Kansas Governor Signs 2nd Amendment Protection Act

no sorry, that is complete bs

 

Best contradiction I've seen in a while. Nice!

Great irony too. I love this post. So fruitful.

- - - Updated - - -

You guys just tried to ban guns. You just admitted it! How can that be "complete bs"?

You're digging quite a hole for yourself.

 

The second American civil war will begin in 2021 and it's going to be ugly

- - - Updated - - -

I notice you didn't mention rifles.

Are all rifles assault rifles now?

 

The better question is how you would vote if it were up to you.

Pretend you're a congressman, do you vote yes or no on an assault rifle seizure bill?

 

Banning guns doesn't really do much. background checks and waiting times are a much better way to go. Restricting internet and mail order sales except from licensed retailers would help as well (with those self-same BG checks and waiting periods).

 

Okay, fair enought, 8 yrs from now.

- - - Updated - - -

With certain class weapons, put a financial liability to them, that will provide a greater guarantee of security. That is how I would pursue the issue. Some type of insurance.

 

This is basically correct. This is chest-pounding noise, nothing more. In the first place, nobody is infringing on 2nd Amendment rights. In the second place, states can't override federal laws.

But seriously, folks, is there anyone here who WANTS felons or mental hospital inmates to have guns? Is there anyone here who seriously fears that if felons can't buy guns, other people can't either?

 

Waste of time since they were already protected by the Constitution, what other states do is their business. Looks like PANDERING to me and nothing more than that.

 

There is no difference between banning a certain type of gun and outright confiscation.

Not being able to buy a certain type of gun is like them taking a gun away.

And in some states (CA, CO, CT, NY, MA), there are already certain types of guns that are banned.

Get your head out of the sand.

 

Minus the sloganeering, there's an actual issue hidden here. And that issue is, does it make sense to try to prevent ordinary citizens from owning certain kinds of armament? And if so, what kinds?

My personal view is that most of what are deemed "assault weapons" are nothing of the kind. Ordinary deer rifles quality as "assault weapons", as do six-shooters, depending on your definition. Is an AR15 an assault weapon? If it is modified to become fully automatic (an M16), THEN is it an assault weapon?

Should the dividing line be that anything that shoots bullets is fine (including machine guns and any sort of shotgun), but the public shouldn't be allowed to own such armaments as suitcase nukes, land mines, poison gas? Where SHOULD we draw the line?

 

The Federal government has the ability to regulate interstate commerce, states should have the ability to handle things as they see fit.

 

You really don't understand the nullification movement, do you? States are passing laws to protect against federal intrusion into guns, medical care, drugs, growing crops, search and seizure, you name it. You aren't in Kansas anymore.

 

Yes and no. Federal law really does override state law, on a technical level. But when enough states are independently defying federal law, it's important to bear in mind that senators represent states, and congressment represent districts.

Idiotic efforts like the war on drugs can create victims for no purpose indefinitely, provided there is no politically powerful opposition. But generally, if enough politically organized opposition exists, compromise is achieved -- often in the interests of the states. And of course it's always helpful to have a President who can tell which battles are worth fighting, and which should be dropped while both sides declare victory.

 

Now all we need are 49 more states...

 

Good God NO! leave all those California parasites that have so damaged the state where they are.

 

It does not need enforcement. It just means that no state or local government folk have to do anything to enforce federal gun legislation. Like 'sanctuary law' it allows the state to opt out of helping the feds. If they want to break the 2nd, they can do it alone.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither does Congress not to mention unelected bureaucrats.

 

they can regulate all they want, but the states are under no obligation to do the lifting.

 

With the definition of that class of weapons determined by such constitutional concepts as 'scary looking' and 'gets leftists panties in a twist'...

 

I wish someone here would venture a proposal of what armanents (if any) an ordinary citizen should NOT possess. Poison gas? Suitcase nukes? Weaponized diseases?

- - - Updated - - -

I wish someone here would venture a proposal of what armanents (if any) an ordinary citizen should NOT possess. Poison gas? Suitcase nukes? Weaponized diseases?

 

If one takes the Militia Act of 1792 as an indication of what the founders wanted (after all, these are the same folk who approved the 2nd Amendment) then all rifles, shotguns, handguns and edged weapons are protected...

 

At least clone is willing to back up his beliefs, this post is completely conjecture.

- - - Updated - - -

FYI, the effect to seize all guns would be beyond Biblical.

 

millions of Americans simply will not let the grabbers remove a basic right....it will not happen, especially when the only real reason for doing so is to please a fringe of bed wetter's and liberals (but I repeat myself)

 

the supreme court called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on that.

 

Which part is conjecture.

The part where denying someone the right to purchase a certain type of firearm is the same as confiscation?

Or the part where there are several states that have already banned certain types of firearms?

Because neither are conjecture.

Get your head out of the sand.

 

Where in Paragraph (2) is your contention implied or expressed?