in time measured in seconds.

          You give me the raw material resources, and I can outfit an army of 50,000 with selective single-fire / fully automatic weapons in a matter of ELEVEN WEEKS. Not years. Not even months. ELEVEN WEEKS. That doesn’t even use up our full machining capacity.

          Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but some of our equipment is designed to bore hole into rod diameter larger than 6 inches. With a little bit of doing, and the brainpower just in our engineering department, we could probably make a pretty decent attempt at a howitzer. Some of our guys are pretty good automotive mechanics and car builders. Put that on a modified Truck or heavy SUV, and now you’ve got a TANK / Mobile Artillery. Can it go toe-to-toe with an Abrams? Hell no! But it would be cheap, mobile and effective in doing immediate term damage to reinforced enemy positions. You bet.

          Manufacturing the ammunition is a lot dicier, as we would have to convert some of our equipment to do things that it was never meant to do, and procure the chemical resources to make propellant. But overcome those two hurdles, and suddenly you’ve got an equipped functional fighting force. Not great, but equipped and functional.

          The more important part is, you give me access to ANY medium to large turned-parts manufacturing facility ANYWHERE in the United States, and I can duplicate this process, because the programming for the equipment is easy, the production tooling is fairly standard, and the raw materials are largely easy to procure without drawing attention.

        Ragspierre in reply to inspectorudy. | September 15, 2016 at 12:04 pm

        Just a lil’ historical vignette…

        Why are pre-WWII Colt SAA pistols relatively rare when so many were produced?

        Well, when the Brits were looking at the real possibility of a Nazi invasion, they discovered that civilian disarmament was maybe not SUCH a swell idea after all.

        They put out a plea to the world for civilian arms, and Americans responded. After the war, those guns were simply destroyed.

      Fiftycaltx in reply to casualobserver. | September 15, 2016 at 4:31 pm

      I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets. We may have our disagreements on gun safety regulations, but we should all be able to agree on a few things. If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked. You shouldn’t be able to exploit loopholes and evade criminal background checks by buying online or at a gun show. And yes, if you’re too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America.
      Hillary, June 13, 2016
      So how do you get “weapons of war” off the streets? Why the “Australian buyback” CONFISCATION. How does the “suspected terrorist links” work? Somebody puts you on a list. There is no way to get off. Who is a “suspected terrorist”? GUN OWNERS! But, no, it will NEVER HAPPEN HERE! Unless Hillary is elected.

      It doesn’t have to be total confiscation to really screw up the pro-gun community. With a 6-3 majority on the SCOTUS, certain supports can be knocked out from under the Second Amendment.

      Inconvenient law prohibits victims of gun violence from suing gun and ammunition manufacturers out of business? Declare it unconstitutional. All those nasty gun makers who fled blue states will send all of their ill-gotten gains back to the deserving liberals with a few nice, big class-actions.

      Pro-gun states giving CC permit carriers from other states permission to carry in theirs? That’s interstate commerce, of course, and can be banned.

      Vocal defenders of gun rights getting to be a problem? Have their mental health questioned and confiscate their entire gun collection, including any guns or ammunition held by family members in the same house until they are declared sane AND prove it in a court of law. Or just accidentally melt down the whole collection due to some arbitrary time limit having expired. Oh, and make sure to shoot the dogs when the SWAT team shows up at the house. It’s a tradition.

      Liberals have a simple two-step rule to ‘solve’ gun violence.
      1) Crazy people should not be permitted to own guns.
      2) Wanting to own a gun means you’re crazy.

    iconotastic in reply to MattMusson. | September 15, 2016 at 5:14 pm

    Maybe if you put in the qualifier that we are 1 justice away from de facto disarmament of the American people there might be less disagreement.

    As for the likelihood that Americans will fight back, that ship sailed long ago. Few among us will risk life imprisonment, execution, or death by excitable marshall to fight encroachments on the 2nd Amendment. So even though we Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment as a firewall limitation on the government that cannot be breached by any simple legislative act may passively resist we will slowly be swept up (defeated in detail) by all-encompassing government.

      Ragspierre in reply to iconotastic. | September 15, 2016 at 5:34 pm

      So, you’re saying you are screwed.

      Not me, because I won’t be screwed.

      Wow.

      There’s more groups and individuals out there than you would think.

      Read up Professor Michael Barkun’s work on Millennialists movements, the Radical Right, and Terrorism (The Maxwell School at Syracuse University).

      I disagree with a few of Professor Barkun’s conclusions here and there, and think that he doesn’t give enough focus to the Radical LEFT, but he always took me seriously when he and I would discuss methodology to make a good guess as to exactly how MANY of those groups and individuals were out there, what their composition was, what made them tick and how to identify them.

First, nobody is a victim of “gun violence”. They’re victims of people violence. NOBODY should use that term.

Second, these people are just playing to their base; it’s fund-raising fodder and that’s all it is.

Third, when you read some of the Eeyores here kvetching about how the GOP is nothing more than Deemocrats, remember what they DO do, with holding the line on gun control being one of those things.

Keep it real.

    casualobserver in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2016 at 9:28 am

    Holding the line on gun control is not unique to the GOP if you do head counts. Sure, more GOPers if not most want to preserve most existing policy. But some Dems are not in agreement with every detail of the party’s platform this election, either.

    The muddled area for both sides is the whole stupidly named “assault rifle” issue, and banning or not banning.

    TX-rifraph in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2016 at 10:14 am

    “First, nobody is a victim of “gun violence”. They’re victims of people violence. NOBODY should use that term.”

    Exactly. Inanimate objects cannot exhibit violent behavior.

    Liberals love vague terms to communicate their foggy “thinking” and dishonest “solutions.”

    casualobserver in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2016 at 10:20 am

    “Second, these people are just playing to their base; it’s fund-raising fodder and that’s all it is.

    It’s also a signal they KNOW they are losing the base. While Trump is now courting people in the middle and some disaffected Dems (e.g. mandated maternity leave??), Hillary it still stuck bashing Trump, his supporters, and trying to recharge her base.

    Of course, Obama proved if you can really motivate the base, you can win. The Dems have certainly played ball much better at a local level and for much longer. The have to almost screw up to lose in many districts.

    inspectorudy in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2016 at 11:02 am

    I don’t understand how you can take that position. hillary has in her platform that she will reintroduce the gunmaker liability law if elected and she has actually mentioned the Australian solution to gun control on several occasions. If she is the victor then she will select people to SCOTUS that will make RBG look conservative. It is not a stretch to see her move to make magazine capacity and built in gun locks mandatory her first day in office through and executive orders. Rags, your position is similar to the farmer saying he has a new guard for the hen house and it is a fox.

      Ragspierre in reply to inspectorudy. | September 15, 2016 at 11:35 am

      You are being hysterical here, dude.

      First, remember that Hellary is a big, fat liar who lies. What makes you think she’s not lying to her base?

      Second, consider the mechanics of confirming a nominee. Are you going to sit on your butt, or would you join me in a mass march in D.C.?

      Third, would you join me in open civil defiance? Not a gun fight, but simply saying “NOPE! You can’t do it!”.

        “Not a gun fight, but simply saying “NOPE! You can’t do it!”.”

        The government enforces every law with the threat of violence. Saying no when they come to your door will be of zero value. You either fight it in the political arena to stop it from happening, or you give up your right to the weapons. So, when they change the laws, and the SC affirms, you will only have two choices – passive or active. And active will be violent. Saying “NOPE” will be of no value.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 15, 2016 at 7:06 pm

          Yeah, no. You’re full of shit.

          Civil disobedience…supported by enough people…works every time it’s tried.

          You don’t read much, huh? Look up Gandhi, MLK, and the suffragettes.

Silly Dims, spewing forth utter nonsense yet again. They’ve HAD their “gun votes” the past few cycles. And look what it’s gotten them. They’ve had their asses handed to them in a basket in the House and the Senate and even more so in many state houses. I’d feel sorry for them if they weren’t such vile, power-mongering Marxist dickheads.

Humphrey's Executor | September 15, 2016 at 9:44 am

Meanwhile, existing gun laws go unenforced.

    Especially, from reports, in Chicago.

    Weird, huh?

    They will get all the guns, but it’s going to be over a period of time.
    Look at all the special snowflakes they’ve manufactured through the schools who pee their pants at the mere mention of guns.
    Look at the hysteria caused by the msm slant over guns.
    When a couple guns and 200 rounds of ammunition make an “arsenal”, when a kid is kicked out of school for finger gestures or a Pop Tart gun, you can bet we’re only a few generations from only the government will have guns.
    Their whole premise is a constant lie retold ad nauseam.

Ya see, there is this one little, tiny niggling issue these dimwitted “F’er’s” don’t get, not even a little bit. How the hell do they plan on “confiscating” them? “Oh, we’ll just knock on your door,” or, “conduct warrantless entry,” or “‘make you register them'” Belchery and her USSC implants are utterly irrelevant. 😀 😀 😀

    Anonamom in reply to Marcus. | September 15, 2016 at 9:52 am

    Unfortunately, many decent, law-abiding citizens have registered their firearms (and now ammunition, too, in some places). It would not be hard for an overzealous pro-gun control law enforcement chief (yes, there are some) to get warrants based upon registration records.

      Humphrey's Executor in reply to Anonamom. | September 15, 2016 at 10:19 am

      Law abiding citizens are just that. If you outlaw possession of firearms (without hard-to-get permits) then law abiding citizens, by definition, will turn in their guns. That’s how they disarmed Australia. Pretty simple really.

        This brings up a good point.

        I’ve had this argument with people my entire life, and it’s basically that none of us who are conservatives in the sense the Levin was using it the other night are “law abiding” to the nth degree. Anyone who loves liberty HAS to be prepared to break SOME laws, or else you’re rationally just waiting for the law to be passed that makes you a slave or compels some act or other that you cannot comply with.

        You and I have to be prepared to be civil disobedients in the true sense, and even insurrectionists in the extremity.

        There could, in any society, come a point where people withdraw their consent to be governed.

          inspectorudy in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2016 at 11:10 am

          Rags, I agree totally with you but it won’t be a mass event for the individual. It will be two guys with badges standing at your front door with a warrant to search your premises for weapons. There will be no grandstanding at that moment. You will comply or be arrested. I am sick of the “From my cold dead hands” comment, though I greatly admired Heston, because it puts all of us gun owners into the Patrick Henery mode of only one life to give for our country. We have seen the deception and dishonesty of obama on so many issues so we can only dream of how a hillary would treat the Constitution. This is not going to be a physical armed standoff, it is going to be a battle at the ballot box.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2016 at 11:25 am

          I agree in part and dissent in part.

          It will ALSO be a battle at the courthouse. I’m not about to get in a gun battle with anyone that can be avoided. So don’t lets be silly. In the scenerio you imagine, with a properly made out search warrant, I’ll stand aside and let the search be made. If I have any firearms that could be found, I’d be a double-barrelled idiot. Forewarned is fore…well, you get the picture.

          I know people who are already preparing for an eventuality like the one you project. Folks are not stupid.

          How did the Volstead Act work out? Well, there were some arrests, and some prosecutions of ordinary folks. But there simply were never enough cops who believed in the stinking law to enforce it, and there were vast numbers of Americans who were happily defying it.

          In an age where 3d printers are coming to be affordable by everyone, who CANNOT make their own guns, push-come-to-shove?

      Police Chiefs are political creatures, doing their masters bidding. The rank and file officers on the other hand are the ones going to be tasked with the confiscation. They are also the ones that are going to have to decide who is first through the door. Not every gun owner is a sheep and will lay down and the R&F cops know this. Are they going to draw straws to see who could be the first one to die?

        And, quite apart from thinking of their own safety, I don’t personally know any LEO who would go into my home with the idea in mind that they’ll even possibly have to kill me to enforce a “law” that they don’t believe in (and I can’t think of one who DOES).

        But I live in Texas…

          iconotastic in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2016 at 5:26 pm

          “But I live in Texas”

          Truly the point. In San Francisco, NYC, Chicago, Washington DC, Newark, Baltimore, LA, etc., etc. there are plenty of line officers who will follow orders. They will break into your home with a no-knock warrant if you have really p-o’d the powers that be. Maybe the arms lost in the lake mysteriously moved to an underground vault in your backyard but if they find anything (even a bullet/slug without powder, case or primer) that will be sufficient to charge you.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2016 at 5:36 pm

          Charge me with WHAT?

          You’ve given up before the fight. I won’t.

    MattMusson in reply to Marcus. | September 15, 2016 at 10:12 am

    California already has a team that confiscates guns when people are diagnosed with certain types of mental illnesses.

    An 8 man tactical unit in full body armor with assault rifles knocks on the door.

      casualobserver in reply to MattMusson. | September 15, 2016 at 10:21 am

      That hasn’t been challenged fully yet, has it? I don’t watch closely but it’s my understanding that court testing is underway.

      Humphrey's Executor in reply to MattMusson. | September 15, 2016 at 10:23 am

      And now that our medical records are all digitized it will be all too easy to identify anyone who has complained to his MD about being down in the dumps, so the gun police can come knocking.

        “And now that our medical records are all digitized it will be all too easy to identify anyone who has complained to his MD about being down in the dumps, so the gun police can come knocking.”

        Or to CHANGE your digital records to suit the wishes of certain people. A political trouble maker, put a clinical depression event in his records. By the time he straightened out his record he would be ruined or out of office.

        And remember that when your doctor asks “Do you own any gunz”. There IS A BOX on your medical record for that. And it has already been determined that ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY has the ability to “investigate” you without a warrant.

    tom swift in reply to Marcus. | September 15, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    They don’t have to bother confiscating anything to disarm the populace, at least partially.

    There is an easy way to “infringe” but it’s at State level. Once a state gets annoying about something (“armor piercing” ammunition, black rifles, bayonet lugs, whatever), manufacturers and vendors who wish to avoid annoyance—i.e., most of them—stop shipping to that state. Voila, instant confiscation—or rather, embargo, which is almost as good.

    It doesn’t matter in the least if the State’s rationale for its laws and regulations is utter rubbish; it doesn’t matter if it heads to the courts immediately (it will languish there for years, doing nothing but soaking up money); it doesn’t matter if it has no effect whatever on illegal activity. Normal commercial supplies dry up instantly.

    In MA, an AG made up some absurd regulations a decade and a half ago, mainly about ammunition. Result? For years is was difficult for even the damn police to get ammunition. (Things have eased up a bit lately, though it’s not clear why.) Some vendors would ship ammo components to customers in the state, but others wouldn’t do even that. More recently another MA AG had a hissy-fit over AR pattern rifles, and within days, some major suppliers of parts kits stopped shipping any AR parts to the state. Other vendors continued supplies as usual; the AG said nothing about parts. Are the more cautious suppliers losing business? Hardly. The stuff is selling as fast as they can make it, even without the MA consumer market.

    This little trick won’t work so well at Federal level. But that won’t keep them from trying.

It’s not about the children (a.k.a. Posterity).

Clueless so called leaders!
Just one more gun control will stop the “gun violence”!

Maybe the house dems will seize the House chamber again and have another catered affair.

What a pitiful group of idiots.

    inspectorudy in reply to Common Sense. | September 15, 2016 at 11:16 am

    We all must understand it is not so much about gun control as it is about power. They all know that they will never have total control over us as long as we are armed. Remove the guns and voila, total oppression.

I wonder how the comparison between being killed by licensed concealed carry holders and being killed by an illegal immigrant would work out. Without any data, it would be my guess that far more people are killed by illegal immigrants than CCP gun owners.

If Democrats are so worried about violence, then they need to tell their supports to stop……..Yeah right, the Left survives because of violence.

“Time and time again we ask for compassion, time and time again we ask for action, time and time again we ask for leadership. Our people are sick and tired of a do nothing congress,” Rep. John Lewis , D-Georgia….

The following would be my answer to Rep. Lewis (and should fit nicely in the five-minutes-per-person allowed for debate):

You ask for “compassion,” but you evidently lack any compassion for all the law-abiding gun owners of this great nation. That is, at minimum, 30% of the population who have broken no laws, yet you want to pass legislation that will treat them as criminals and punish them as such.

You ask for “action.” I ask you to consider what “actions” will be necessary to enforce the laws you are demanding we pass. How many doors would you have SWAT teams break down, guns blazing, to seize a few legally-purchased rifles you have outlawed by fiat? How many children would you have traumatized and terrorized to see this through?

If your answer is “zero” then you lack the fortitude to follow through with your action — but if your answer is anything but “zero,” then I weep for you as a “compassionate” human being.

Finally, you’ve asked for “leadership.” Let me remind you that leadership comes in many forms, and sometimes the very best course of action is to do nothing. I understand the siren’s call to “do something” — to do anything — can at times be overwhelming, but to cave to external pressures is not to show leadership, but to absolve ourselves of it. Leadership means standing up for our beliefs and setting an example for others to follow, even if at times it means we stand alone. Leadership means doing what we believe is right, even when others want to do what is easy or popular.

It is not right to take action based on high emotion — action that will criminalize tens of millions of Americans’ previously law-abiding behavior — just to answer the call to “do something.” Therefore, sir, I believe I am fulfilling every one of your demands — compassion, action, and leadership — as I stand here to defy you. You also say the people are sick and tired of a “do nothing” Congress, but I believe you have it wrong: they are sick and tired of a micromanaging, overreaching, “try to do everything” Congress. And so I will not stand idly by and let you trample on the Constitution and the God-given birthrights of all Americans; black, white, brown, red, yellow, male, female, young, old, rich, and poor. These bills are neither necessary nor are they required to solve the problem of “gun violence,” nor do I believe they will be effective at doing so, therefore I urge my fellow representatives to stand with me in opposition. No Vote, or “No” vote.

Thank you.

Why can’t the Republicans fight back with laws that punish those who abuse the 2nd amendment? The progressive fascists are attempting to use the actions of those who abuse the 2nd amendment to justify the violation of our civil rights. Instead make the punishment severe enough for using a firearm to commit a crime that criminals will stop abusing the 2nd amendment.

Make use/possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime or it’s possession by a felon a federal crime punished by 30 years in prison.

    Such laws already exist. See 18 U.S.C. 241 “Conspiracy against rights” and 18 U.S.C. 242 “Deprivation of rights under color of law”.

    The trouble is finding a federal prosecutor who will agree to press charges.

      Oops. I read your comment and my mind went somewhere else….

      18 U.S.C. 241 and 242 are more applicable to people who push for laws unconstitutionally abridging the 2nd Amendment.

      As for the folks you’re talking about, “assault with a deadly weapon” (which is a Class C or Class 3 felony in most places) should suffice. Keep in mind that “assault” includes threatening to do harm to another person, and is separate from “battery” (actually doing harm).

      Also, see Florida’s “10-20-Life” statute (assault with a firearm w/ no shots fired = 10 years, assault with a firearm w/ shots fired and no injuries = 20 years, assault with a firearm w/ shots fired resulting in injuries = Life), along with various states’ “Hard Time for Armed Crime” and “Three Strikes” statutes.

      The mechanisms are there, if only prosecutors would use them rather than plea-bargaining violent criminals into lesser crimes and sentences.

From reading the above, one thing is clear. Rags would rather risk armed revolution than vote for Trump. The denial of reality in his analysis is appalling.

    Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | September 15, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Naturally, that’s a lie, and you’re a liar.

    People can read.

      VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2016 at 3:58 pm

      I don’t have to lie, rags. Your own words condemn you. People can read. I’m counting on it.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 15, 2016 at 4:19 pm

      Nobody “has” to lie. But some people simply chose to, every day.

      Like you, whenever you post here about your Great God Cheeto and those of us who will not genuflect in his direction.

      You’ve done it again today. And we can predict you’ll do it tomorrow in your role as ThoughtPolice goon. It’s just who you are.

    Your belief in Trump’s magical abilities to achieve the blank slate fantasy agenda you have projected upon him rivals even the most feverish Obamabots.

“Yeah, no. You’re full of shit.”
More of the Rags “principles”.

“Civil disobedience…supported by enough people…works every time it’s tried.
You don’t read much, huh? Look up Gandhi, MLK, and the suffragettes.”

You don’t comprehend much, huh? All of your examples were causes to the left of the center. I’m hard pressed to find any civil disobedience that has ever worked from the right, save possibly repeal of prohibition, but that was supported by both sides. The left will not give a good GD about your civil disobedience. Conservatives have been calling for civil disobedience, and it goes nowhere. See defense of marriage.
Republican majorities in the congress and as president are your best defense, and they fall woefully short. You seem to be saying don’t worry about the courts because “civil disobedience”. There is some shit here, but it’s not in what I wrote. The left pushes, the courts rule, and we lose little by little. Where is your civil disobedience that in some states no concealed carry permits are being issued? Or why you should be required to have a permit? Where is your civil disobedience that in some states it takes weeks just to be approved to have a permit to purchase a pistol? (North Carolina, ask me how I know)

Which is not to say I will not be disobedient or more shall the time come. But I have no doubt what the outcome of a gun grabbing court will be. I have to live in the real world. Like lefty’s, you choose to invent a world in your head.

    Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 16, 2016 at 1:14 am

    Wow.

    I always learn so much from T-rump sucking Collectivists.

    I didn’t know that Indian independence from the Raj was “leftist”.

    Or that sufferage was “leftist”.

    Or even that civil rights were “leftist”.

    Huh… What interesting bullshit.

      You cannot comprehend anything you read. The causes you report were “left of center”, at the time. That was the term I used. I made no judgement as to the worth of any of those causes, good or bad, right or left.

      Find a case of successful “civil disobedience” led by the right. I don’t think you can, and I will not hold my breath while waiting.

      That doesn’t mean it will not or cannot happen with gun control. However, we have plenty of examples in many states were gun rights are being restricted and it ain’t happening.

      Anyone that thinks, understands what you are doing. you are trying to make the case the SC justices do not matter, that “civil disobedience” will take care of the problem. All because you suffer trump derangement.

      It’s bullshit of course, patented rags bullshit. The evidence is in all those states restricting the rights.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 16, 2016 at 12:34 pm

        You’re as ignorant of history as you are of current events.

        Your silly bullshit about trying to categorize civil disobedience as a “left” or “right” phenomenon is simply that; silly bullshit. I know less about the sufferance movement than the civil rights movement, but the latter had conservatives in the vanguard. You historical ignorance is breathtaking. Or are you simply skewing your “thinking” for your man-crush on the Great God Cheeto?

        The TREND in the U.S. is TOWARD greater freedoms WRT guns.

        Look up “Connecticut” and “Virginia” as current examples where gun owners’ rights have been threatened. In the former, you have an excellent example of people ignoring the law.

        I’ve never even suggested that the Supremes don’t matter. I’ve made the rational case against the notion of a gun rights apocalypse, particularly from a natural rights perspective, as well as the practical fact that Americans simply won’t abide such a thing.

        The Collectivist you SUPPORT is as apt to nominate bad candidates to the Court as anyone, despite your blind faith in the face of all evidence as to his “core”. He’s supported gun rights infringement in the past, and that’s who he IS.

“You’re as ignorant of history as you are of current events.”

The subject was you stating nothing to worry about, “civil disobedience” will save us from the gun grabbers. Of course, one thing is very apparent, you can give no example of it. Everything else spewing from your paltry intellect is nothing more than bafflegab designed to hide that fact. You cannot show a single example from any state where “civil disobedience” has been used to keep faith the with the 2nd amendment. Complete failure.

“The TREND”, I will not argue. Perhaps, perhaps not. In any event those battles are won in the legislature and the courts, not through civil disobedience.

“The Collectivist you SUPPORT is as apt to nominate bad candidates to the Court as anyone, despite your blind faith in the face of all evidence as to his “core”. He’s supported gun rights infringement in the past, and that’s who he IS.”

The one you are supporting with your BS will appoint judges opposed to gun rights. That much is certain.

    Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 16, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    “Of course, one thing is very apparent, you can give no example of it. Everything else spewing from your paltry intellect is nothing more than bafflegab designed to hide that fact. You cannot show a single example from any state where “civil disobedience” has been used to keep faith the with the 2nd amendment. Complete failure.”

    You’re a liar. You didn’t bother to investigate Connecticut.

    You’re a complete liar, starting from your false depiction of what I DID say.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend