Some thoughts on Feinstein’s abolition of the 2nd amendment

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Bigcountry02, Dec 27, 2012.

  1. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup Supporter

    This is from our neighbors to the North

    1. What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and “shall not be infringed” do these people NOT understand?

    2. Even if you don’t like semi-automatic rifles, the criteria in her list includes many handguns that people use for self-defense, such as Glocks, Springfield XD’s, etc. If passed her bill would reduce us to use revolvers and some semi-auto guns that hold less than ten rounds in their magazines, such as the 1911, for self-defense and concealed carry purposes. This would leave us ill-protected against criminals and tyrants (but I repeat myself) because in today’s world, revolvers are inferior weapons, although better than nothing. Don’t believe me? Look up the 1986 FBI Miami Shootout and what the FBI’s response was.

    3. Registration? Seriously? Historically registration has always led to confiscation of those weapons by the government, which means that anyone that does register their guns is getting set up to be screwed. (Word of advice for gun owners, although you probably know this by now: don’t register your guns, you’re just going to lose them later.)

    4. The left’s solution to the failure of gun control, such as in Chicago, California, or Connecticut (which has protective weapon bans and high crime) is… more gun control. This will not end with this bill; they will “progress” until all firearms have been banned and confiscated (see #3.) It is in their nature to do so.

    5. Remember, this is the same person that carried a gun for self-defense and has a hard-to-get California CCW permit. Don’t believe me, click here . She, and other lords and ladies like her, can carry a gun, but us peasants can’t?

    6. Even if you don’t like guns at all, you should still oppose this bill, because ultimately this is about freedom. You have the right to protect yourself in whatever fashion you see fit, whether that’s with a baseball bat, a handgun, or yes, a semi-automatic rifle. This bill effectively says, “You can only protect yourself with certain tools authorized by the State.” Soon, in the not too distant future, the government will effectively say, “You have no right to defend yourself at all.”

    7. Even if this bill doesn’t pass now, they will pass it in 2015 after the Democrats take back the House. Hopefully, this bill will fail now and give law-abiding gun owners one last chance to stock up on ammunition. When the consequences of out-of-control debt hit us, and riots break out in the streets all across America, they’ll need it to protect themselves and their families. But of course, this all depends on the willingness of the Republicans to fight, and given their tendency to capitulate to the left on the fiscal cliff debate, I doubt they’ll fight for our 2nd amendment rights.
  2. TNFrank

    TNFrank New Member

    This is the part that I keep wondering about. I mean, they DID take an Oath of Office to Uphold and Defend the Constitution so by their very actions they're Traitors and should stand trial for Treason and be jailed once they're found guilty, right? How ignorant have the American People become to not see that by trying to Infringe on our 2nd Amendment Rights they've broken their Oath of Office.
    As far as defending myself with a revolver, I did that for many years even after semi-autos came into vogue. I still think a 4" 357Mag is a pretty good defensive weapon but it IS nice to have 19+1 in my Glock G19 for those "bump in the night" situations where I might not be able to grab an extra mag.

  3. Merkava_4

    Merkava_4 New Member


    There's a lot of those politicians that should face trial in court for high treason.