Assault Rifle ban coming soon?

The assault rifle ban in calif did diddly.

The biggest problem in calif is not the black guns but cheap semi auto .22 with large capacity mags bought in other states.

And they are not being used by law-abiding citizens but by illegals from other countries that are member of gangs.
These illegals could care less if the get arrested or shot.
They know if they get arrested for having a gun they will get at most a year in jail and deported.
after they are deported they will be back in weeks and if the cops stop them the cops can not do fingerprinting inn the field so they are released.

Only if these illegal gang member get arrested do the cops even find out they are back in the US,

This is a list of the baned black guns in cailf
ag.ca.gov...

There are 100s of semi auto guns that are not BLACKGUNS and banned for the illegal gang member to choose from.

We have weekly raids on gang member homes here and the cops after the raids will lay out a table with the guns recovered and tot there horn about the assault weapons recovered.

Very seldom is a calif listed assault weapon on the table.
most of the guns are sawed down .22 rifles. and pump shotguns.
about the only so-called assault rifles you see are SKSs with the factory 10 round built in mag-block.

Criminals don't use blackguns from the calif list they are to expensive (over $1000) they use cheap guns like 22s that they can saw the barrel and stock off of to make them easy to hide.


The gun owners of calif have been trying for 25 years to make it a 15 year mandatory minimum jail sentience for someone illegally in the country caught with any gun.
And a 30 years sentience for them if caught with a gun and drugs.
the bleeding heart liberal democrats have blocked all attempts to get this law on the books.

The best excuse they use is that it will cause prison overcrowding.
DUH if the problem of illegal alien gang members with guns and drugs is that big a problem let fix THAT PROBLEM. not go after gun owners.

You know what? It's as easy as this people. If some bureaucratic ass-master proposes a ban on one of your Constitutional Rights...DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! The 2nd Amendment is in place for THIS very reason. It's there to protect against this kind of tyranny. Organize, get together, stand your ground and announce to them, that they cannot and will not wipe their asses with our Constitution any longer. Organize an armed public protest. Get the local media involved. Make the government afraid of it's people instead of allowing it to be quite the opposite. We have insurmountable power against them. If an armed protest is out of the question, then hit them where it hurts, in the pocketbook. Quit contributing to their bad behavior. Quit paying taxes. Take your money out of the banks. They can't arrest everyone.

First, I would love to educate any and all who believe they understand the "arms" issue in the USA, as enumerated in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.

Second, studying my arguments and thought process will render you to have permanent insight into the "arms" issue both in the USA and the remainder of the world.

Third, you may turn into a "Second Amendment Proponent"

The preamble to the BILL OF RIGHTS, yes the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution is reproduced below:

PREAMBLE (TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS)
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

(insert Bill of Rights)

The first ten amendments ( of the Bill of Rights) are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
www.harbornet.com...

Natural rights (or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights) are rights conveyed by a particular legal or political entity, rights as enshrined in law, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

The Bill of Rights was not written "for a common man" it was written by common men for common men.
Inalienable rights are not conferred, granted, permitted, not permitted, withheld, licensed or any other malarkey, they were written down so that they would not be usurped and infringed upon.

You think the Bill of Rights was written by "government" to grant rights to citizens?
The Bill of Rights was written by citizens, voted on by citizens, and ratified by citizens who had recently fought, many to death, to secure the rights they wrote down.
The right to keep and bear arms means what ever the current militia (military) is in possession of as far as weapons are concerned is what was being spoken to. These men knew that weaponry would evolve and progress, that is why they used the word "arms" to depict what the average soldier would be armed with.

So having laid the primary ground work for discussion, that the Preamble to the BOR (Bill of Rights), restricts the Constitution, and the Constitution restricts the Government. I willl now discuss the Second Amendment to the BOR. Quoted next:

[Amendment II][4]

[Amendment II][4]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



The definition of the word arm

v. armed, arm·ing, arms
1. To supply or equip oneself with weaponry.
2. To prepare oneself for warfare or conflict.
1. To equip with weapons: armed themselves with loaded pistols; arm a missile with a warhead; arm a nation for war.
2. To equip with what is needed for effective action,
3. To provide with something that strengthens or protects:
4. To prepare (a weapon) for use or operation, as by releasing a safety device.

[From Middle English armes, weapons, from Old French, pl. of arme, weapon, from Latin arma, weapons; see ar- in Indo-European roots. V., from Middle English armen, from Old French armer, from Latin armre, from arma.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

arm
Verb
1. to supply with weapons
2. to prepare (an explosive device) for use
3. to provide (a person or thing) with something that strengthens, or protects: you will be armed with all the information you will ever need

Arm has to do with strengthen, protect, prepare, equip for ready action

arms
Noun, pl
1. weapons collectively
2. military exploits: prowess in arms
3. take up arms to prepare to fight
4. under arms armed and prepared for war
5. up in arms prepared to protest strongly

Arms pertaint to the tools necessary to protect, combat, fight, resist.

The infringement upon the Second Amendment has been occurring since the 1970's.

definition of INFRINGE:

verb: =break, violate, contravene, disobey, transgress
infringe on or upon:= intrude on, compromise, undermine, limit, weaken, diminish, disrupt, curb, encroach on, trespass on
Collins Essential Thesaurus 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2005, 2

Infringement of the inalienable right to bear and keep arms is occurring, and is being planned for by TPTB.

I am glad the Second amendment does not say operating arms, else we
would have to check out firing pins in and out of the local constabulatory.

Or some other essential piece of the firearm. That will be one of the next proposal.

The word fringe means the edges, like the fringe on a blanket or shawl.

Look at the third definition below:

fringe (frnj)
n.
1. A decorative border or edging of hanging threads, cords, or strips, often attached to a separate band.
2. Something that resembles such a border or edging.
3. A marginal, peripheral, or secondary part: "They like to hang out on the geographical fringes, the seedy outposts" James Atlas.
4. Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views: the lunatic fringe.
5. Any of the light or dark bands produced by the diffraction or interference of light.
6. A fringe benefit.

A marginal, peripheral, or secondary part: in reference to an arm that would be the magazine, firing mechanism, (semi auto, fully auto), ammunition, how it is born (to bear) concealed, openly carried, loaded, unloaded, and how it is kept, (locked away, disassembled, stored away from children, with barrel lug, with barrel plug, in a safe, in the trunk, glove box, away from reach of driver, in case, in locked box.

The infringement is and has been happening as there are laws, regulations and statutes that deal with all or many of these peripheral marginal and secondary parts of the main issue: TO keep and bear arms.

Form 4473 prohibits felons, addicts and mentally impaired from purchase of firearms already. That is sufficient infringement enough.

Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.


PREAMBLE (TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS)
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

(insert Bill of Rights)

The first ten amendments ( of the Bill of Rights) are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.

There is no "common sense" infringement on the bill of rights second amendment.
Yes mentaly disability, addiction and certain felons are prohibited from any and all firearms purchases with the existing laws as I type this, and this is not infringing on the second amendment. It doen not infringe on the second amendment because it still permits all rational, reasonable law abiding citizens to exercize their second amendment.
It does however limit and restrict certain individuals ability to legally exercize their second amendment rights.
The individuals history of behavior and actions, crime, addiction or mental disabled is public knowledge.
A AWB in a blanket, prohibits everyone, law abiding, competent, temperate, inebriate, stupid and criminal, fron the second amendment and as such in an INFRINGEMENT on the second amendment.

The BILL of RIGHTS does not guarantee, proffer, grant, allow, permit any right.

The Bill of Rights is talking about INALIENABLE rights, or Natural rights.

The Bill of Rights was only listing natural rights which are NOT granted, given, guaranteed, allowed, permitted by a government because the inalienable rights exist naturally, meanning they exist in the absence of government.
Meaning these inalienable rights existed before the government existed.
Meaning these rights existed inherently in the people of the famous novel l Swiss Family Robinson.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights is declarative and restrictive to the constitution.

Originally posted by DrLeary

I've asked this before, and I'll ask again. WHEN is you beloved militia going to rise up and save the day? WHEN??? And how on earth do you plan on doing this with guns? Democracy was established so you wouldn't have to listen to the guys with the most guns, but rather the majority of the population. Show me how you having a dozen assault rifles make ANY difference to what the politicians pass into law. You can put your foot down all you want, barricade yourself with your guns and demand freedom, but in the end they will simply shoot you and write you off as another loonie no matter if you have RPGs and flamethrowers for that sake!

We don't want a democracy, we want a constitutional republic, which is what we HAD when the country was founded. Where we have "unalienable" rights, that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Including the 2nd amendment.

Unalienable. Cannot be taken or given away.

A "democracy" is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.

I want to be a sheepdog.

Originally posted by wswbkbroiler
mi·li·tia /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

You woould need to form a group of citizens and then train them once a week to be considered a militia.




There are 4 definitions, you only choose the one that backs your point?

what about:

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

reply to post by fmcanarney




Now that it can be understood, in plain english, the tenets that this country is founded upon, maybe the gun banners will move somewhere more suitable to their collective sensitivities?

stars all around for you, sir.

reply to post by Oreyeon


Im with you there bud and i have orderer some of the finest equipment and I am going to take my money out and only place what I need as I dont trust the banks anyway and i an unsure if I will get my retirement out. Its government type so I am looking screwwwwwwwwed

reply to post by MCory1

As has been explained to me,this is the reason for this choice in weaponry:In armed confrontation with far superior forces,the guerilla obtains ammo from fallen foes so as to be light and hence quick(and not dead).S/he wants a rifle that sounds like the other side's to avoid a sound signature which aids pinpointing hidden location.Not that this is my reason an AR-15 is the first to come to hand when opening my big safe.Easy on the shoulder,cheap ammo,handles well,cleans ez,light.All in all a well designed rifle.I live way out in the boonies and would not have that be my primary arm in the city,but by my choice,not someone who usually never fired a rifle for a reason besides recreation.&TV

Originally posted by MCory1



Or is that just "taking it too far"? Hell, the constitution was written at a time when you were lucky your musket didn't backfire and kill you. I really doubt they had any idea of the weaponry we'd come up with--I'm pretty sure the thought of having to limit a rifle to three-shot bursts was all but inconceivable at a time when reloading your gun after every single shot was just the nature of war.

Ahh, but there were cannons and bombs, "rockets red glare" and all that.
The requirement to keep and bear arms still applied.
And still does today.
The idea was to not let the government have overwhelming superiority, which it does and has done for a hundred years or better.
I double-dog-dare you to shoot down a fully loaded F-18 with your "assault" rifle.

reply to post by bloodWolf762


Yeah, they will have a fight here also with the rural farmers. Its okay to grown food but not okay for us to have our assault rifles. You know they will ban more than our ar15's. It will be rifles next then our handguns. I think they just want to leave us defenseless.

reply to post by DrLeary


They ARE for defense, but not like you think. The point of civilian weapons that are comparable to military weapons is so our government will not be "tempted" into a totalitarian takeover. Before you discount that thought remember that some of the biggest despots in history started with the disarmament of the civilian population. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot are but a few of the examples of successful civilian disarmament. The result? Massive genocide. In fact, once disarmed, individuals are helpless to defend themselves or their families from the depredations of government.

Rwanda is a good example of this. Over a period of decades they disarmed the Tutsi people. They then armed the Hutu's with small arms and machetes and ordered the death of a people. The UN troops stood by and watched the slaughter, denying assistance, or even asylum at their base. Is that who you would prefer "guard" us?

I encourage you to read the writings of Thomas Jefferson, the author of our constitution and bill of rights. His thoughts are clear on the subject. In a nutshell, the government should fear the people, rather than the people fearing the government.

Originally posted by ANNED
the cops can not do fingerprinting inn the field so they are released.

Not to get off topic but I wouldn't be so sure of that. Just check out some of these links and you'll see that it's quickly changing.

www.policeone.com...

www.usatoday.com...

www.cr80news.com...

www.google.com...






[edit on 5-2-2009 by warpboost]

reply to post by Full_Auto77


they were shot because they opened fire first, and as for their retreat they ran out of ammo and had to. the branch davidians LET them retreat. had they sent the local sherrif in to serve a simple warrant none that would have happened. this is what happens when the govt gets involved. i consider myself to be a social liberal on most issues, but i served my country to preserve our right including the 2nd ammendment which i value more than my own life. were the folks at waco violating federal law? yes. however i suggest knocking on the door first. the u.s. military operates under strict rules of engagement. i feel law enforcemnt must do the same. is it more risky? sure, but thats what seperates us from the rest of the uncivilized world. i\

reply to post by DrLeary


im a civilian now and i consider myself a lib. having said that i own a wasr ak47. yes i do believe civilians should have the right. i took an oath to protect against all threats foriegn and domestic. i will never consider myself released from that oath. i will always stand at the ready. not some crazed gun wielding maniac, but just a simple man who believes in the right to choose. not just on abortion but all issues. i would gladly lay down my life to come to the defense of some helpless unarmed lemming. dont hate on us but rather help protect our right to choose. that is what being a liberal is supposed to be about is it not.

reply to post by DrLeary
i am guessing you live in uk where even most bobbis arent allowed to carry pistols. well it is true when a crazy person in your country can kill a lot of people before they are stopped and hasnt stabbings increased to point where bobbis are issued stab proof vests. what is called assault rifles here in us are not real assualt rifles they are so called civilian versions that shoot one bullet at a time no select fire three shot burst or full automaatic. and usually come with ten shot magazines.if some one uses a fully automatic weapon in a crime in us i gurantee you it wasnt bought legally why because when you were able to legally but machine guns they were tracked extremely thoroughly by atf . an crimes committed with machne guns are either smuggled in illegally or illegally modified.

Bottom line is the one group wants to ban guns and the other wants to reinforce and expand the use of them.

Perhaps the main differences that I see is that one side promotes the right to self responsibility and the other for government dependance.

Gun control is gun control, if you can't trust your people with a gun then you can't expect them to handle peace.