Civilians have no legitimate need for center fire cartridge, semi automatic rifles, with interchangeable magazines. They are weapons of war, developed for killing people in combat in the most efficient manner possible. Whenever the Democrats finally regain power, they should be banned, with people given 2 years to turn them in for some reasonable cash payments, after which, possession would be a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine, and up to 5 years in jail. Ditto with semi auto center fire pistols.
October 2, 2017
Comment to Video from Las Vegas suggests automatic gunfire. Here’s what makes machine guns different.
[It’s a Bill of Rights. Not a Bill of Needs.
If I could tell Simpson just one thing it would be that we need to enforce the laws already on the books—18 USC 242.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
ok, the structure and content of that comment is familiar, and old.
serious question, have the banners fired up their social media teams to spread the ban message?
We dismissed the false premise of the “need” test a long time ago. It isn’t the Bill of Needs. It’s the Bill of Rights. The American system has no place for a Central Planning Committee that decides who needs what and then uses coercion to enforce their decisions. Go to any communist country if that’s how you want to live.
Bill Simpson is also exposing his ignorance regarding firearms, as all antis do whenever they speak. Yes you do need a centerfire rifle if you’re hunting big game, or trying to control wild pigs, or defending yourself against a gang, or Marxist thugs and sucklike.
Simpson apparently just learned a new term (“centerfire”) and decided he’d use it right away, before learning anything about the wide range of power and capabilities of centerfire cartridges. While some consider the military intermediate cartridges like the 5.56 mm, et al, to be terribly small and underpowered, we see the leftists shouting from the soapbox that they’re way too powerful based solely on the fact that militaries use them.
(That brings up the related fact that the ignorant and insecure tend more to want to be in control of others)
The bottom line is, the individual gun purchaser will decide what he “needs” and it’s not anyone else’s business. We call that “liberty”. If you don’t like it, then maybe you’re in the wrong country.
And that leads to another, important point. Why go through all the trouble to tear down the US constitution when there are already so many places you can go where human rights are already unprotected? If you’re into that sort of thing, you can have it right now, without having to fight the Americans. Just pick up and move. See? Easy. No need to fight a generations-long psy-ops war against American liberty. Just leave it alone, forget about it, and go.
But that demonstrates another point. THE LEFT CANNOT TOLERATE the thought that anyone, anywhere, might be living free.
And that in turn demonstrates another point. Leftists are insane. Rriddled with guilt, confusion, fear, hatred and bigotry (if one person commits a crime with a gun, the entire gun industry and all gun owners are to blame), they’re incapable of leaving innocent people alone. That’s a pretty good reason to have a centerfire rifle, right there.
There’s a significant portion of the anti-gun crowd that has move on from “should we kill our ideological opponents” to “how should our ideological opponents be killed”. I’m seeing very little “how do we persuade them we are right” introspection.
A solid way to filibuster any proposals to repeal the second Amendment may be to just start reading all the “kill them all” twitter messages into the Congressional Record, one at a time, spelling out the twitter handles clearly in NATO phonetic alphabet for clarity.
Heh. Well, I suppose it’s too much to hope that the Democrats never regain power.
So, my counter-proposal is: When citizens say ‘no’ to infringement on their 2A rights, the government should IMMEDIATELY recognize that ‘no’ means ‘no’, after which further attempts at seizure would be punishable by sustained, accurate return fire. Ditto for the unconstitutional denial of other rights.
Sure. But the Constitution has never been respected by politicians. As soon as it came into effect, they started violating it wholesale. They never stopped. The courts have never significantly resisted that.
Hell, ‘the courts’ were in on it as soon as they could wrangle a case to make it look all proper.
Marbury v Madison comes to mind.
The Congress, which has the Constitutional power to define the courts and the court’s jurisdiction never “significantly resisted that” either.
Just me, but IMO they all began to figure out ways around the restrictions of the very Constitution they passed before the ink was dry.
+1 for Tirno. +1 for 18USC242, except for the Felony, the denial of Rights has to be done by a gubmint o fish ull. There is a Civil Side, which could be used against these Rights Deniers. Think of the $$$ the USA could get from Bloomberg….
The WSJ had an op-ed about that, showing a cartoon Antifa goon with a hand holding up a paper saying “subpoena” in his face. It talked about “anti-KKK laws” from the 1870s that provide for civil suits against KKK-like outfits, such as Antifa. It even mentioned that the winner gets expenses paid too, unusually in US legal process. It didn’t cite the laws by number or title, though, and I haven’t searched for references.
Winchester sold a centerfire, magazine fed, semiautomatic rifle in 1905…. the US Army first adopted a semiautomatic rifle, clipfed, in 1936 …. 31 years later. Not really a “weapon of war”.
Funny, the way I read that was that when the Democrats regain power, they (as in, Democrats) should be banned, turned in, and harboring a Democrat would be punishable by various means. It’s all in the phrasing, sort of like that “Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed” clause….