You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
"There's no way that those are going to be taken or collected - there's no way that's possible," Barber said Monday. If he believes that then he could do his cause a lot of good by stepping forward and denouncing Sen. Feinstein's ghoulish proposal to confiscate guns upon the death of their owners which is her plan to disarm Americans within a generation.
There is no plan to disarm America. The American people have a right to regulate guns, just as they have the right to own them.
It's a shame they coundn't have done soemthing positive rather than this promotion of civil liberties abuse. If they don't like guns, they shouldn't own any. If they want to abridge americans rights in any way their one option is a constitutional amendment overturning the 2nd. It doesn't sound very wise to me but if that's how thye feel they should go for it. I guess I woldn't give Senatior F's proposal more than a cursory read, it's clearly outside our code of law.
Feinstein's proposal includes registering ALL guns along with mug shot and fingerprints of the owner. And rest assured that if this gets through, there will be substantial administrative 'fees' charged as part of this registration process, probably on a per-gun basis. It's quite onerous.
Feinstein can suggest anything she wants. None of it will be approved. The senate can not pass laws with out the house.
"The American people have a right to regulate guns, just as they have the right to own them." - Regulate per 2nd amendment. That means no abridgement, no poll tax, no registry, no banning by "type" You'd think a Senator would have a better grasp of our basic social compact than she does. And since she's s focused on knowing who buyers are, why isn't she as focused on knowing who voters are, or that those using public aservices or representation actually have a right to use them. Her hypocracy and political double standard, I find, is unethical at best.
"Feinstein can suggest anything she wants. None of it will be approved. The senate can not pass laws with out the house." - And no laws passed by eother house, or executive orders by the president, may conflict with the clear, basic words in the constitution. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Any attacks against this right are attacks against our nation and worthy of vigorous defense. Enemis foreign or domestic is the oath I think some people have abandoned.
Actually, Eleanore, when the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment prevents states and cities from banning gun ownership, it explicitly stated that this does not prevent government from regulating guns by owner registration, banning of "assault" weapons (without defining the term, a task better left to the legislature), and other methods. There is no Constitutional right to have an unregistered gun, or an "assault" weapon, even if it is legal in most states.
Also the notion that a person who doesn't support guns shouldn't own one is disingenuous at best. The NRA is increasingly pushing our society towards one in which a gun is required for personal safety, as well as certain jobs (teachers, perhaps?). Increased gun ownership, in particular unregulated gun ownership and unreasonably powerful weapons, actually infringes on the right NOT to own a gun. We need reasonable gun regulations so that those who do not wish to own them can do so without compromising our personal safety.
The 2nd amendment says your right to own a gun cannot be infringed -- as long as you can own a gun regulation is constitutional, and that can mean many things. Gun activists must accept this, or they deign themselves above the law, which is unacceptable, because as they love to say -- they are 'law abiding' citizens, no?
"it explicitly stated that this does not prevent government from regulating guns by owner registration, banning of "assault" weapons (without defining the term, a task better left to the legislature), and other methods" - This would be a clear example of SCOTUS not conforming to the clear and strict language in the constitution, the basic law of our land. Obviously it is very dangerous when this happens, for example their Citizens united decision, or Keo V. New London. It seems like this time they have the potential to break the camels back, or perhaps lesser bodies do. Passing laws which conflict with the language in ithe constitution isn't just dangerous, it's criminal. And Americans do not recognize criminal legislation as valid. I would encourage everyone to consider the difference between laws passed and laws that are legally enforceable. We need to do a better job of rooting out those who attack america lawlessly from positions of authority and return them to the private sector where they may not predate upon our nation and citizenry.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks