• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Officials

linerider69

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
83
Location
Louisburg
This is not entirely accurate. The 2A was meant as a means to ensure that a free people remain free from enemies foreign and domestic. Since there is no constitutional provision for a standing army, the citizens were the army and the citizen army privately owned the weapons necessary to protect the Republic.

So to say "It was never intended to allow folks to carry the exact same weapons as the military do." is true in the sense that there was no military separate from the folks. It is false in the sense that folks were the military so what they carried was by definition "the exact same weapons".

We now have a standing army. In order for us to maintain our protection from enemies domestic, we have a right to possess whatever weapons we deem necessary to do so, and this would require a MINIMUM of the exact same weapons as our military possess AND the training to use them.
I must agree what the founding fathers wanted was for us as American citizens is to always be able to defend the nation and the constitution against tyranny and foreign entities and have the tools and arms to do so. If the government was to have the right to posses weapons superior to the people,or enact laws that forbid the people from having weapons that might facilitate the absence of freedom of said people then we as the people would be lost.What is the point all other arguments are invalid period.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
I must agree what the founding fathers wanted was for us as American citizens is to always be able to defend the nation and the constitution against tyranny and foreign entities and have the tools and arms to do so. If the government was to have the right to posses weapons superior to the people,or enact laws that forbid the people from having weapons that might facilitate the absence of freedom of said people then we as the people would be lost.What is the point all other arguments are invalid period.

I think it is sufficient to tell anti 2A people that the 2A is NOT about hunting, sport shooting and self defense. Period. End of Story.
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
Might as well update this thread too.

IN HER OWN WORDS: See video from 20:50 - 20:58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJUfr...ayer_embedded#!

Here is from the 20:30 second mark and on to get her whole sentence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJUfr...ilpage#t=1229s

As for the spot in her bill I emailed the editor from the weekly standard he cited the same part in her bill as I have and he also had stated that on her own website it listed government officials as exempt. Since the news coverage of this has been released he said it has been removed from her summery. He said it was quite odd she has now edited it from her summery but the bill that she has posted on her site still has not been changed or noting any changes to her bills

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ns-ban-summary

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:


This is what her website shows now.

Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;
Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;
Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
Antique weapons.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
K, I'll go slow too. Track the history of the 2A. It was never intended to allow folks to carry the exact same weapons as the military do.

I've explained this a dozen times. So either you haven't been paying attention, or you are having trouble understanding.

eye95 is hilarious. Once he "explains" something, it becomes incontrovertible fact. His assertions carry the weight of divine truth.

He's parrotting the Supreme Court's counterfactual, illogical, and self-contradictory logic expressed within the statist, anti-second amendment Heller decision:

Heller decision said:
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim- ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Needless to say, this has no basis in history, fact, or reason. It's simply the result of the intellectual struggling of a handful of neoconservative statists, desperate to throw us a bone of "pro-gun conservatism" while ultimately doing nothing to overturn the status quo of a second amendment in shambles, already infringed to the point of incompatibility with its intended purpose. (Of course, this means the decision fits eye95 to a tee.)

I have but four words for those who "understand" eye95's illogical assertions, or who share the SCOTUS's statist conclusion:

"...shall not be infringed."
 
Last edited:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
I think it is sufficient to tell anti 2A people that the 2A is NOT about hunting, sport shooting and self defense. Period. End of Story.

I disagree with this blanket statement. It underestimates the intelligence of the anti 2A people. We must be prepared for all of the arguments or we'll be caught unprepared.

Example: Piers Morgan had some guests last night discussing gun control. He had a simple question. (Paraphrase)Since fully automatic weapons are illegal and semi automatic weapons have capabilities close to those weapons. Why not ban semi auto weapons which have the same magazine capacity as machine guns? Especially since nobody seems to have a problem banning fully automatic weapons.

The lady on the side of the 2A began to explain the difference between semi and full auto. Piers interrupted that he understood the difference but still posed his question. She was woefully unprepared to answer. Indeed it appeared she'd bought into the idea we should not have full auto weapons and now has egg on her face if she stands on the phrase "shall not be infringed".

We as gun owners have been bullied into having a "reasonable and common sense" idea of why we own firearms and we're allowing the bully to define "reasonable and common sense". We have no choice but to be firm, informed and honest in our defense of the 2A.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
I disagree with this blanket statement. It underestimates the intelligence of the anti 2A people. We must be prepared for all of the arguments or we'll be caught unprepared.

Example: Piers Morgan had some guests last night discussing gun control. He had a simple question. (Paraphrase)Since fully automatic weapons are illegal and semi automatic weapons have capabilities close to those weapons. Why not ban semi auto weapons which have the same magazine capacity as machine guns? Especially since nobody seems to have a problem banning fully automatic weapons.

The lady on the side of the 2A began to explain the difference between semi and full auto. Piers interrupted that he understood the difference but still posed his question. She was woefully unprepared to answer. Indeed it appeared she'd bought into the idea we should not have full auto weapons and now has egg on her face if she stands on the phrase "shall not be infringed".

We as gun owners have been bullied into having a "reasonable and common sense" idea of why we own firearms and we're allowing the bully to define "reasonable and common sense". We have no choice but to be firm, informed and honest in our defense of the 2A.

Her problem was appearing on the Morgan show. She should not have gone. There is no value in it.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
Well... I agree. My point still stands.

There is no point in going on such a show, and no point in bemoaning a lack of preparedness in debating the intellectually dishonest lapdogs such as Morgan. He will ignore any "good" answer and twist the questions back around to the agenda he wants to spout.

If she had given a good answer, it would have been wasted. Why try?
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
There is no point in going on such a show, and no point in bemoaning a lack of preparedness in debating the intellectually dishonest lapdogs such as Morgan. He will ignore any "good" answer and twist the questions back around to the agenda he wants to spout.

If she had given a good answer, it would have been wasted. Why try?

I see my point is wasted on you.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Might as well update this thread too.

IN HER OWN WORDS: See video from 20:50 - 20:58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJUfr...ayer_embedded#!

Here is from the 20:30 second mark and on to get her whole sentence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJUfr...ilpage#t=1229s

As for the spot in her bill I emailed the editor from the weekly standard he cited the same part in her bill as I have and he also had stated that on her own website it listed government officials as exempt. Since the news coverage of this has been released he said it has been removed from her summery. He said it was quite odd she has now edited it from her summery but the bill that she has posted on her site still has not been changed or noting any changes to her bills

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ns-ban-summary

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:


This is what her website shows now.

Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;
Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;
Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
Antique weapons.


If I knew worse tyranny wouldn't replace it, I'd gladly bring back the guillotine for these.....these creatures in Congress like Feinstein.
 
Top