If Gun Confiscation Was Legally Passed and Upheld by the Court...

Something is very weird about LED light I can only describe.
LED may be blindingly bright and so much glare and reflected light.
But, LED does not "illuminate" as one wishes to read a book or newspaper.
Could it be a wave length issue?


Driving on Jamboree Rd in North Irvine the road dips below the "5" freeway.
In that dip is LED radiation from lights surrounding parking at a mall way above.
I was in my big, bad, 4WD Ford Expedition with fog lights, high beams
and felt the illumination was poor. Like those LED lights confused my
eyes to constrict as if there was lots of light = illumination.
I followed the vehicle in front of me until I cleared that zone.


BTW I get a medical discount on my electricity, maybe you can too.

Conservation is a sucker's bet.
Use as much infrastructure as you can afford!


Moi

Don't ize,




​

My Bad I thought this thread was about LED lighting.

 

My rights to bare arms shall not be infringed!

I demand a few just to have mutually assured destruction the next time a neighbor drives through my grass

The only thing that stops a bad person with a nuke is a good person with a nuke

 

Widening the 405 and taking away everyone's guns, to paraphrase, is not in the same ballpark, same league, or the same sport. The effort is too much.

 

Did Germans turn in their guns when the Nazis outlawed them?

 

Yes, the government can confiscate guns. Nor would it be a violation of the Constitution. The 2nd. amendment was written as it pertains to militias. Since we have a standing military and every state has a National Guard, we have no need for militias.

The language of the 2nd. amendment is problematic. It was very badly worded. There are all kinds of weapons that citizens cannot possess. Lets make assault rifles illegal.

 

Criminals will always be able to easily obtain "assault rifles" regardless of any law.

But I think Democrats and RINOs should campaign for gun control.
Gun control is always a real winner for them.

 

Can you please quote the words in the second amendment that ban firearms for people who are not members of the "militia?" If not, can you quote where it defines a militia or even mentions the difference between a current militia or a future one. Most people consider the amendment as a defense against a government gone rogue - something like the one we have now.

 

We should also stop selling ammunition for assault rifles.

 

Criminals will still be able to easily obtain all the ammunition they want.

 

HIGH CRIME THE UNLAWFUL DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM.
Not the firearm.
No License.
No Permit.
No Registration
But, if you "hold" a gun and it goes off, mandatory jail time.
Even for a Vice President - Cheney.

Now imagine what unlawful discharge means!
I would say it includes the threat displaying a gun to another.
Discuss

 

Uh, it's the exact the same thing: government seizure of private property. The government takes people's stuff (including guns) all the time.

 

No it is not the same thing.

 

A gun confiscation program wouldn't be governmental seizure of private property? Of course it would be. If the government can take your money, which is hugely more intrusive than taking some weapon, they can take your guns. Which they can. And do.

Are you one of those people who think the government can't legally make you pay income tax?

 

There is no such thing as an "Assault Weapon". So, how can you ban something that does not exist?

 

Nope, I would never turn over my guns, as the law and order I believed in no longer existed. The third reich had law and order too, of a type that I would not follow. I would obey the law as it exists today. If it is changed to the point that it does not grant the rights that I enjoy today, then it has become tyranny, and I will not subject myself to that. It would be time to overthrow the government by force if necessary. But it will most likely never come to that.

 

There is no such thing as "unlawful discharge" in San Francisco. Progress.

 

The govt is able to take away a few individuals guns, but nothing en masse, the effort is too large. Widening an Interstate is for a public service, much different scenario.

 

The government takes away money en masse. Guns is nothing compared to that. Except to people with gun fetishes and baseless fears of a military takeover. But we don't have to cater to those people. They can turn them over or choose to break the law.

 

I’d “lose” my gun.
Probably buy a few more before law is going into effect.

 

Nonsense, militia referred to able bodied males, why would the government have to guarantee their own military to exist? In Heller the SCOTUS has already determined the 2A refers to an individual right to bear arms.

As stated, millions would never go along with that. So then what would you do?

 

It happens all the time, currently in Afghanistan.

 

Most of the LW has no clue semi-automatic guns have been around that long.

 

You have no clue how the amendment process works or are living in fantasyland if you think that will happen.

 

Cite who is saying that? We just want to keep what we have.

You can't bear, or carry, a nuke.

 

https://blackinkclothing.com/mens-shirt-from-my-cold-dead-hand-t-shirt/