texashuntingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
TraeMartin, Beatixre, MooseSteed, Trappernewt, casyoo
71987 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
dogcatcher 110,788
bill oxner 91,416
SnakeWrangler 65,416
stxranchman 60,296
Gravytrain 46,950
RKHarm24 44,585
rifleman 44,461
Stub 43,769
Forum Statistics
Forums46
Topics537,007
Posts9,719,390
Members86,987
Most Online25,604
Feb 12th, 2024
Print Thread
Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns #8608994 05/31/22 11:33 AM
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 15,128
Tbar Offline OP
THF Celebrity
OP Offline
THF Celebrity
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 15,128
Biden calls 9mm ‘high-caliber weapons,’ suggests banning them


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-9mm-guns-texas-uvalde-mass-shooting


Make America Great Again

Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Tbar] #8609002 05/31/22 11:48 AM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,019
D
deerhunter1956 Online Content
Veteran Tracker
Online Content
Veteran Tracker
D
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,019
Recounting a visit to a New York trauma hospital, Biden said doctors showed him X-rays of gunshot wounds.


"They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body," Biden


Just how stupid does this sound if I need to protect myself or family I dont want the perp have a chance to return fire.

Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Tbar] #8609008 05/31/22 11:58 AM
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 25,138
Creekrunner Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 25,138
Remember "Just shoot 'em in the leg!"? 'Same idiot.


...and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Gen. 1:28
Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Tbar] #8609064 05/31/22 01:18 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 26,157
C
Concho Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
C
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 26,157
Biden is an Idiot, there isn't much more to say on the matter.....



Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Tbar] #8609094 05/31/22 01:46 PM
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 16,566
6
68rustbucket Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
6
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 16,566
At one time he said all we needed was a shotgun. Wonder what a slug would do to a lung?



Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Tbar] #8609095 05/31/22 01:47 PM
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 16,566
6
68rustbucket Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
6
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 16,566
Guess I should have a .45 instead of 9mm?



Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Tbar] #8609107 05/31/22 02:14 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,771
The Dude Abides Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,771
The guy is a mental retard.


Originally Posted by Superduty
I am still looking for the perfect apron, one with reinforced knee areas would be perfect.

Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Tbar] #8609244 05/31/22 04:54 PM
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 15,850
J
Jimbo1 Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
J
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 15,850
He wants it all...every gun, bullet... everything!


FJB - Lets Go Brandon
BBB - Bring Back Better
Awake - Not Woke!
Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Tbar] #8610570 06/02/22 03:13 AM
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 924
GNTX Offline
Tracker
Offline
Tracker
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 924
[Linked Image]

He must be referring to this stuff. laugh

Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: GNTX] #8610630 06/02/22 10:59 AM
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 218
F
Frio Town Offline
Woodsman
Offline
Woodsman
F
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by GNTX
[Linked Image]

He must be referring to this stuff. laugh


OMG that's funny!!


"Let's Go Brandon"
Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Tbar] #8610872 06/02/22 04:35 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,331
D
Dave Scott Offline
Pro Tracker
Offline
Pro Tracker
D
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,331
The number one point is that these maniacs look for a DEFENSELESS TARGET like little kids in school. The liberal solution...take away guns. NO GUNS is why these people target schools. Here's my suggestion....I'm retired, nothing to do. Why not have an all volunteer force where you spend half a day a week sitting in a school as a guard. Doesn't cost the tax payer a dime, no one has to give up their guns. You can have a sealed off room so the kids don't bother you. You can just sit there, have a cup of coffee, read a book. You don't settle fights between kids, etc. The only time you do anything is if an armed person enters the school. SECOND THING. A lot of states have a "stand your ground" rule. If an unknown person enters your home you can shoot them, NO QUESTION ASKED. Why not pass a similar measure, anyone entering a school with a firearm has no legal defense, the guard can shoot them on sight.
They say every house in America has at least one gun. Controlling NEW SALES is the most ridiculous solution, the proponents simply want to outlaw guns not prevent another mass shooting.
Other ideas.....
Years ago, when I was a kid, you could be charged as an accomplice before the fact if you knew some folks were going to rob a bank and you didn't tell the police. In a lot of these shooting there ARE people that were forewarned and didn't do anything. Also, parents who know their child has mental problems and still have firearms in the house. These adults are never prosecuted.
If there are any REPUBLICAN legislators out there reading this, don't sit back and let the Democrats come up with their same old same old, take the lead with a conservative response to help solve this problem.

Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Dave Scott] #8610888 06/02/22 04:56 PM
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,835
U
unclebubba Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
U
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 9,835
Originally Posted by Dave Scott
The number one point is that these maniacs look for a DEFENSELESS TARGET like little kids in school. The liberal solution...take away guns. NO GUNS is why these people target schools. Here's my suggestion....I'm retired, nothing to do. Why not have an all volunteer force where you spend half a day a week sitting in a school as a guard. Doesn't cost the tax payer a dime, no one has to give up their guns. You can have a sealed off room so the kids don't bother you. You can just sit there, have a cup of coffee, read a book. You don't settle fights between kids, etc. The only time you do anything is if an armed person enters the school. SECOND THING. A lot of states have a "stand your ground" rule. If an unknown person enters your home you can shoot them, NO QUESTION ASKED. Why not pass a similar measure, anyone entering a school with a firearm has no legal defense, the guard can shoot them on sight.
They say every house in America has at least one gun. Controlling NEW SALES is the most ridiculous solution, the proponents simply want to outlaw guns not prevent another mass shooting.
Other ideas.....
Years ago, when I was a kid, you could be charged as an accomplice before the fact if you knew some folks were going to rob a bank and you didn't tell the police. In a lot of these shooting there ARE people that were forewarned and didn't do anything. Also, parents who know their child has mental problems and still have firearms in the house. These adults are never prosecuted.
If there are any REPUBLICAN legislators out there reading this, don't sit back and let the Democrats come up with their same old same old, take the lead with a conservative response to help solve this problem.

I have a full time job, and have plenty to do. I'd still volunteer at my kid's schools happily for a program like this.

Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Tbar] #8611502 06/03/22 12:08 PM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,255
D
Dave Davidson Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
D
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,255
Im retired. Most boring and worst paying job I’ve ever had. I and a lot of other old goats would gladly volunteer.


Without a sense of urgency, nothing ever happens.

Boy, if I say "sic em", you'd better look for something to bite. Sam Shelley, Rancher Muleshoe Texas 1892-1985 RIP
Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Tbar] #8612410 06/04/22 03:20 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,331
D
Dave Scott Offline
Pro Tracker
Offline
Pro Tracker
D
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,331
Well then, could such a thing actually happen? When the country started everyone was in a militia. This was usually town based and you voted for the junior officers and the governor appointed the senior officers. The Uniform militia acts of 1792 and 1793 required you to report for duty with a suitable rifle or musket and 300 rounds of ammunition. So it was "well regulated" in that officers were appointed/elected but it was armed by law with privately owned firearms. Article 1 section 8 gave the US congress the authority to arm train and discipline the militia, which was by what authority the militia acts of 1792 and 1793 were passed. There were so many days per year that congress required the militia to be trained. They had to have suitable arms, etc. Some folks think the militia was sort of a citizen/state "Army" to prevent the newly formed federal government from becoming despotic. That's not true. At the start, we really didn't have a federal army. The militia was the army. George Washington didn't like the idea. He thought militia were low grade, inferior troops that would never be able to win a war. He thought militia should only be used for menial tasks.
During the Civil War the governor of Alabama wrote a letter to Jefferson Davis in which the subject again came up. Remember Davis served with honor in the War with Mexico and was later Secretary of War, and I think a West Point graduate. Davis also held this view that militia were low quality troops that should serve temporarily, close to home and that their chief benefit was economic, it didn't cost the government anything. The militia wore their own clothes, supplied their own arms and ammunition.
In 1903 the US Congress suspended the active nature of the Militia and created a National Guard. Everyone under title 10 is technically in a standby militia. While Congress said you don't HAVE TO TRAIN James Madison in the federalist papers clearly wrote that the people have a RIGHT to THEIR militia. Therefore, as I see it, a State can activate a militia if that State wants to. The role is to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and see that the laws are faithfully enforced.
SO, let's consider our current situation. The government says the cost to have adequate guards in all schools is too expensive. We have a crisis in these mass shootings. IF THERE EVER WAS A REASON TO REACTIVATE the militia this is it. The burden would be virtually noting, you might only have to serve as a school guard half a day a month, nothing. The cost would be nothing, the schools would henceforth be secure, and WE ALL GET TO KEEP OUR FIREARMS.
The perfect solution. Maybe Texas could take the lead on this. Rather than mandate attendance/service by all citizens it might be better if the Governor just asked for volunteers. Once again, it wouldn't cost anyone anything in taxes.

Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Tbar] #8612583 06/04/22 07:57 PM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,108
J
J.P. Greeson Offline
the janitor
Offline
the janitor
J
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,108
Didn't Biden also suggest all you need for home defense is a double-barrel shotgun and stated that he told his wife to walk out on the balcony and fire it twice if she thought there was an intruder? So now you are on the balcony with an empty weapon.

hammer


“Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak, so we must and we will.” – Theodore Roosevelt

[Linked Image]
Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: 68rustbucket] #8612809 06/05/22 02:07 AM
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,225
Q
QMC SW/EXW Offline
Pro Tracker
Offline
Pro Tracker
Q
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,225
Originally Posted by 68rustbucket
At one time he said all we needed was a shotgun. Wonder what a slug would do to a lung?


When I was stationed in VA I did a lot of deer hunting with slugs in shotgun only areas. Trust me you do not want a 12 ga slug hitting you in the chest. It will cut a hole better than an inch in diameter and it won't stop but will punch right through the other side. A man and a deer are roughly the same weight and a 12 ga slug will send a whitetail flopping.


Retired Navy Chief
NJROTC Instructor for Tascosa High School
Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: J.P. Greeson] #8613044 06/05/22 03:01 PM
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 15,850
J
Jimbo1 Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
J
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 15,850
Originally Posted by J.P. Greeson
Didn't Biden also suggest all you need for home defense is a double-barrel shotgun and stated that he told his wife to walk out on the balcony and fire it twice if she thought there was an intruder? So now you are on the balcony with an empty weapon.

hammer

Yes he did. He's an idiot that knows nothing about firearms or self-defense. Also very irresponsible to advocate shooting in the air. FJB


FJB - Lets Go Brandon
BBB - Bring Back Better
Awake - Not Woke!
Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Dave Scott] #8613660 06/06/22 01:26 PM
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 924
GNTX Offline
Tracker
Offline
Tracker
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by Dave Scott
So it was "well regulated" in that officers were appointed/elected but it was armed by law with privately owned firearms. .


That’s not what, “well regulated” meant. In that vernacular, it referred to being trained and ready for the task. In that era, a clock that kept good time was said to be, “well regulated”.

All the anti-gun crown always throw that phrase out as if it means that 2A is subject to government regulations and laws.

Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Tbar] #8613775 06/06/22 03:55 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,331
D
Dave Scott Offline
Pro Tracker
Offline
Pro Tracker
D
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,331
I tend to disagree in a few aspects. The militia that is called forth by congress is an enrolled or an "enrollable" membership under state supervision. right now, under Title 10 it is inactive. The militia acts of 1792 and 1793 have Congress requiring something more that a firearm "for sporting use" be owned by all members or potential members of the militia. it CANNOT be the National Guard because the National Guard was created in 1903. In the National Guard you enlist for a period of time and are furnished uniforms and weapons by the government. It's nice to have a National Guard, they are better trained than a militia but just because there is a National Guard doesn't mean you still can't have a militia for a greater, more wide spread emergency. The bill of rights are rights recognized as resting with the people. The enrollment aspect, that's a historical fact. How can the local members vote for the junior officers if there isn't some sort of enrollment. The senior officers appointed by the governor, how do they know who the junior officers are if there isn't an enrollment/tabulation? These paramilitary groups running around out in the woods calling themselves militia- the politicians love to call them "militia groups" but that's not militia in the American sense. it is a paramilitary group. A militia, in the American sense, is the minutemen rushing off the Concord and Lexington, General Herkimer and the local citizens in central New York, the Governor of Ohio during the civil war when the confederate's were threatening the state. The "well regulated" militia being necessary to the security of a free state means that we are NOT talking about firearms "for sporting purposes", we are talking about firearms that would be sufficient to be used in a militia capacity. It kills me when liberal politicians act like they are not infringing on the Second Amendment because they don't have a problem with people having a firearm to shoot birds and squirrels. That's not the kind of firearms required to repel invasion, supress insurrection, and enforce the laws.
So... what I am trying to point out is a state can decide not to have an active militia and not require anyone subject for militia service to own a gun BUT Article 1, Section 8 allows the federal government to over ride that inactivity and DEMAND the state train and arm a militia to their specifications. In other words the river only flows one way, the Fed's can demand a state to be active but a state that is active cannot be told by the feds to disband and become inactive. That's actually what happened in 1903, the federal government suspended any requirement to train and the states then automatically ceased all training BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO.
So, IMHO, the Governor could require all able body men in Texas to enroll in an activated militia and start guarding the schools. There would probably be a lot of complaints so that's why I said it ought to be voluntary since there would probably be plenty of volunteers, more than actually needed.
On the gun control, you cannot realistically eliminate semi-autos with high capacity magazines, limiting new sales is ridiculous. Theoretically someone could load up with a half dozen revolvers under their belt and cause a lot of damage. The type of weapon is really immaterial to the crime. You cannot send every citizen to a psychiatrist. It seems to me the only way to protect the schools is to have guard on the school property in a cost effective way and pass some type of legislation where these guards can shoot first, not try to "negotiate" with anyone bringing a firearm on the school property.
It really bothers me all the children and the two teachers in Uvalde were killed by some maniac. We have it well within our capacity to stop such things and we ought to demand it be done. There are plenty of people that would help. And it wouldn't cost a dime.

Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Dave Scott] #8614027 06/06/22 10:13 PM
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 924
GNTX Offline
Tracker
Offline
Tracker
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by Dave Scott
I tend to disagree in a few aspects. The militia that is called forth by congress is an enrolled or an "enrollable" membership under state supervision. right now, under Title 10 it is inactive. The militia acts of 1792 and 1793 have Congress requiring something more that a firearm "for sporting use" be owned by all members or potential members of the militia. it CANNOT be the National Guard because the National Guard was created in 1903. In the National Guard you enlist for a period of time and are furnished uniforms and weapons by the government. It's nice to have a National Guard, they are better trained than a militia but just because there is a National Guard doesn't mean you still can't have a militia for a greater, more wide spread emergency. The bill of rights are rights recognized as resting with the people. The enrollment aspect, that's a historical fact. How can the local members vote for the junior officers if there isn't some sort of enrollment. The senior officers appointed by the governor, how do they know who the junior officers are if there isn't an enrollment/tabulation? These paramilitary groups running around out in the woods calling themselves militia- the politicians love to call them "militia groups" but that's not militia in the American sense. it is a paramilitary group. A militia, in the American sense, is the minutemen rushing off the Concord and Lexington, General Herkimer and the local citizens in central New York, the Governor of Ohio during the civil war when the confederate's were threatening the state. The "well regulated" militia being necessary to the security of a free state means that we are NOT talking about firearms "for sporting purposes", we are talking about firearms that would be sufficient to be used in a militia capacity. It kills me when liberal politicians act like they are not infringing on the Second Amendment because they don't have a problem with people having a firearm to shoot birds and squirrels. That's not the kind of firearms required to repel invasion, supress insurrection, and enforce the laws.?
So... what I am trying to point out is a state can decide not to have an active militia and not require anyone subject for militia service to own a gun BUT Article 1, Section 8 allows the federal government to over ride that inactivity and DEMAND the state train and arm a militia to their specifications. In other words the river only flows one way, the Fed's can demand a state to be active but a state that is active cannot be told by the feds to disband and become inactive. That's actually what happened in 1903, the federal government suspended any requirement to train and the states then automatically ceased all training BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO.
So, IMHO, the Governor could require all able body men in Texas to enroll in an activated militia and start guarding the schools. There would probably be a lot of complaints so that's why I said it ought to be voluntary since there would probably be plenty of volunteers, more than actually needed.
On the gun control, you cannot realistically eliminate semi-autos with high capacity magazines, limiting new sales is ridiculous. Theoretically someone could load up with a half dozen revolvers under their belt and cause a lot of damage. The type of weapon is really immaterial to the crime. You cannot send every citizen to a psychiatrist. It seems to me the only way to protect the schools is to have guard on the school property in a cost effective way and pass some type of legislation where these guards can shoot first, not try to "negotiate" with anyone bringing a firearm on the school property.
It really bothers me all the children and the two teachers in Uvalde were killed by some maniac. We have it well within our capacity to stop such things and we ought to demand it be done. There are plenty of people that would help. And it wouldn't cost a dime.


I am in nearly complete agreement with you. Especially the part I highlighted in your post. Makes me cringe every time this white house bozo talks about deer not wearing Kevlar vests. It makes me even madder that congress critters in the southern states and Texas never mention how the AR platform is pretty much the standard for feral hog population control (in conjunction with trapping). These clowns that say there is no legitimate purpose for owning, “weapons of war” and high capacity magazines know nothing about legitimate uses, not that we need to show just cause to exercise our constitutional rights. And isn’t it funny how gun grabbing politicians are quick to point out that we the people don’t stand a chance against the military with our AR and AK rifles. So which is it? Are they, “weapons of war” or not.

Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: GNTX] #8614581 06/07/22 04:42 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,331
D
Dave Scott Offline
Pro Tracker
Offline
Pro Tracker
D
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,331
There is nothing wrong with owning a firearm suitable for defending your country. If we don't trust our citizens any more than that, we have some huge problems. Most Americans don't know the gun laws in the old Soviet Union, the most repressive government in our time. Shotguns could be kept in the home. Rifles and handguns had to be kept at a shooting club. What some "liberals" are proposing is worst than existed in the Soviet Union.
Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger was thought as "sort of" a conservative. In any event he wrote on the Second Amendment arguing no individual right existed, that gun owners were wrong, etc. etc. that it was a "Collective Right". He then makes this leap in logic that if it is a "Collective Right" then how is it practiced and what is a "collective right" and voila! It means the same as "State Government". Holy cow batman, a SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE. What about the people having the right to peacefully assemble? Does that mean only "State Governments" can assemble? You can interject the same every place in the Constitution that "people" is mentioned.
Once again, whenever I say that I think "people means people" everyone knows EXACTLY what I'm talking about- private citizens.
If "people" means state government or "the national guard" etc. AND the right is not to be infringed upon. Who is barred from the infringement? Government. And yet under Article 1, Section 8 Congress can dictate the arming, training and disciplining of the militia, they can call it into federal service, it can order it here and there. The commander could surrender to enemy forces and order all militia men to surrender their arms. IN SHORT the government can infringe all over the place if only some form of state militia was intended. If the logic is flawed, and it is, then it has to mean "people" are citizens, not some level of government.
Now, what about this collective" wording, " The right of the "PEOPLE" shall not be infringed upon". I've given it a lot of thought, read the federalist papers, etc. etc. This is just my take but if people means "more than one" and it does. And, if in a court of law, through due process, a jury trial, etc. your rights to own a firearm can be curtailed as part of your sentence, then it seems that is an infringement by court trial has occurred and yet the Constitution speaks of not being denied your life, property, etc. unless through due process and there really can't be a contradiction in the Constitution. It has led me to this view that "people" may mean more than one citizen but NOT any level of government. This is sort of a win-win conclusion. The law can look to an individual but not the people at large. So, as an example Charles Manson gets out of jail and heads to a gun store to buy an AR 15. The store does a criminal background check on HIM. Does that effect the American people from being disarmed? Not really. So Charles Manson doesn't get the gun. On the other hand, the government now tries to impose a ban on ANYONE (the people) from owning an AR 15. You might have a silver star and a purple heart and now YOUR GOVERMENT is categorically, across the board, saying no one can own a firearm that is most suitable for defending the country. That is infringing on the "People" from owning such a suitable firearm. That ought to be clearly unconstitutional. The problem, as I see it, is that liberal politicians don't want to lock up Charles Manson type criminals. Now that these violent, convicted killers are running around in public, the Government has to create a world in which they can't get a firearm and start shooting people.
I've thought about some folks that argue the Second Amendment includes any weapon, machine guns, tanks, cannons, etc. In keeping with this idea that the arms are those most suitable for militia use and that the private citizen, coming forth with a privately owned firearm and ammunition sufficient for it, that as a practical matter an AR-15 and 300 rounds "fills the bill" but these other heavy infantry type weapons would be a logistic impossibly for one citizen to come forth with. The fact that the Uniform Militia laws of 1792 and 1793 required you own a suitable rifle or musket and have 300 rounds of ammunition pretty much confirms this.
As I said, these are my thoughts, I have tried to come up with a stance that doesn't cause conflicts with other parts of the Constitution, etc.
So, to summarize my thoughts:
1. The "arms" are those most suitable to defend the country from invasion, suppress insurrection, enforce the laws. If we ask a general of light infantry troops what would be his preferred firearm for private citizens to own if a militia action was needed, I'd say an AR-15 and 300 rounds would top the list. The liberals don't have to have a nervous breakdown because we all agree if we serve in a militia capacity we will follow legitimate government supervision, even if we elect the junior officers.
2. The right itself EXPANDS to all citizens, being "People" to have such a firearm. Women, old folks, disabled, etc.
3.The government might be able, through due process, to bar a convict from owning a firearm. They can look toward an individual but they can't look to the people as a whole.
4. The government cannot disarm or infringe categorically on the American people from owning such firearms. Either directly or by some backdoor gimmick as fees, taxes, etc. that make the right untenable for the average citizen.

Last edited by Dave Scott; 06/07/22 04:46 PM.
Re: Biden Wants To Ban High Power 9mm Hand Guns [Re: Tbar] #8671587 08/23/22 02:36 AM
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 103
RGG_123 Offline
Woodsman
Offline
Woodsman
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 103
yes, they are coming for your guns... all democrats.. sigh...

Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

© 2004-2024 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3