Democrats Expand the Number & Types of Prohibited Possessors, to Limit 2nd Amendment


Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

Arizona -( -The Democrats in the House of Representatives expanded the number of classes of people prohibited from exercising Constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights. Those prohibitions have been added to H.R. 1585, [this bill has now passed the House and goes on to the Senate] hijacking a re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

The Act had not previously been used to restrict gun ownership. Speaker Nancy Pelosi added the infringements to the bill.

The NRA never commented on this Act before because it never included gun control and but has now has come out in opposition to this change.

In 1968, the number of classes of prohibited possessors, those people who were not allowed to possess or own firearms, was greatly expanded.  Before 1968, the classes of people who could not possess firearms were decided by state law.

When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, six categories of people who were not allowed to purchase firearms from federal dealers were created. The list included classes which did not exist in most states. The groups were these:

  • 1. Not a legal resident of the State where the federal dealership is located
  • 2. People under the age of 21 for handguns, and 18 for rifles and shotguns.
  • 3. Convicted felons or those under indictment for a felony (a crime punishable by more than a year of imprisonment)
  • 4. Fugitives from justice (fled from any State to avoid prosecution for a crime or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding)
  • 5. Those adjudicated to be mentally defective or who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
  • 6. Unlawful user/addicted to a controlled substance

The last four categories were prohibited from possessing firearms.

In 1987, Congress added four additional categories:

  • 1. Illegal aliens
  • 2. Persons Dishonorably discharged from the military
  • 3.  Persons who have renounced U.S. Citizenship
  • 4. People who are subject to a restraining order for domestic violence, harassment, or stalking (required a court hearing finding the person restrained was a threat)

In 1996, Congress added another category, people convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

On April 4th of 2019, the Democrats in the House expand the latest class, domestic violence, by changing it from intimate partner to include “dating partner” or “former dating partner.”

They are also added another class of prohibited people.

The additional class would is those convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of stalking,” which includes a “course of harassment, intimidation, or surveillance of another person.

Stalking or harassment does not include any physical harm. The crime of stalking or harassment is relatively new, with the first laws being enacted in California in 1990. The crime is defined to include the creation of either a reasonable fear of material harm or emotional distress to another person.

With zealous prosecutors, it would be possible for a person to be convicted of harassment for a series of tweets that caused “emotional distress.

In many states, there is no right to trial by jury for misdemeanor offenses.

The general trend is easy to see. More and more classes of people who are prohibited from exercising their rights under the Second Amendment; less and less serious offenses are being used to take Second Amendment rights from people.

The expansion of the classes of prohibited persons and the expansion of offenses from felonies to misdemeanors results in a severe erosion of Second Amendment rights.

Several of the prohibited classes in existence have not been in existence for very long.

In the Supreme Court decision a controversial sentence is said to have been added at the instigation of Justice Stevens and the insistence of Justice Kennedy:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Most of the prohibited classes are not mentioned. Only  “felons and the mentally ill” are mentioned. It is uncertain if the Court would uphold challenges against the proliferation of prohibited classes. “Mentally ill” is far from clear. That prohibition is being challenged already, as are the prohibitions as applied to non-violent felonies.

The other classes are far from longstanding.

Second Amendment supporters would prefer to stop the current push by the Democrats to create expanded and new classes of prohibited possessors, rather than challenge the law in the Courts. Please contact your Senators and ask that the amended or oppose the new version of the bill.

Finally, the prohibitions in H.R. 1585 would apply retroactively to convictions that occurred before the legislation was passed. This could result in untold numbers of citizens being denied their Second Amendment rights because of actions that occurred years or even decades in the past.

Another Justice appointed by President Trump could make a significant difference in the restoration of Second Amendment rights.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 142 thoughts on “Democrats Expand the Number & Types of Prohibited Possessors, to Limit 2nd Amendment

    1. Stolen airplanes! I am working on the sovereign of your nation he’s being attacked by traitors. This suggests your nation is quietly under attack.

    2. Unconstitutional Laws are Null and Void! Patriots have a Duty and Responsibility to ignore any laws that restrict a Right we are born with! Plain and Simple, Unconstitutional Laws are not worth the paper they are written on! Down with Tyrants !! RH

    3. They will never stop until those that could fight back against their global agenda are silenced. Predators, and Parasites. all of them…….

    4. don’t care what any of you commie d-suckers think about anything, if you don’t want me to have something – show up and try to take it. otherwise FO, faggots.

    5. even TRUMP has said that he favors taking away guns then prosecuting! that and his FAILURE TO OVERTURN DACA is the reason i am down to 30% support for him. i admit this is down from 110%! i repeat, the 1ST and 2nd should never be VIOLATED. neither needs interpretation!

    6. The fact of the matter is the entire country has been fooled into a debate we need not have, as the Federal or State government may not legally pass laws stripping people of their rights. The Constitution is a hell of a thing, in that no where does it say the Courts or government may treat some rights as more important than others. What it does in fact state is that those rights listed and mentioned are inalienable. Unalienable is an old school term of art and prose which means “it can not be taken from you, EVER!” This is literally its meaning. So, the government may try to pass all the mere statutes or legislation it wishes, but if it is counter to anything contained in the Constitution it actually has no force of law. The bill or law is created still-born, as its contrary nature to an Amendment contained in the Constitution means the government may not lawfully enforce that law, and the People are free to ignore any and all provisions found in the statute which is contrary to any language found in the Constitution. Police may not enforce unlawful laws, less they become personally liable for any harms caused it trying to do so, but more importantly should they attempted to enforce an unconstitutional law they do so stripped of the authority usually granted them, and the badge they wear has no legal authority when used in trying to enforce unlawful laws. Unalienable means your rights may no more be stripped from you than could your very skin. Your rights are that stuck to you, as they are after all inalienable!

      1. The only problem is, that once a mindset gets to be a status quo, then the police and the courts feel they have a right to enforce those heinous laws, even though they are illegal and unconstitutional. That is what is happening today. For decades, the progressives have led us down the slippery slope where, as Bush 2 said, the Constitution is just. “”a goddam piece of paper”. They do what they want regardless, and they use the guns of the authorities and the full force of the State against you. They can bankrupt most people in no time, using the money they stole from you by taxation. This is the face of tyranny, smiling in your face while they stab you in the back. If you don’t believe me, try not paying your income tax. Even though the 16th Ammendment was never properly ratified, and that there is no written law stating that you MUST pay income tax, you will be in big trouble if you don’t. The IRS agents will freeze your bank account, tie you up in court causing you to have to hire an expensive lawyer, put liens on your house, car, boat, wife, kids, and even arrest you at the point of a gun. If you own a restaurant, they will physically show up, take the forks out of the hands of your customers and tell them to leave, and confiscate all your equipment. They will do similar things to any business owner. And if you try to use Constitutional Coinage (gold & silver) to do business, you will be in similar hot water from the government thugs. Only federal reserve notes and US made dross coins are allowed, along with their approved credit card blips on a computer screen.

      2. So Does That Even Stand For Civil Protection Orders They Came And Took Mines Away And I Felt Deeply That, That Was Unconstitutional… You Seem To have Extensive Knowledge Mind Helping Me Out.?

    7. Try taking away guns from the police. the dems are running scared. look at all the dems who put candidates signs in their yards, that is not a show of support, that is an invitation to criminals with guns, knives or any other kind of weapons.
      a baseball bat can beat you to death, do to you have to show proof you are on a team to buy one. the whole underlying reason is that WHEN or IF the socialist do take over, they will not have any opposition. FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC IS NOT THERE JUST FILL UP SPACE. BRING BACK SENATOR McCARTHY

    8. My EX tried, but failed, I didn’t have a lawyer, went to the hearing listened to all of the B S, then my turn came, I ran the risk of being held in contempt, shot back as to how the court system was so uneven as to the treatment of the males as verses the female, no matter what a man had to say it didn’t count, the judge never said a word about contempt , then I got a complement from the judge, I had presented my case very well and that all of my personal property was to be returned and she then turned to the Ex’s lawyer and told him he should be thorough before wasting courts time with no supporting proof, two shocks were that it was a female judge and that she, melted down the lawyer right in the court room!! It was the last time I was ever in court with my Ex, paid my support, and got to see my kids every week no problem’s!!!
      My question is when are they going to put that old hag out to pasture, and they should stop posting pictures of her as I have to take antacids by the full bottles when I see her ugly face!!!!!!! You know when she was a kid her parents had to tie a bone around her neck just to get the dog to play with her!!!!!!!!!!!!

      1. Had to tie a bone around her neck to get the dog to play with her?
        Hell! To feed her they sat her in the corner and fed her with a sling shot!
        As she got older, her parents put her on a broom on their front porch on Halloween to scare the kids away because they didn’t want to hand out candy, and it looked so natural for her it stuck!
        I don’t know why she is always riding on military transport planes while claiming climate change is a threat to us, unless it is because she is always to drunk to fly her broom!

    9. Why is it that the punishment for crimes is the loss of gun rights when no gun was used in the commission of said crime? Example….you commit tax fraud, get convicted and are sent to prison. You lose your right to possess a gun. You get arrested for DUI, get convicted and maybe you go to jail, maybe you don’t….you lose your right to own a gun. The target is guns not so much fixing the problem you have. The DUI convict doesn’t necessarily lose their right to drive a car do they? I think maybe the democrats have a hatred and/or fear of guns should take a closer look at piling on those who do commit a crime using a gun rather than target those who didn’t. Why not add 5-years to a sentence just for the gun and when the original sentence is ending or parole is granted, the 5-years is added and not one day of that can be excused or decreased….you serve each and every day of that extra 5-years because you used a gun to commit your original crime….you do another felony you get an add’l period of time to serve AFTER serving whatever sentence you are required to serve, then you serve extra time for the gun. But quit targeting guns when no gun was used in the commission of the crime, it’s counterproductive at best. You beat your wife, or kick your dog doesn’t and shouldn’t have any impact on your right to possess a gun!

      1. Ed, I’m afraid your approach has one notable flaw. It is not the SEVERITY of punishment that acts as a deterrent. It is the CERTAINTY of punishment that prevents crime.

        A crime that law enforcement can solve almost all the time [for instance, bank robbery – only a 5-year sentence unless a brandished firearm is involved – which the FBI solves in 94-of-100 cases] is much more effective as a deterrent than a crime that is rarely solved [such as armed assault – carrying a 15-year sentence – which police have historically only solved in 29-of-100 cases]. The real key is to make the punishment fit the crime in terms of sentencing, then ENFORCE that law!

      2. Why should the punishment for a crime, for example, armed robbery, be greater if a gun is used versus any other weapon? The type of weapon used should not influence the severity of the punishment.

      3. Ed Caldwell, there is a mandatory 5 year sentence for use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. It was quite effective during its use in Project Exile in the 90s in Richmond, VA.

        JDL, I concur 100%. The crime, not the tool needs punishment. Robbery by strong-arm, knife or handgun is still robbery, just as beaten to death or shot to death is still murder. In fact beaten or stabbed is much more visceral, personal and violent than being shot.

    10. Hi, sorry. I’m a new gun owner and still also new to American laws. Wouldn’t preventing domestic violence people with restraining orders be a good thing? I have a restraining order against my ex and idea of him with gun terrifies me. Sorry, English is 4th language, not my strongest.

      1. Yes, of course we want to prevent people with restraining orders against them from hurting others. Your ex is already prohibited from having a gun, and this bill doesn’t change that. The problem is that it adds a poorly defined group to the list of prohibited persons, and can take away their right to own a gun without ‘due process,’ an important principle in US law. The person in question could very well be a danger and should not be allowed to have a gun, how that is to be determined is a problem.
        Another issue is making it retroactive. ‘Ex post facto’ laws are illegal, those are laws which punish people for things that were legal before the law was passed. For instance, if I paint my house purple and then a law is passed making purple houses illegal, I can’t be punished for violating the law. This bill would make it so that I could be punished for violating a law that didn’t exist at the time.
        I hope you never have to use your new gun, but I’m glad you have it. Practice is important to become familiar with it, practice and be safe.
        P.S. Your English is fine!

          1. it doesnt matter if your ex has a gun or not, what matters is, can you stop an intruder or any kind of attack against you?…

        1. NO. The fact is that prohibiting ANYONE from possessing a firearm is unconstitutional. Period. Be it felons, addicts, mentally Ill everyone is born with these rights. If any law is contrary to the constitution it is itself illegal and unenforcable why is it so hard for peeps to understand this. People wake up, if you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything. Firearm possession is to protect from tyranny when are we going to remove these unlawful evil people from our governments. For one is the women crying the worst when they shouldn’t even be in A position such as these. They weren’t given the ability to vote when this country was established for a reason. You don’t see ANY female signatures on any founding documents.

      2. There’s the theoretical space (we want women to be safe from violent men) and the reality. Analysis of domestic violence shows restraining orders do not actually protect women. The simple (and Unconstitutional) option is to tie firearm confiscation with a restraining order. There are two problems with this. 1. There is still significant time between when the order is established and law enforcement can confiscate said weapons, leaving time to commit violence. Some argue confiscation actually increases the motivation to commit violence with a firearm, as the individual now has a clear deadline. 2. There is no way to ensure all weapons are collected or new weapons are not illegally obtained. Some weapons could be hidden from law enforcement or obtained illegally after a confiscation attempt. Records are not always accurate and updated, so it is possible to purchase a firearm even with a restraining order, especially right away. Domestic violence analysis shows a high percentage of “illegal possession”, made illegal by the protective order, in cases where the victim is killed with a gun. Another issue is it is mostly men attacking women, so a firearm isn’t even necessary, a baseball bat or even bare hands can be deadly in such instances. What has been shown to be effective is not trying to disarm the attacker, but arming the would-be victim, along with a strategy of “distance and disappearing”. If the attacker knows where you are, can easily get to you, and has overwhelming power over you there is a real problem, but many women are unwilling or unable to relocate. Not everyone is willing to do these steps, but statistically it is the best course of action while the legal system is working on the case.

        The huge issue with confiscation tied to a protective order is the clear Unconstitutionality. Add in a lack of due process, because of the implied severity of the situations, and there is a major problem. Expand the system to apply to any undesirable behavior, even non-threatening and non-violent actions, and we find a clear misuse of the law. There are cases of undue restraining orders, they are easy to get and difficult to discharge. Tying basic rights to a system that can be so easily abused is a real problem.

      3. No apology required, Nikki. I only have one comment about “preventing domestic violence people with restraining orders.” It has been proven, time and again, that NO piece of paper, no law, will “restrain” someone with the intent to do you harm, if they already trend toward being a sociopath. DO NOT depend on the ‘restraining paper’ to save your life – it is probably just one document that ‘might’ keep you out of jail, AFTER you are forced to use deadly force to do that saving!! As someone already noted, if you intend to be ARMED, do the lawfully armed, responsible, citizen program: PRACTICE, PRACTICE, & learn the laws of your state to be familiar with WHEN/IF lethal force is allowed.

    11. I had no trouble understand it you Dean. Evidently Dillon lives in a perfect world where he is more interested in judging and finding fault with others than contributing to the the topic. Dillon expressed no thoughts on your subject matter so it must have been totally outside his realm of comprehension. I agree with your thoughts. Good article. All of us need to wake up and stand up if we expect to have and keep our rights and freedoms. This includes you too, Doilliee. Oooops! Misspelled a werd! Sorry!

    12. Quote: “Finally, the prohibitions in H.R. 1585 would apply retroactively to convictions that occurred before the legislation was passed.” Can someone correct me because I thought that ex post facto laws were forbidden by the constitution.

      1. “ex post facto” laws ARE forbidden by the Constitution… 0but that has not stopped Democrats before! Why should they now – suddenly – stop efforts that they have historically gotten away with?

    13. Dean, please consider using a proofreader. Someone of your professional background should not be allowing so many errors to slide through that it becomes a chore to understand what you’re trying to say.

      1. It doesn’t take good spelling or grammar to get a Idea or Statement across. The gentleman got his thoughts understood quite well and doesn’t need any help. Have y.ou ever tried to correct a person while they are speaking? Communication is getting the thought or idea across, NOT spelling or grammar. Some people are hard of hearing , can’t see so well or have problems comprehending, and never understand. Stop criticizing and read the article again please. He got his point across.

      1. So a law forbidding the use of a firearm or knife or whatever during the commission of a crime, i.e., Armed Criminal Action, is unconstitutional? I think not sir.

        Constitutional Rights are not absolute. One cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded threater (folks scramble to get out, becoming injured or worse, trampled to death) and then successfully claim Free Speech Rights under the First Amendment.

        Respectfully, your blanket statements as here, serve no purpose.

        1. 2 things one
          It would depend on the crime. If the gun is merely possessed during an irrelevant crime ie possession of a controlled substance, then the gun crime addition imo would be unconstitutional however if one holds up liquor store with said gun then the gun crime would be perfectly fine . The gun must help in the alleged crime or they might as well ad a charge for using free speech during a crime .
          2. The 2nd ammendment is absolute and unlimited sorry it says so in the actual ammendment therefore it is. Your metaphor is interesting “yelling fire ” is no different then actaully “firing ” a gun in a theater both create choas that can directly cause harm so ofcourse they could both be considered the same crime, wrecklass endangerment. However that metaphor that doesnt apply to any gun law on the books. Owning a full auto. Carrying in a school or even being high and armed does not create the same sort of choas yelling fire does and as such your metaphor isn’t really relevant to any gun law.

        2. Committing crimes is already unconstitutional (basic law). Using a weapon does not make a crime more illegal, and it inherently has an aggravating effect. Kind of stupid to say that using a weapon to commit a crime is illegal, when the crime is already so. Noting the seriousness of a crime in legal terms, meanwhile, is reasonable, when the damage or the threat is increased.

        3. So a law forbidding the use of a firearm or knife or whatever during the commission of a crime, i.e., Armed Criminal Action, is unconstitutional? I think not sir.

          For one tning, the US Constituton names and defines only ONE CRIME.. treason. The enactment and enfrocement of criminal and/or civil law is NOT assigned FedGov, therefor that function is reserved to the States, or the People (read Tenth Article of Ammendment).

          For another, murder is a crime in every state in the union, as MUST be. Since the act of taking someone else’s life without dueprocess (justification) is already criminal, making it MORE of a crime based on the means of performing the already proscribed act is pointless.

          So I get debarred the use of arms because I punched my wife in the face and sent her to hospital (no worries, I don’t have one so I did not/will not, this is a “fer instance” type deal) and thus am legally debarred the use of arms.

          Now suppose I want to double down on my hate-driven stupid (again, hypothetical for making ilustration), and still want her dead….

          I could run over her with her own car, or mine, or a rented Home Depot truck.

          I could pipe the exhaust from a car into her open bedroom window at two ayem

          I could start a BIG fire and burn the house down, her inside.

          I could lie in wait as she leaves for work in the morning and kill her with a baseball bat, my Vaughn 24 ounce scarfaced framing hammer, a bowling ball, a chef’s knife taken from her kitchen, I’ll leave you all to imagine twenty seven MORE ways I could do her in without invovling a firearm. OR I could find, steal, buy off book from da boyz in da hood, a firearm I am not legally allowed to possess, and just use that, even get more perverted and make it look like it was a suicide.

          So no, law prohibitting the use of a given tool to unlawfully end someone else’s live IS unconstitutional as it serves no purpose while restricting the rights of at least some.

        4. This is a silly comment. Committing a crime is already…wait for it…illegal. What you just typed is like saying “You cannot commit a crime while committing a crime”. Think it through slowly if you need to.

          Yes, you can yell fire in a crowded theatre. The charge would be “causing a panic” or similar, not “yelling fire”. If no panic happened, likely you’d just be asked to leave the theatre. This analogy is old and tired.

          Your comments here serve no purpose. The OP is correct. Gun Control is unconstitutional. Period. Full stop.

        5. Wrong, John.

          There is NO law against yelling “fire” in a theater, and no one has ever been convicted of making such a statement. However, any person who yells that kind of word in a crowd IS personally responsible for any resulting actual damage. THAT damage is what the court adjudicates. But if there is no damage (for instance, if the theater crowd looks around, sees no fire or smoke, then tells the idiot to shut up, and simply continues to peacefully watch the movie), no harm is done. The offender may be asked by theater management to leave – and they may even have him charged with trespass if he refuses to leave their private property – but he will not be prosecuted for specifically for the act of making a simple statement.

          1. I did not say there was sir. I said one cannot falsely yell fire in a crowed threater and thereafter claim free speech Rights, making the point Constitutional Rights are not absolute. The Supreme Court settled this question in the case Schenck v US, (1919).

            Furthermore, responding to the gentlemen’s post that all gun laws are unconstitutional – I merely pointed out there are gun laws which are not unconstitutional, (see Heller penned by Scalia)(McDonald case thereafter applied to the States).

            Good discussion…..thank you

            1. @John, The notion that Rights have limits was designed by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, who hated the common people and could not stand the thought of them being his equal. Holmes foisted the limited Rights theory on the American people in Schenk v US.
              This in one of the pivot points in American history where Rights are diminished and the chains of Government come off.
              You do have the Right to shout fire in a crowded theater, but you are liable criminally and civilly for how you exercise your Rights.
              Schneck is a power grab case.

        6. Constitutional rights are absolute! That is why they are listed as “inalienable” rights.
          Inalienable means they can NEVER be taken!
          And yes, you can yell fire in a crowded theater, but you are held responsible for any injuries suffered by anyone due to you yelling fire.

        7. Sorry, you are completely wrong. The law forbids the crime, not the instrument. Also, it is legal to yell “fire” in the manner to which you refer; it is inciting the panic that leads to injury or property damage that is illegal.

      2. WORD!!! And we the people don’t give a Damn anymore about what the liberals say or want to do… It’s time we say we will not comply to your laws anymore… Never give up you right to bear arms!!!! Don’t Do It!!!

    14. Democrats’ REAL objective is to DIS-QUALIFY as many people as possible from owning firearms and from VOTING, as now-felons, since gun owners as a group tend to largely vote REPUBLICAN. They’re not fooling anybody. It’s never been about ‘public safety’ or anyone else’s ‘safety’ but THEIR OWN safety and the ‘safety’ of their own worthless political ‘careers’.

      1. 3 am Military Tribunals for these oath breakers. Drag them out of bed and make them face their already assembled Military Tribunal, waiting for them to answer their charges, right outside their front door, on their front lawn. Wake up the neighbors to be witnesses, and videotape the whole affair. These people are oath breaking traitors !

        1. Oldmarine >>> TheHolyCrow
          Democrats think they have the power over the people. They will keep pushing their agenda until someone gets sick of it and fights back with a vengeance. I believe that they are nothing but political BULLIES that will be eliminated in the end simply because Human Nature can’t stand bulling. Someday this will come to an end and the dominating left will the citizen’s anger. The politicians that think they have the right to take natural rights away will have their rights taken instead. The left reminds me of young children with NO MANNERS. They forget they were elected to help lawful citizens instead of themselves and criminals. Lord help them if the citizens reject them and take revenge on them.

    15. ALL of the new anti gun legislation introduced and passed are clear and convincing evidence public servants, both sides of the isle, admit their prior “gun safety laws” are failures. Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is the difinition of insanity.

      Because these public servants are not insane, the only conclusion then is they have engaged in an orchestrated scheme to complete confiscation of firearms via death by a thousand cuts.

      They are fearful of an armed citizenry – public servants fearful of an armed citizenry are up to no good.

      You decide, is this legislation for public safety, or a false safety designed to chill Liberty with total confiscation the goal?

    16. You keep showing up in my news feed so I’ll comment. The constitution does NOT say anybody and everybody no matter how unfit or dangerous can own any and all kinds of guns and weapons, no matter how dangerous. It does not say people can own semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks, or specify in any way what or who can own anything anybody wants. It says people can own guns if they are in a well-regulated state militia. Are all you gun cult members who think you have the right to do whatever you want with your stupid guns in a well regulated state militia? No? Then gun ownership is not a 2nd amendment right, it is a privilege, and you all would do well to support resposible gun ownership or have thst privilege taken away instead of railing against it and spreading your vile lies about it.

      1. The constitution limits the scope and actions of the Federal government. You have some points but fail to recognize that the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ is an individual right that existed prior to the constitution and has been recognized in legal opinions of the SCOTUS and Congress many times; “well-regulated” does not and never has meant ‘regulated by the government’ but rather well disciplined (as an individual or group) as in trained or practiced.

        Thanks for your opinion.

        1. @HenryH, You are correct, sir! Our Rights are chains on government. Our Rights make us the master of government. If we let government diminish our Rights, by various deceptions, government takes off the collar and puts the collar on us.

      2. @PLM, Just because the founding fathers did not express our Rights using language that you would use does not negate its broad meaning. The rest, residue, and remainder of your comment is uneducated gabble, unworthy of dissection.

      3. I dont understand did they lie in their article? Is he wrong to point out that they are adding a new class of people to be prohibited?

        The 2nd protects arms and guns are included in that. All guns are included in that. Thats why they used the term arms instead of gun. The 2nd isn’t just for militias, its the right of the people, which is comprised of individuals. So it is a individual right whether you like it or not. The 2nd also states shall not be infringed, which means you gun control laws are unconstitutional.

        I would like you to show me a pro 2nd amendment group that doesn’t support responsible gun ownership. All of the major groups fund safety training.

        You should a weekend and actually spend it at a gun range an learn about the people you call ‘cultists’. You might find out that some of us are your neighbors.

      4. You obviously are incapable of deciphering the written English language. 2A GUARANTEES the RIGHT of American citizens to bear arms, specifically. Do you understand what “shall not be infringed” means? 2A has very little to do with State Militia activity, other than insisting that States have the right form and regulate their own Militias. 2A does not say anything about joining Militias in order to own firearms – not even close – a very stupid argument, even for a complete libtard such as yourself. Go back to your Caliphate News Network feed and chime in with your comrades.

      5. Too add to this, a well regulated militia and the right to keep and bear arms are two separate sentences. The right to keep and bear arms ALSO the right to a well regulated militia. You can misconstrued the 2A all you want. The fact of the matter is that it’s separate. You do not need to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.

      6. That’s not what it says at all. The phrases ‘well regulated militia’ and ‘keep and bear arms’ are distinct. The former indicates the purpose for the latter, but it does not in any way or by any construction of the sentence limit it. Moreover, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t grant the right. It references the the right as if it exists outside of the constitution and says that right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        Reread the amendment. “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 first only says WHY the right is important. It does not constrain the right in any way. And if you want to be really picky, the entire thing isn’t even a good sentence. But what is clear is that, because we need a militia, we ALSO need an uninfringed right to bear arms.

        I’m not saying you don’t have some valid points, but when you start off misreading the law, you’ll never end up entirely correct.

      7. No, you silly goose. The Militia is made up of certain people between a certain age. They are required to bring their own guns. If they do not have one of their own, then they can go borrow or buy one from WE THE PEOPLE, like Grandma down the street, or Uncle Harry in the next town. It says the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, not THE RIGHT OF THE MILITIA SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Can’t you read ? Don’t you understand English ? Do you think that all the generations before us got it wrong ? Do you think you are smarter and wiser than the Founders ? You and your ilk have no doubt been walking under too many Chemtrails and breathing in too much aluminum dust for too long. It’s adding your brain. And please, if you don’t like our Supreme Law of the Land, then please, by all means, take a hike to some other country where you like it better.

      8. The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. In both Heller and McDonald, SCOTUS found the 2nd Amendment to refer to an individual right. The opinions are publicly available. You can read them if you wish. As for me, I’ll take the SCOTUS interpretation instead of your ill-informed and emotional view

        1. Dred scott
          Cherokee vs ga
          That ruling on the death penalty recently
          I so hate when people reference scotus like if they were always right why is cnn complaining about a conservative court? If the constitution can only be interrupted one way then that would not matter.
          Oh nunn vs george for an example of a counter to miller

      9. PLM: There are those demanding to live freely, those wanting to freely rule, and those willing to be ruled. The rulers and the ruled support each other. The free support themselves and by their existence are a threat to the others. The free believing in rights of life require weapons to defend rights. This is because the rulers require the free to be removed with weapons.
        The possession of weapons is an existing right, codified by the free. It is not a privilege granted by the rulers of the ruled. Which group are you in and willing to defend, with weapns?

      10. Respectfully, Heller and MCDonald settled the matter; it is the people who make up the militia. Once the militia accomplished the service called up for as required, the respective citizens go home, with their firearm and ammo in tow, ready to be called again when needed to maintain the Republic.

        Whoever advocates disarming the citizenry, (or placing so many restrictions upon the arms they employ, rendering them useless) are up to no good.

        The fear of an armed citizenry is what maintains the Republic.

        One wonders sir why you fear an armed citizenry?

      11. Clearly, you have never studied the history of the 2nd Amendment, nor the mandated means of changing the enumerated rights of the people.

        The authors, James Madison and George Mason, made it clear in testimony before the several state’s legislatures and in their own writings, which remain for us today, that 2A applies to every citizen. That it was commonly accepted that everyone has a right to self defense and to put food on the table, and that these “normal” activities had nothing to do with 2A. They made it clear that the purpose of 2A was to prevent what had been experienced Under King George III and under other nation’s leaders; the formation of a repressive government which did not respect the rights of the people. They further made it plain that the militia required no training for training was considered a normal part of life and, therefore, a waste of time and munitions. According to Madison and Mason, the militia’s purpose was for individuals to come together to meet a national emergency, such as the invasion by England during the War of 1812, or in the event our own government became a tyrannical government which no longer protected and preserved the people’s rights.

        Having testified to the above (which is in the records of the state legislatures they appeared before) , 2A was adopted by all the states as part of the Constitutional ratification process. Furthermore, the majority of states copied the wording in their state constitutions. Subsequently, the 2nd Amendment was recognized as every person’s right until 1934 and the passage of the National Firearms Act.

        Progressives of the 1890s pushed for disarmament, open borders, and prohibition, among other things. Alcohol, which is never mentioned in the Constitution, required an amendment to institute, and a second amendment to repeal. Firearms, being named in the Constitution, should never have been altered by anything less; let alone be altered by politicians. So said Thomas Jefferson. In the words of Jefferson and others, any government which has the power to take away rights under one amendment has the power to take away rights under all the amendments.

        I suggest you first read the Constitution. Follow up by reading the words of the authors as contained in The Federalist Papers. For the contrasting view, which was also the losing view during ratification, you can read the anti-Federalist Papers. Your education should also cover English Common Law, all the way back to the Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for “the Great Charter of the Liberties”), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; “Great Charter”), is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. Within that document, which still exists today, failure of a government leader to respect the rights of the people is justification for the people to remove that government and form a new one (which is just what the colonies did with the Declaration of Independence which justified the independence of the United States by listing 27 colonial grievances against King George III and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of revolution. Its original purpose was to announce independence, and references to the text of the Declaration were few in the following years.
        Mag·na Car·ta
        [ mag-n uh kahr-t uh]
        1. the “great charter” of English liberties, forced from King John by the English barons and sealed at Runnymede, June 15, 1215.
        2. any fundamental constitution or law guaranteeing rights and liberties.

        When you have become educated, and realize that 2A is a good thing which holds far greater import than the price paid for allowing citizens to be armed, perhaps your eyes will be opened. Until you understand how 2A came to be, and understand the context of the times during the revolutionary period; the whys and hows; you should not spout off about what you do not understand.

      12. Everyone has the right to self defense. That is Natural law also Man’s Law. If some one is killed or injured because of an illegal law then the victim or family has the natural right to seek retribution against the people who caused it.
        Laws that kill anyone except convicted killers but causes citizens to be harmed is not only against man’s Laws but Nature’s also.
        Laws are supposed to protect us NOT KILL US and to say that only certain people has the right to life is inhuman and on the level of animals.
        Laws should be based on Nature and approved by citizens otherwise they are attempts to control and intermediate the citizens. Without laws I believe all the left thing people would be dead for trying to impose their will on others.
        People prefer to die standing then on their knees. Politicians that make laws against Nature will eventually suffer Natures wrath. If they don’t believe in some GOD then they have nothing to live for but their own desires. What a sad story their life must be.

        1. real clear content, there, and most helpful in the furthering of the discussion.
          There needs to be a “flag” button for such offensive babble.

      13. Oldmarine >>> PLM
        Why do you think that the fore fathers even put in in the Constitution? They did this with a lot of consideration as protecting, you the citizen from you own government. Your comment is just an BAD opinion . READ the 2nd again with an open mind please and think of the possibilities of you being a target of the government. . You ignore that it is based on Nature that is indisputable. Use common sense and what do you have to protect yourself form a perpetrator human or otherwise?

      14. A well regulated milita being neccessary for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall nor be infringed.
        Its says that a militia is neccarrys
        It says not to limit the right to own and carry.
        Banning all of what you mentions limits owning and carrying so unconstitutional
        Nowhere does it say the miltia is required
        I’d say it protects my right to form one. Does the 1a only protect speech as it applies to religion? No it protects more then one right .
        Who is the miltia? the whole people minus a full ceritan officials- george Mason

      15. I believe Ed got it right PLM.

        Purpose of a comma.
        The general purpose of a comma is to separate closely related but distinct elements in a sentence.

        Amendment II
        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.

      16. It says people can own guns if they are in a well-regulated state militia.

        Find the section of the US COntitution that says THAT. Ya cain’t, cuz it don’t.

        Reread that pesky Second Article…….
        Your tirade smacks of someone who went through government run/funded public skewlz. Thus you likely never learned how to diagram a sentence to break down its parts, the interactions of the various words and sections, and thus clearly comprehend its meaning.

        As you re-read that Second, note the following

        “infringe” is the operative verb, the action word. This time it is in the negative, meaning the action is not occurring. It is also in the IMPERATIVE mood… meaning it SHALL NOT< MUST NOT, CANNOT, occur.

        So, what is the SUBJECT upon which this verb operates? It cannot be "militia", as that is part of a separate, .descriptive clause that does NOT operate upon the central verb.
        So, what IS the SUBJECT of the main body of th sentence? Try the word "RIGHT. We don't need to define that here, but to break down the entire sentence, and thus the entire Article, into its most basic form, we have "RIGHT NOT INFRINGE"

        We do have a small but significant subordinate clause to this pair of words…. it is "of the people". That is the ONLY part of the Artile that qualifies, desscribes, or limits, the subject upon which the verb operates. Thus in its most basid form, the entire Article consists of "right,, which is that of the people, shall not be infringed.

        RIGHT is also directly modified by a descriptive clause.. right. TO KEEP and BEAR ARMS.

        What are "arms"? IIn that day and time, and per the contemporary wirtings of those involved with figureing it all out, "arms" meant "weapons of military usefulness able to be oved about and put into service by a single individual".

        In other words, anything currenlty classified by our military as "small arms" falls into the category, the possession of which is protected by the US COnstitution, of "arms". SHoulder fired rockets, full automatic infantry rifles (the REAL "assault weapons" currenty and illegally prohibited you and I) grenades and launchers, bazookas, landmines, fifty calibre machine guns, al handguns, semi and full automatic, napalm, small field mortars, flamethrowers, armed drones, sound cannon, whatavr sles YOU can pick up, strap on or carry, or put into the bed of your pickup truck, take to wherever, set up, and deploy against your selected target, acting on your own without an assistant, is covered under that hated Second Article of Ammendment.

        THAT is the reality, What we have today is so restricted and infringed as to have been cause to take up arms once more to drive off the enemy closing in upon us.

        Now, which side are YOU on? The ones who HAVE this right, since before this or any other government existed, or they who would deny it to whomever they choose?

        You must pick one or the other there ain't NO neutral ground.

      17. You condemn others for “vile lies” while lying. You’ve discredited yourself.

        “The constitution does NOT say anybody and everybody no matter how unfit or dangerous can own any and all kinds of guns and weapons, no matter how dangerous.” A straw man. The Second Amendment says only one thing, that the federal government can not interfere with a citizens right to keep and bear arms.

        “It does not say people can own semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks, or specify in any way what or who can own anything anybody wants.” Another straw man. See above.

        “It says people can own guns if they are in a well-regulated state militia.” An obvious lie. The Constitution gives no rights, it lists rights that the federal government either must protect and/or is prohibited from infringing upon. The Second Amendment imposes no limitation on gun ownership, it gives one reason for preserving the people’s right to be armed; so that they can be called for militia duty when needed. That does not preclude other legitimate reasons for gun ownership.

        “Then gun ownership is not a 2nd amendment right, it is a privilege,” The Big Lie. See US v. Cruikshank (1876), the right to bear arms exists outside of government and is in no way dependent on it. It’s a right that the federal government is forbidden to interfere with. The reason the government has been able to get away with so much infringement, is a huge number of frightened people willing to throw away their freedom, and become dependent on and subservient to government.

      18. Circle8 says;
        PLM: Read it again. You will see the phrase of well regulated militia is not inclusive but is “in addition to”. It is not a requirement to belong to possess. Your hatred is clouding your reading and understanding ability. Typical of those who hate America.

      19. The Second Amendment protections today, and at every point since the writing of the Bill of Rights, operates as an individual protection. To argue otherwise is to ignore the entirety of Constitutional scholarship.

      20. Lord, where to begin? PLM, you’re the only jackass spreading vile lies.
        1) Yes, the 2nd Amendment damnably well DOES say that “anyone and everyone” (as long as they are responsible, law-abiding citizens) can, indeed own “any and all kinds” of weapons. In 200 years, the Supreme Court has said so eight (8) times.
        2) In the Federalist Papers, as well as their private correspondences and journals, the Founding Fathers were absolutely adamant that the People (citizenry) must have access and ability to own weapons “suitable for war.”
        3) No reference is made to “state” militia memberships (the reference was to a “free state” that is protected by militia). Again, in journals and correspondences, the Founders clearly defined “militia” as simply “all the People.” Period.
        4) In the late 1700s, the term “well-regulated” did NOT mean “heavily controlled.” It meant trained and equipped to military standards. Each miitiaman was required to report to duty with 3-days’ supply of food, clothing, weapons and ammunition “suitable for war,” to last until the logistical systems could re-supply them.
        5) The right to self-defense (and to own weapons with which to do so) is a natural, God-given Right of all people. The Constitution does not GRANT that Right (nor can government “call” it a privilege and revoke it) and that Constitution specifically prohibits the government from interfering with that Right, as long as the Right is responsibly exercised. But the decisions regarding an individual’s methods and weaponry IS solely that individual’s to make… and he/she will be held responsible ONLY in a due-process after-the-fact venue – exactly like law enforcement in every other instance.
        The Constitution and its application will NOT be altered, re-written, or re-interpreted as YOU just happen to think it should be. Attempt to do so at your own peril.

    17. I can’t wait for a traffic infraction to become a reason to restrict 2nd amendment rights. I mean really if you can’t be responsible enough to follow simple traffic rules what business do you have with a firearm..

    18. Law is nothing more than the opinion of a politician backed by the force of arms.

      There isn’t one thing the democrats have added that is constitutional.

      1. @Just, What you have described is more like an act of Congress or an act of a legislature or act of a city council backed by force or arms. Often these acts are referred to as a statute, code, or ordinance. They are not, however, law. Law, in the US, must conform to the Constitution.

    19. UnAmericans Expand the Number & Types of Prohibited Possessors, to Limit 2nd Amendment
      Perhaps we expand the Number & Types of Prohibited UnAmericans who would impose tyranny on “We The People” to a nice permanent vacation to a island,perhaps Gitmo.

    20. All free sane adult citizens 18+ have the right to bear arms. It’s time to enforce Article VI within the US Constitution: Defund, Disbar, and Discharge all bureacrats from Office who violate the Second Amendment at ALL levels of government. The only constitutional regulations are Free, Adult, & Sane. I would argue that even non citizens lawfully inside the US should also have the right to bear arms to protect life and limb. Let’s fly the freedom eagle, and restore the US Constitution! Lets charge these Democratic Bureacrats with treason!

      1. Oldmarine >>> Core
        Right !!! All Public Servants ( Including Democrats ) have taken an Sworn Oath with consequences of Perjury under Oath. There are many State and Federal laws about this Breaking of the Oath because it becomes PERJURY , a FELONY. That makes any Politician a criminal because they knew is was against the law.. They do this not for you but for them, another criminal act against you. You have every right to charge them With Perjury and crimes against the citizenry. Political positions are created to represent you without committing a crime. Politicians tend to protect criminals because they are part of the Criminal Brotherhood. Everyone has their own outlook on the Constitution but they are only opinions and not law. Any attack on the Constitution is a criminal act and sometimes called Traitorous. The problem is that we all talk and bitch but really do nothing like charging the public servant with a crime.

      2. you were doing fine until you infringed the rights of those under 18 years of age.

        Are you not aware that many young men fought and died to further the war for our indepenedence from Britain? Some as young as fifteen took the field, fought hard, quitted themselves well as good soldiers, and survived to help build this nation.

        I teach rifle marksmanship, and I’ve worked with kids as young as six on the line. They pay attention, learn, follow the given instructioins enjoy what they are doing,. While I’d hate to see six year olds on the line in war, some are mature enough to comprehend the circumstances and make a decision to defend their homes and families. Raise that age to ten, and I’d have no problem with having some of them in the tranches alongside the rest of us. I’ve also known quite a fea at 12 and 13 who would make far better soldiers than many in their thirties I know. How about a fourteen year old boy who was INVITED to join his local gun club’s rifle team, with his own M1 Garand, and who scored well in competition? Or maybe the eleven year old, when his family’s home was invaded by a crazy man, who grabbed his Mother and forced her up against a kitchen counter with a chef’s knife, the boy ran upstairs, grabbed his Daisey BB rifle, ran back down into the kitchen and began pumping BBs into the face of his Mom’s attacker… after a dozen rounds the jerk made an informed decisioin and fled the scene. Later apprehended, a good part of his embarrassment was the FACT he was bested by an 11 year old with a Daisey BB gun who nearly shot HIS eyes out……

        Yeah, gimme two dozen kids like that one and we’ll stand and fight and win.

        My Dad had his own rifle at eight. still had it when I was a kid, first gun I ever shot. One of my brothers has it now. Most of us nine learnd to shoot with Dad’s “twennyritooful”. Single shot bolt action, but it worked. That Second includes NO age limits, Any such thing is an illegla infringement.
        Of course, I’d be all for laws clearly establishing parents as responsible parties for any activities the kids decide is OK. TAT would incentivies parents to make sure their kids were “well regulated”, as in trained, skilled, able to handle the instruments.

    21. Alright then, let’s do this. When any politician or judge passes a law that is unconstitutional, let’s take away their right to own a firearm. Police officers can still beat the hell out of their wives and children and they are still allowed to keep their firearms. That’s a real bright idea. Any politician who violates their oath of office needs to lose their right to own firearms. Any police officer who commits domestic violence against their wives and children needs to lose their right to own a firearm. If gun laws are going to be passed, then they need to apply to everyone including lawmakers.

      1. All laws passed must be enforced against gov and people alike.
        Police should have no weapons not allowed to citizens, no NFA items.

        Or, get rid of the NFA, WHICH I support

    22. Front door legislation barring yet again another category of citizens from engaging in Commerce, all the while pushing back door EPRO legislation to seize property legally purchased, all without due process!

      Both styles of legislation not only promote a false safety over Liberty, worse, the intent is to chill numerous inalienable Rights.

      This is not what Our Founders intended.

    23. Gun safety laws work. Domestic abusers, stalkers and spouse beaters who have been convicted of any of these crimes simply have no business owning guns. 1800women in America died at the hands of their partners in 2016. The majority of those deaths involved guns. Opposing gun safety laws like VAWA simply means more women will die from gunfire. And in a country with the worst per capita gun violence rate in the developed world that’s not good. Did the founders intend that known wife beaters convicted in American courts of abuse, should have firearms with which to threaten or kill their partners, themselves and others?
      This is basic gun safety and common sense. Responsible gun owners embrace gun safety. Wife beaters and abusers don’t.

      1. You will not need to worry about your wife or husband
        Beating you for too long! It will be government cronies
        Who will be beating your ass, just as soon as you hand over
        the last of your constitutionally protected rights! Ya need to wake up pal! This bill is a covert attempt at nothing more than subjugation! Do you not understand the M.O. that our government engages in with regards to anything they put a hand on? These stupid idiots can’t even balance the national debt and you are gonna give them the preserved natural rights that are exactly the tools necessary to to impede the absolute subjugation of the people they now serve! Ahh! Never mind, you must be counted among the first casualties of the coming struggle to save our republic, your a lost cause and I say good riddance to you! Go on now, Git!!

      2. You don’t even know the difference between a right or a privledge so sit down and shut up! You are ill qualified to even comment!

      3. My problem with it is the fact it’s so easy to get a restraining order, and it can be and is often done with no evidence. Just say I’m scared, whether that fear is justified or not doesn’t matter. Judges are scared to deny one then something happen to that person so they hand them out like candy. And to me that’s a bit too easy for someone to lose their constitutional right just one someone’s word. Especially in a world where abuse claims are often used in court to gain an upper hand in the divorce as well as custody battles to the point that attorneys have come to refer to it as the “silver bullet”

        1. So true!!
          In Indiana any woman can go into the local court and request a restraining order against her husband or boyfriend and the court will issue it immediately.
          You then are notified of restraining order and notified of your court date ” usually about 8 months to a year later, in the meantime you lose your rights to own or possess firearms.
          Then at the hearing…
          They issue a summary judgment and away go your rights for two years. (Unless she request that it be continued, then with no further due process it can continue for life as long as she request it.

          1. So the Cops Just Came And Took Mines Yesterday I have 15 Days To Appeal I Was Wondering How That Would Turn Out Do You Have Any Insight ? I was also reading up on my 2nd amendment on infringement and reputable laws outside the constitution being unlawful also it being my right solely to bare arms. Can you help me?

      4. I don’t own guns, but there could come a time when I might like to, however, I am not legally allowed to now. I have been married nearly 30 years ,and have 3 wonderful children and an intelligent & strong wife, but @ 15 years ago my wife and I got into a heated verbal argument on what would become the last night that she ever had a drink. As had happened a small number of times before, she became physical, but for the first time in my life, after being pelted three times in the head with a teapot, my reflexes got the best of me, and I broke her nose giving her two black eyes….. My wife called her Mother to take her to the hospital, and despite both their protestations, pleading on my behalf, he State charged me, but knowing that my wife and MIL would testify FOR me, they offered me a plea to misdemeanor assault , which, owing to feeling bad for what happened and not being able to stomach the legal bills of trying to fight it in court, I agreed to…… Thus ended my 2nd Ammendment “privelege”…..I am IN NO WAY a threat to anyone, but I have NO ABILITY TO APPEAL my loss of Rights…. Fortunately, I don’t hunt, & I live in a safe area, so I have not felt grandly inconvenienced, but things change, and the fact that I cannot do anything about this bothers me. It is bad enough that I lost control once in my life , in a moment of reflexive self-protection , but it horrifies me that it is undisputably assumed that I can not be trusted with a firearm solely because some politicians simply feel like putting as many conditions on our 2nd Ammendment Rights as possible……

        1. Utilize non-lethal self-defense tools, if/when needed. They can be very effective. In the case(s) of spousal abuse, this can be very comforting!

      5. The founding fathers intended that criminals be executed. Libtards have negated that. The founding fathers intended that people use facts, and logic rather than emotion to make decisions. The founding fathers did not intend that inanimate objects get blamed for a crime committed by a human. The founding fathers intended that the guilty be punished, rather than millions of persons that had nothing to do with the crime.

      6. The US is near 10th on the list of per capita not 1st. What you fail to say is if these women were armed would the same rate of death by an abuser be true. There are between 2 and 2 &1/2 million times a year that the mere presence of a firearm has stopped a crime of violence. The vast majority of violent crimes take place in 8 cities that have strict gun control and are run by democratic administration. Much of it is gang violence and not from the average Joe. There is already a law that domestic abusers cannot purchase a firearm. Cops that are abusers loose their jobs because no police force will employ a person convicted of domestic abuse. The vast amount of abuse is via punching, kicking etc. and if a female is armed there is much less chance an abuser would do the deed.

      7. I highly suggest that these domestic victims, whether they be male or female, take up arms and protect themselves! I speak of lethal and non-lethal!
        Let us take responsibility for our lives!

      8. Those kinds of laws have been on the books for decades in all States. Where have you been ?. Also, laws prohibiting felons have also been on the books for decades, if not centuries. And laws barring the insane, and mentally diminished, have all been on the books for centuries. What, you want to rewrite them again ? Is that what you are so upset about ? I don’t think so, your ilk wants to do away with all guns for all people, except those you think are in authority and will never go rogue. Who do you think you are kidding. Your ilk wants a registry so that confiscation will be a breeze. We know what your agenda is.

      9. another load of false statistics and your anti-gun bloomie-backed screed.

        One big difference between the Founding era and today…. any man who would physically harm his WIfe would be severely dealt with in the loca courts, tried by a jury of people he KNOWS and LIVES WITH. Such behaviour was not tolerated in those times.

        By the way, as in your earlier rant, what difference does the MEANS EMPLYED make to the already prohibited crime of bearing, murde,r etc? NONE. Rocks, bricks, claw hammers, fists, are all lethal weapons. so, is a wife beater to be perhobited the use of any of those?

        The issue is the HEART, not the chosen tool used to manifest the heart.

        And until evil ACTIONS are punished by restoration, nothing will change. A guy spends a year in jail supprted by the public he has harmed, this harming them again, hets out, nothing/s changed.

        Stop focussing on the TOOL focus rather on the one HOLDING the tool

      10. No these laws don’t work, not in the smallest capacity. How many men were killed or killed themselves when their children were kidnapped by those wives with “silver bullet”? Those numbers are in fact astounding. Father/male suicides actually make a very large number of the “homicide” by gun statistics. You know what else makes those “homicide” static “gun deaths”? Lawful police shootings of criminals.
        Getting back to your lack of a point about spousal violence, guess which gender is singled out at more than 90% as the bad actor?… Yeah the men. Now guess what percentage of spousal abuse goes both ways in reality, both genders are mutually violent? Nearly all domestic violence is mutual, talk to any ligit cop, violence begats violence.

        Now they just ban the men’s gun rights, despite the mural violence… Even if no gun or weapons were even used in the violence… Even if there is just the women saying she is “afraid” with no evidence police report, witnesses, jurys,court appointed later…. no due process or equal protections gets the man’s gun rights stripped instantly.

        This is the same as taking away someones free speech because they were speeding in a car. The punishment does not fit the crime

    24. When I was younger, I was put into mental institution. But that was because of the medication I was on, and I wasn’t really ever taught right from wrong when I was really young, I was on medication when I was four years old up until I was 14 years old, then my doctor took me off those medications. Because they were not helping, infact they were making everything worse, and since I’ve been off them, I’ve never been calmer, I hardly ever raise my voice at anyone. But of course I still make a mistake every now, then like any other human on this earth. I got into a argument with my aunt, which escalated pretty quick, she shoved me, then it became physical by me pushing her to the ground, and of course I’m not happy, nor proud of that moment, and we’ve made up since then, that happened when I was 17 years old, and as of today I’m 19 years old, nothing of the sort has happened since. Basically what I’m saying is that, shit happens, and I don’t think it’s right to ruin someone’s life over a little mistake they made when they were younger.

    25. It’s not about safety, the profiduious pompouse pigs in obamagrad want power and control. . .That’s it. The elitist vipers have each committed treason and, as you do to an asp, we should gather them up and throw them into a fire. I have a dick the elite scum can tate! To hell with the swamp, FLUSH THE DAMNED TOILET.

    26. Over and Over I head Democrats promise that they dont want to take guns, They just want (Common sense gun laws) after implementing these common sense gun laws.. Suddenly it’s not enough they want more stricter laws and more and more..
      I’m tried of political lies from the left aimed only at stripping all Constitutional rights away from the American people and push their socialist agenda.. my father, grandfather & great grandfather and many more ancestors fought and died for our Constitutional rights. Never will I or anyone else disrespect their memories by turning this country communist by brainwashed uneducated children that don’t even know what socialism means..

    27. They should let ex felons live the same as any other law abiding citizen. I guess it looks like our legalislative system has failed all of us. They call our prisons in USA … So called … Correctional. Ffaculties although none are obviously correcting anyone at all. We must all approach the Senate with thwar unlawful ways the system Do sent work at all for us. Why is that?

    28. This elitist attitude is another reason that l quit the so-called Democratic Party. Where does Nancy live? And does she have body guards? She does not speak for me. She is going to invite a revolution, like what happened during Vietnam, because her ideas are life threatening.

    29. They must all be charged with PERJURY in violation of their oaths of office which is treason and a felony under state and federal law,you cannot uphold the constitution and war against it they are TRESSPASSERS of THEIR OFFICES.
      Every politician who writes or votes yea on any arms bills or laws must be charged under title 18 U.S.C. section 241 CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS and title 18 U.S.C. section 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law.
      These terrorist traitors must be tried and executed under the law.

    30. Many people have been illegally abducted to uncredialed, unlicensed mental wards by gangs colluding with police, with no due process, as well as Alzheimer’s facilities who do not have Alzheimer’s. So the word “committed” should be replaced with the specific diagnosis as well as the name of the doctor so that someone takes responsibility. Another illegal trick commonly used is to falsely committed, but the person does not spend one minute of the false commitment in any facility. This is especially true for women, and includes politicians.
      This could not happen when only a violent crime has occurred, and the person has been convicted in a court of law — which is exactly how the law was written.

      I have to wonder what exactly is up Nancy Pelosi’s sleeve with this very harmful paranoia.
      Women need guns more than ever.

    31. Speaking as a lawful citizen that was subject to the women protection acts overreach already I can only hope that the sponsors of this bill get prosecuted for treason.

      At the meer suggestion of and extremely vague legal standard of “fear”, I watched everything I spent my whole life on destroyed instantly. That’s right the mental I’ll ex wife claimed she was “afraid” (more like mad I didn’t pay the cable bill in hopes she would peel herself off the couch after years of being a worthless sponge…). She left with two kids claimed abuse without the slightest shred of evidence in the least… No arguments nothing. The sheriff raided my house, no warrants, no hearing, seized guns ammo, and evicted me from my own house the same day with nothing but my clothes. From here I was ordered to support my childrens mother, pay all her bills while she continued to do nothing, while I was homeless away from my home shop and place of work… Oh and I was not allowed to see my own kids for months, was given no lawyer (even though the ex wife stole every cent in the bank).

      This stripping of constitutional rights was all done as civil process so I got shafted by the exs “sista” at the sham hearing months later… With no evidence or witnesses of any kind! Meanwhile the ex was given free lawyers, free housing, free food stamps, and a pity party by the county prosecutor all before the sham hearing…

      1. That is one of the worst crimes in my opinion!!! Not giving due counseling to the party in question and being railroaded without a lawyer to present your case!! I feel so sorry for this man. He was prosecuted with no proof and the powers that be let it go down that way!! Shameful!!!

      2. I had a similar experience, she was drunk off her ass. Called the cops they hauled me to jail for nothing and left a drunk mentally I’ll woman with three kids at home alone !
        Four days in the county jail before she dropped the charges.
        Men have no rights!

    32. My fellow supporters of the 2nd Amendment’s like this The Republican party FAILED ! during the last. Election the GOP never Put one.TV ad not one about protecting the 2nd Amendment. And. Never Never ran any Ads about what would happen if The COMMIECRATS took either house. with the Senate election Here Arizona the. GOP AND THE NRA FAILED.!! NOT ONE TV AD .

      1. Agreed!!! However, here on the East Coast the DemocRATic communist/islamist/nwo party members that CONTROL the “media” do not allow ANY decent current gun, shooting exhibits of any kind on their CONTROLLED channels. I have called very often to these channels. The only response I receive is: “I will relay your concern.”

    33. The founding fathers believed these rights to be inalienable, endowed by our Creator. That means government can not take away what they did not give. Hold on to your Bible and your guns firmly and draw near to Jesus, I believe he will be returning soon!

    34. The 2nd amendment says “Shall not be infringed upon” Period….. All gun laws are unconstitional, including the one about felons. After your time is served and you are deemed safe enough to reenter society you should be able to own a gun. Especially when bad people still have guns. I have children, if my house is broken into and by chance I can call for help I’ll have to endure whatever until help arrives. B.S. j I have the right to life &so do my kids. This Gov. can piss off with this shit.

      1. I like that one that was pretty good beef triple you with you that those guidelines of a stalker fit very much real Joe Biden

    35. The last FIVE categories were prohibited from possessing firearms. If you actually went to a gun shop you’d know that considering there’s warnings about 2 all over. Yes, in 1968 the NRA endorsed a law that banned over a quarter of the population from owning handguns.

    36. The Democratic party is a party of evil. They are Anti- Constitutionlists, and promote unrest to hide their lawless nature. They are masters of manipulation, they need to go.

    37. Fortunately the senate should vote this down, but if it gets passed there President Trump will veto this overreach and totally unconstitutional attemp to take weapons away from law abiding citizens.

      1. Yeah, Donald is a real ally to RKBA. I’m so glad he stood with us when the gun grabbers came for the bump stocks.

        Oh, wait …

        1. Gun safety laws work. I doubt the dead and wounded from the Las Vegas massacre would agree with your claim that you have a “right” to modify your AR weapon of war to be able to kill even more innocent people. Ridiculous rambo.

          1. Ever take notice how fast the Vegas shooting dropped from the news cycle? Once people with a brain started asking questions it vanished. Too many holes in the official story so they went on to claim there was no motive and closed the case. What a joke.

            1. @AG, Also disturbing is how the LVPD did not share the facts with the public after the case was over. Appartly, the people are no longer the masters of government, not even city government. The people are mere serfs in LV.
              Oh and Och is mere Swill

          2. NOT ONE SHRED of evidence that any “bump stock” was actually used in that event. BATF were berred from examining any of the guns found upstairs. And the gummit uffishuls immediately took as “evidence” all the privtely made video footage, erased it from the phones confiscated, returned the bleached devices, and have done… what? (no one knows) iwith all that”evidence”.. none of which was part of their report.

            You think we’ve really been told what happened?
            Yeah,and I’ve go a pet chicken can fly to the moon and back in a week……

            what about the multiple credible unconected reports of several different sources of gunfire, much of it going on from different locations at the same time?

            Go and find the video of a guy named Jerry Miculik (spelling?) who can fire a standard AR more rapidly than a trained guy with a bump stock… and do it using nothing byt his own trigger finger, no other aids.

            Maybe Jerry should be incarcerated for possessing a “machine gun”?

          3. @ Och will Why don’t you show some proof that an Ar15 caused all that carnage in Las Vegas. It is not proven either way. It is impossible to aim with a bump stock and impossible to use one with a tripod. Once, on this stage, you proclaimed to be a Major in the US Marines. If you were I doubt if you could be as stupid as you post. You and The Green Weenie have a lot of the same talking points and both of you are lying sacks of bull.

    38. Here’s an idea to stop this bullish!t, add on anyone prohibited from owning a gun is also prohibited from voting…

      1. That honestly makes a lot of sense! And I think it’s an argument that could play well with the silent majority in the middle.

      2. They don’t really care about voting, more effective would be to end government entitlements and benefits if they cannot legally own a firearm.

    39. I disagree with this push solely because of what this is. This is a “nickle and dime” scheme to make it easier to pass further legislation. Today it will be person’s that may do harm, tomorrow it will be vets with minor cases of PTSD, the day after will be anyone who doesn’t vote Democrat.

      In my personal opinion, stalkers and creeps of similar nature probably shouldn’t have access to firearms. As stalking can escalate pretty quickly depending on the mental state of the stalker. Usually it’s an unknown, so would fall in between “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause”. We have seen the results of unchecked stalking, and violence is almost a sure thing in most cases. Even high profile celebs have been killed by stalkers.
      But as stated before, this isnt about that. This is basically a preemptive strike against gun rights. The Dems continue to try to whittle away whatever they can. ERPOs, while they sound nice, are a direct example of the unconstitutionality of this type of legislation. They bypass due process for the accused. And I can see that same thing happen with this. There are so many false reports now thanks to the “metoo” movement that it’s fucking ridiculous. The accused is guilty before there is any evidence. That’s literally the whole point of that movement now, giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt.

    Leave a Comment 142 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *