Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Pelosi said that the Congress will work to find some middle ground between the previous ban, which expired in 2004, and the precedent laid by the Supreme Court in a ruling enumerating more concrete gunowners' rights last term."
Your highlighted fragment remains.
Reading the whole thing sheds a different light.
Not really.
What part of REINSTATE do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52
No, you don't get to pick and choose someone else's words to fit your agenda.
I didn't "pick and choose" anything. You are refusing to acknowledge the obvious, so I cited the text that, well, makes it obvious. I even bolded the words that make it really obvious, so you could better grasp it.
I have no "agenda" other than requiring our representatives to abide by the oath they swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Perhaps you're not interested in their doing that? What, exactly, is your "agenda"?
Here's the text of the whole article, entitled, "Pelosi seeks compromise on assault weapons ban"
"
The ball is in Congress's court to craft a compromise in reinstating regulations on assault weapons, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged Tuesday.
During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Pelosi said that the Congress will work to find some middle ground between the previous ban, which expired in 2004, and the precedent laid by the Supreme Court in a ruling enumerating more concrete gunowners' rights last term.
"We have to find some level of compromise," Pelosi said, citing 53 victims of gun violence nationwide in less than a month. "And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means."
"Yes, it is," the Speaker said when asked if the ball is in Congress's court now that Democrats control the White House. "And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution."
Pelosi indicated that new regulations might entail registration and prohibitions on transporting some firearms across state lines.
The Speaker also expressed displeasure at the attachment of a gun rights provision to legislation that would grant Washington, D.C. a voting member of Congress.
"Right now, we have the debate in Congress over the District of Columbia wanting a vote on the floor of the House, something we all want. That's a civil rights issue," she said, pledging to find "middle ground" on the issue. "And, yet, they want to put a gun…bill, attach that to that. I don't — I don't think that that should be the price to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House."
Quote:
What part of REINSTATE do you not understand?
None of it.
What you don't want to understand is "craft a compromise in reinstating regulations on assault weapons"
Again, you're picking and choosing words to get outraged over, without understanding the message they're imbedded in.
Quote:
I didn't "pick and choose" anything. You are refusing to acknowledge the obvious, so I cited the text that, well, makes it obvious. I even bolded the words that make it really obvious, so you could better grasp it.
Try reading it without bolding anything to see if you can get it this time.
Quote:
I have no "agenda" other than requiring our representatives to abide by the oath they swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Perhaps you're not interested in their doing that? What, exactly, is your "agenda"?
My agenda is exactly this:
Let's don't get our blood boiling until there's some heat.
So far, there's nothing but proposals and posturing.
I'm a gun owner and an active shooter. But I'm not getting my shorts in a knot over a few "libs" mentioning gun control in the wake of a spike in idiocy involving gun deaths across the country.
I'd expect politicians to make statements like that after a month of mass murders. I'm not going to have a stroke over what they might do about it, though. My bet is that if anything happens it'll be very mild and probably very limited.
If I'm wrong, I'll join you in getting all bent out of shape.
Silencing of dissent, banning of guns, one sided media, creating czar positions, nationalizing anything that moves or doesn't. Did someone hit the reset button?
Shame on you Pelosi. Don't you dare compromise with the gun-nuts. Reinstate the regulation in it's previous form. If you have to change it at all, make it stronger.
Shame on you Pelosi. Don't you dare compromise with the gun-nuts. Reinstate the regulation in it's previous form. If you have to change it at all, make it stronger.
Shame on you Pelosi. Don't you dare compromise with the gun-nuts. Reinstate the regulation in it's previous form. If you have to change it at all, make it stronger.
Spoken like a true Kalifornicator.
Thankfully, another AWB is a defacto ban. Just what the recent Heller decision stated was unconstitutional.
What you don't want to understand is "craft a compromise in reinstating regulations on assault weapons"
No bolding. Your statement. Bottom line - she wants to reinstate the "regulations" on "assault weapons" (a deliberately provocative term coined by the Clinton administration). The "compromise" verbiage is only there to make the agenda more palatable.
Tell me, what "regulations" could she want to "reinstate" on so-called "assault weapons" if not the 1994 AWB? To what could she be referring, if not that piece of legislation?
No bolding. Your statement. Bottom line - she wants to reinstate the "regulations" on "assault weapons" (a deliberately provocative term coined by the Clinton administration). The "compromise" verbiage is only there to make the agenda more palatable.
Tell me, what "regulations" could she want to "reinstate" on so-called "assault weapons" if not the 1994 AWB? To what could she be referring, if not that piece of legislation?
Well, have it your way. Set your hair on fire over your iterpretation of someone else's words before anything resembling action occurs.
"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. "
To most people, this amendment is assumed to mean citizens have the right to bear arms. And when government (municipal, state, or federal) passes laws that impair that assumed right, all "hail" breaks loose.
To decode the amendment, one needs to recognize that two distinct groups are being referenced: militia and people.
We should be aware that people are sovereign, while the militia are not.
Militia are defined as the male citizens liable for military duty, under command to fight, and die, if necessary, in defense of the people's inalienable right to life, liberty and property.
In other words, the militia have volunteered to be obligated to fight and die, on command. They do NOT have inalienable rights to life, liberty or property, if under the obligation to serve.
Therefore, the citizen militia, by consent, surrendered their inalienable right to life, liberty and private property, in exchange for political liberty. They may be regulated and restricted in the manner in which they bear arms.
Only the people who are NOT citizens / militia, have the "right" to bear arms, without the duty to fight and die on command. And sovereign Americans, free inhabitants, domiciled upon their private property are private property themselves. You should find that all gun bans do not extend to guns on private property (*real estate is NOT private property, by legal definition).
"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
DUTIES of U.S. citizenship
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Title 50 USC Sec. 453. Registration (Selective Service)
(a)...it shall be the duty of every male CITIZEN of the United States, and every other male person RESIDING in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at
such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder. ...
Sovereigns and subject citizens are mutually exclusive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Second amendment is not what you think
