Tobacco is not in the constitution. Guns are.

I keep saying, let them go full retard with their wish lists.

The higher they reach, the greater chance of falling.

I have my "R" letter(s) done and in route as we speak. Alas, I fear the "D" letter will fall on deaf ears and closed minds.

DIAS.

While I would not support adding semi-auto rifles to the NFA, quite a few of us here already have NFA items.

I also find her actions to be upsetting, but the Founders were pretty much all aristocrats/elitists, which was a good thing. The folks who have wanted to disarm the people the most have been the egalitarians.

I sold all my shoestrings on the gray market.

I see this move in a different way.

To me, to include AR15 in the NFA, signals that there isn't the interest in the Senate or House to pass her ban (banning the grandfathering, transfer of AR's).

Unfortunately, I can see more congressional support for NFA registration (IMO =easy confiscation or future ban).

Amazing how these democrat buckets of sewage have turned the "conversation " from guns to increasing the scope of the feds(registration) and taxes (tax stamp).

Ladies and gentlemen. If they can get away with this they will find the way to put handguns and shotguns on the NFA registry. For all your wet dreamers, they are NOT going to let you register anything full auto. They will come up with a new category named "assault weapon" or simply thrown them in with destructive devices. Then they will include handguns and shotguns when the time is right, eventually leading to their ultimate goal which is confiscation. We can't allow this shit to happen!

Wow. That sucks for the new people. But I got 2 already and my 3rd coming in 2 weeks.

Evey time that bagel munching Communist opens her mouth I want to puke all over the TV screen.

She has most definitely overplayed her hand with her lies and clever personal motives.

And what that logic amounts to is streamlining the registry....no way.....the 2nd amendment is over regulated to the max as it is.

Look, WHATEVER THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE PLANNING TO DO!
Fighter before thefight" I plan on taking it to the ground as fast as possible and submitting my opponent"
That means he is going to try to knock him the f*** out.
If they are talking about registration and NFA, that means they are probably planning a mental health firearms card as defined by a obamacare specialist.

"Tell me about the time your dog ran away and how it made you feel"

"It's a shoulder thing that goes up"

Poison pill amendment comes to mind.

My "D" letter:


Use your imagination and come up with something similar.

Yes.

Because it's visceral and it's for the children.

Don't forget: complacency kills.

Here is a good write up of what she wants...if it says it is forbidden, give it a moment..Monderno's site is getting hit on more then a deployment widow on pay day.

I'm not even sure BATF could deal with the logistics of that.

They'll find a way.

This does not have a chance in hell of passing as the bill is written. This cunt is fucking nuts.

I will say it loud and clear. I will not register my weapons and if she wants to kick a hornets nest she's kicking the biggest one she's ever seen.

Folks,

Please don't think that this can't pass the Congress or Supreme Court scrutiny on constitutional grounds. Most of the laws on the books right now are unconstitutional. We need to do everything we can now to convince our lawmakers to oppose this.

Consider for a moment:

1. The NFA: It is structurally no different than a Poll Tax -- a tax that must be paid in order to exercise a right. Yet the former was ruled constitutional while the latter was not. Imagine for a moment if the same rationale were applied to the First Amendment. What would people say/do if they had to file paperwork, get fingerprinted, receive permission from the government, and pay a tax before they could publish a news article or editorial? The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

2. The Health Care Affordability Act (a.k.a., Obamacare): This is a more recent but no less egregious example of how despotic the Supreme Court has become. In the ruling upholding the statute, it was remarked by the majority that it must be "construed" as a tax even though it was not characterized as such by Congress. Yet -- as most constitutional scholars will tell you -- in order for it to be a valid tax-raising law it must originate in the House of Representatives (it originated in the Senate). So even if the majority is correct in their interpretation, the law should still be null and void because it violates the Constitution's explicit procedures on raising revenue.

Clearly, the Supreme Court cannot be trusted to uphold the Constitution or the God-given rights it is supposed to recognize and bolster. Freedom diminishing acts such as this must be stopped before they become law because it is nearly impossible to stop them afterwards.

Beyond urging our lawmakers to resist this, you also need to decide how you will respond if the proposed AWB does come to pass. Will you comply or not?

I will not.

I had hoped to die in bed at an old age. I am now beginning to believe that I will be murdered by my government for defending my freedom.