in

AngryAngry OMGOMG LoveLove CryCry LOLLOL

BREAKING NEWS: Gun Control Is Now Up For Grabs As Democrats Take Over

Their proposed legislation may mean no more guns for Americans

Manchin was elected to the Senate in 2010 with an A-rating from the NRA. But following the December 14, 2012, attack on Sandy Hook Elementary school he emerged as a leading gun control opponent in the Senate.

He, along with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), introduced universal background check legislation as a response to Sandy Hook. His legislation failed to pass on April 17, 2013, but Manchin tried to revive it again and again in the years that followed.

For example, in April 2015 Breitbart News noted Manchin appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe and defended his post-Sandy Hook gun control push as something that “made sense” in 2013 and something that “makes sense now.”

And as recently as August 2019, Manchin suggested Trump could “Make America Safe Again” by giving Republicans political cover to support gun control.

LocalDVM quoted Manchin saying, “These are things that everybody is looking at, democrats and republicans, but I repeat, if the president wants to make America safe again, he has to be the person standing up giving the republican colleagues the cover and courage to do what’s right.”

Now Newsweek reports the universal background legislation currently being pushed harkens back to the similar gun control push undertaken by Manchin after Sandy Hook. Moreover, the outlet suggests House Whip James Clyburn’s (D-SC) so-called “Charleston Loophole” legislation could fall within Manchin’s wheelhouse as well.

Newsweek said, “Manchin’s record on gun control measures is mixed but there is reason to think he could support the bills being reintroduced in the House.”

Sources: Breitbart: Democrats Need a ‘Yes’ Vote on Gun Control from Joe Manchin

What do you think?

-10 points
Upvote Downvote

Written by Joshua Jackson

Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. THE BILL OF RIGHTS
    Second Amendment
    Right to Keep and Bear Arms

    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 meaning of this amendment has been argued ad infinitum.

    Allow us to assume this Amendment reads:
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (operative clause).

    That would appear to be crystal clear, but why would an amendment be necessary to state the obvious, since anyone who wanted arms had arms?

    The actual amendment appears to become clarified when we add the prefatory clause: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”.

    That appears to define, with specificity, the meaning, i.e., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is due to the necessity of being able to call citizens, when and if necessary, to form a well-regulated militia for the purpose of augmenting the standing army for the ultimate purpose of the defense of the nation.

    When citizens would be called to serve in a well-regulated militia, it was necessary that they bring arms, thus no authority should be able to deny the possession of the requisite arms.

    DISCUSSION:
    James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were involved in discussions as to whether to have a large standing army or a small one which could be supplemented by a call-up of citizens.

    Since we were a growing nation and needed farmers, builders, etc., they opted for a smaller cadre military.

    It appears that the conclusion was that the organized militia (the army) could augment its forces if and when required.

    It is, further, probable that the State National Guard system and the military’s reserve system is the metamorphosis of the intended, but out-dated, “well-regulated militia”.

    It appears that there is no possible phenomenon as a “well-regulated militia” or any possibility thereof, in the United States of America, thus the Second Amendment appears to be an example of desuetude.

    CONCLUSION:
    It appears the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does not imply an inherent right for an individual to keep and bear arms for any purpose other than to be able to participate in a “well-regulated militia”.

    Furthermore, since the “well-regulated militia” has been subrogated by the ORGANIZED militia, this amendment is without significance, i.e., has no meaning or consequence.

    ADDITIONALLY:
    This analysis does not intend to imply that a citizen does not possess an inherent right to self-defense.

    This analysis is being presented for the sole purpose to reflect that the intent and basis for the 2nd Amendment have been eliminated, thus the functionality of this amendment has been eliminated and cannot and must not be relied upon to build any legal edifice upon that defective foundation.

    Again, when our nation was in its youth, the 2nd Amendment was necessary and
    functional to enable the security of our nation.

    Please visit: http://www.markreedforcongress.com/category/policy-opinion-editorial/

    michael zitterman
    December 13, 1999
    Revised April 14, 2014
    Revised February 17, 2019
    mikiesmoky@aol.com

  2. Manchin makes noise, spreads his wings, flutters around, than votes the democrat line. Don’t count on him, folks.

  3. For the Democrats to even think about gun control is sheer stupidity. All they will accomplish is mass bloodshed in an already divided nation. There are more guns and ammunition in the hands of patriotic Americans that will NEVER give up their firearms. All of this rhetoric about we need to give more money here and there is also stupid. What we need is organized patriotic Americans willing to stand together in the face of “Democrats domestic terrorism.” We are a nation of the Constitution and you CANNOT legislate items there . It takes a 2/3 ratification of citizens
    If the Democrats think patriotic Americans will cave in they are foolish..

  4. A sheriff n Texas is havin’ none of Bidung or Congress gun grab…he said if any feds come nto his county 2 take away the ppls Constitutional right 2 keep firearms, they will b arrested…hahahaha…

    PROPS SHERIFF!!!

  5. I wonder how he will explain to the people back home why he would vote for a bill that will get your guns taken away from you!

Leave a Reply

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

Loading…

0

Socialist Dems Don’t Understand Americans

Trump Is Helping GOP Build A Bigger, Stronger Alliance