This Lawsuit Could Shatter ALL Federal Gun Control Laws

Crimefree said:

It would be 100% certain if firearm owners got off their bums and made their voice in support heard.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of gun owners who believe that no one needs any kind of AR15, or semiautomatic handguns, or shotguns with extended magazines. I'm happy if the Fudd just keep quiet.

Rucker61 said:

There are plenty of gun owners who believe that no one needs any kind of AR15, or semiautomatic handguns, or shotguns with extended magazines. I'm happy if the Fudd just keep quiet.

Click to expand...

No one needs doesn't occur as a limiter in the second. The pertinent clause is "shall not be infringed".

Μολὼν λαβέ;1066587822 said:

How do you plan to do that?

Click to expand...

I don't plan to do anything, that is not my job. I do what nobody else can do, figure it out, more would be asking far to much.

Fact

1 No politician will piss off large amounts of people if they are willing to vote the politician and his party out
2 The only currency of politics is power. If you do not have the capacity to influence power you cannot negotiate
3 There is no such thing as a sympathy vote in politics. Lobbing relies on all of these.
4 This fight cannot be won without public support.

Currently firearm owners are an untapped source of political power and cannot be relied on to object, or even protect their constitutional rights. Leadership for firearm organisations is non-existent. Education from firearm organisations does not exist. The public image of firearm owners stinks thanks to gun control.

The largest organisation sets the pace and direction and that is something it never has done. Firearm owners need to be part of this fight, an important, no vital part, they are the ambassadors of firearm ownership and public safety. The only direction the NRA sets is sit back and watch...

So if just 1% of firearm owners could be relied on to be vocal, object, demonstrate and work towards improving firearm owners image..... This fight would have been long forgotten.

The biggest problem. How do you get firearm organisations to do what is vital to win, participate in winning?

jimbo said:

No one needs doesn't occur as a limiter in the second. The pertinent clause is "shall not be infringed".

Click to expand...

No one needs the NFA but we have it. No one needed the Brady bill.... The constitution has nothing to do with what the public will accept.

The constitution is our laws, we enforce and police our laws. Any law not enforced is no law and does not exist.

Rucker61 said:

There are plenty of gun owners who believe that no one needs any kind of AR15, or semiautomatic handguns, or shotguns with extended magazines. I'm happy if the Fudd just keep quiet.

Click to expand...

Beliefs never stay quite. The reason they don't think anyone needs a type of gun is because they have bought into gun control. It takes little to add more things they are afraid of or things that make them safer. The first step is the hardest. Getting back is even more difficult

Crimefree said:

No one needs the NFA but we have it. No one needed the Brady bill.... The constitution has nothing to do with what the public will accept.

The constitution is our laws, we enforce and police our laws. Any law not enforced is no law and does not exist.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you are mostly correct. The Brady Bill and NFA, along with the breaches of the 2nd by activitist judges is why SCOTUS picks are so important. Hopefully the next couple or three picks will turn out to sway the court for a long time.

jimbo said:

Unfortunately, you are mostly correct. The Brady Bill and NFA, along with the breaches of the 2nd by activitist judges is why SCOTUS picks are so important. Hopefully the next couple or three picks will turn out to sway the court for a long time.

Click to expand...

That is our problem. We are relying on government to police itself instead of doing our duty of keeping government on track. Our education system, well governments education system instils the fact governments courts are our only redress and are the end of the line. That is not applicable to any of our rights or safe guarding OUR constitution. Sad really and we need to wake up before we are slaves :lol:

Crimefree said:

That is our problem. We are relying on government to police itself instead of doing our duty of keeping government on track. Our education system, well governments education system instils the fact governments courts are our only redress and are the end of the line. That is not applicable to any of our rights or safe guarding OUR constitution. Sad really and we need to wake up before we are slaves :lol:

Click to expand...

so a leftist court say upholds the Hughes Amendment or a state assault "weapon" ban. What do you want people to do?

Crimefree said:

That is our problem. We are relying on government to police itself instead of doing our duty of keeping government on track. Our education system, well governments education system instils the fact governments courts are our only redress and are the end of the line. That is not applicable to any of our rights or safe guarding OUR constitution. Sad really and we need to wake up before we are slaves :lol:

Click to expand...

Just a thought, but that's what Trump is all about. Returning government to the people.

Courts are one of two of our safeguards. The other is the ballot box.

When those fail, then there's the 2nd Amendment.

jimbo said:

Just a thought, but that's what Trump is all about. Returning government to the people.

Courts are one of two of our safeguards. The other is the ballot box.

When those fail, then there's the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

Excellent observation. I would put it this way as it explains the role of citizens better

The 2A is there so we can always object and make sure OUR laws are obeyed. Just like the cops need guns to enforce governments laws we need guns to enforce our laws.


OUR laws are obviously the constitution.

We have;
The right to petition government's courts
The right to petition government
The right to peaceable assembly (objection in numbers)
The right to vote for the government of our choice
The right to remove or replace any government that breaks our laws and will not conform

TurtleDude said:

so a leftist court say upholds the Hughes Amendment or a state assault "weapon" ban. What do you want people to do?

Click to expand...

If people want the courts to decide then do nothing.

Which court is going to make a decision like that with 1 million firearm owners inundating the media with objections holding meeting across the country and demonstration in hundreds of towns or cities? You think government will not intervene?

1 million is not an impossible figure either.

I want people to protect their rights. I want people to believe those rights are vital to their own safety. No more no less. How they do that is up to them. I can only make suggestion or give advice. My advice is sitting on your bum is really not a good way to protect your rights.