Jump to content

The left can finally drop the big lie - of course it's all about gun CONFISCATION


Recommended Posts

Amendments to our Constitution ADD rights, they don't arbitrarily take them away.


The left on this board has always talked about "common sense gun control", when

it's always been proven that we HAVE laws already, and that criminals/terrorists/mentally

ill violent people will still find them one way or another.


It always strikes me as silly, the liberals consistently defend the legalization of pot,

by referring to how the prohibition didn't work. Really? You think gun prohibition will, though?


All too often on this board, we had "haha nobody is wanting to take your guns, gun advocates".


The truth is quite the opposite. Of course they do - the liberals always secretly wanted

a complete win over people not thinking and living like they do.


At least the lie is now been rendered obsolete.








Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cal- amendments add no rights.

They are there to remind the government we are born with those rights. Leg


I stand corrected. ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted a thread earlier about Hillary Clinton saying we should look to Australia's gun control as a model for our country. As usual if the woman isn't flat out lying she is leaving out important facts. In this case Australia did not have gun control they had gun confiscation. Clinton talked about Australia's government buying back guns from citizens and compared it to Obama's cash for clunkers (failed) program. She left out the part about the citizens in Australia being forced to surrender their guns or they would go to jail. Obama too has floated the idea of looking at Australia's gun confiscation as a model for the United States. Interestingly Australia got a national gun registry from people who owned semi automatic firearms for the purpose of grandfathering those guns however that list was only used to know who had the guns and where those who owned them lived to go after them. There was no grandfathering.


Court decision paves the way for Australian-style gun ban


On Monday, the Court of Appeals for the Second U.S. Circuit issued a long awaited decision on the constitutionality of the most drastic gun control law in U.S. history, the New York SAFE Act of 2013. The Second Circuit ruled that nearly all of the law does not violate the Second Amendment.

The SAFE ("Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement") Act was presented to the New York State Senate and passed into law in 15 minutes. No debate was allowed, and senators did not have time to read the bill before voting it into law.

The SAFE Act is a complete ban on the sale or transfer of all military-style semi-automatic rifles manufactured within the past several decades. It is a total ban on the AR-15, AK-47, M-14/M-1a, HK G3, Steyr AUG, and many other civilian copies of military firearms. Prior to the passage of the law, Gov. Cuomo publicly stated that he was considering "confiscation" of existing rifles, but the final version of the law allowed existing owners to keep their rifles as long as they registered them with the State. Upon the death of the owner, the rifle will be confiscated; it cannot be transferred to an heir within New York State.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article I posted...don't think it cannot happen here:


Now that the Second Circuit has upheld the law, residents within the court's jurisdiction have no recourse except to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court – where there will be a guaranteed four votes against the Second Amendment. As I wrote last year, Gov. Cuomo and former Mayor Bloomberg, the backers of the SAFE Act, were betting that the law will be upheld by the Supreme Court, thus paving the way for a national version of the law (which has already been introduced in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.). Indeed, Cuomo immediately called for a national SAFE Act as soon as the Second Circuit issued its ruling Monday.

The Second Circuit's decision comes only one week after both President Obama and Hillary Clinton publicly praised the Australian and British mass gun confiscations of the 1990s.

If the SAFE Act is upheld by the Supreme Court, nothing prevents Congress from summarily outlawing tens of millions of firearms overnight. Once those firearms become contraband, the government may confiscate and destroy them without compensating the owner (just as the government confiscates and destroys illegal drugs).

The Second Circuit's decision leaves the Second Amendment in its gravest peril ever. Second Amendment rights are now hanging by a one-vote margin in the same Supreme Court that upheld Obamacare and declared a national right to gay marriage. Constitutional conservatives and Second Amendment supporters ought to be terrified over the prospect of Justice Scalia having a heart attack during a Hillary Clinton presidency.

The Second Circuit's decision places the hands of the Second Amendment doomsday clock at two minutes to midnight. If you think "it can't happen here," you're wrong.

It already is happening here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if a corrupt court were to overrule the existence of

the second amendment somehow...


it will never actually work to take away our freedoms and our rights.


All activist judges, even on the supreme court, need to be disbarred by

the U.S. States Congress by a simple majority vote.


Australia never had that legal guarantee. That is part of the excellent wisdom

of the Founding Fathers.


Let em try and arrest a hundred million gun owners. Who knows what the number is,

and the gov doesn't have a right to know. Because that would take a registration,

and that leads to confiscation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...