House Democrats Pledge to Ban Guns In Common Use by Law-Abiding Americans

1. Thank you NSSF for not requiring a phone number be entered to use your contact form.

   Looking at you NRA. I’m not signing up for your text spam.

2. I signed the NAGAR thing. Hope it doesn’t bite me. You wanna release the whirlwind?!? Pass this clusterfluck. Get ready for a massive red wave. RINOS beware…

   • At least 90% of the bills passed in the HoR this term have been nothing more than Genuflecting to it’s radical base. Knowing full well they have 0 chance of passage in the Senate. The liberal progressive Democrat leadership in the House know full well their days are numbered and want to show their acolytes how Woke they in hopes it will get them more votes.

3. any news?

4. In other news: Tomorrow the sun to rise in the East.

   How did that little POS troll Nadler ever make it to adulthood?

5. I know how my congress critter will vote–a resounding NO! My senators, however, are reliable YES votes for the Democratic Party, especially Dianne Feinstein, so it isn’t worth bothering to contact her. She wrote the first AR ban bill….

   • I feel your pain. I’m in Massachusetts and the last time I called Elizabeth Warrens office, during the Kavanaugh proceedings, do you know what it’s like trying to talk to insufferable liberals? They were rushing to get me off the phone. They don’t care about what voters think. They only care about where the money comes from and in this case it’s the Bloomberg bucks.

     • At least we have Warren and Markey to protect our interests:(

     • And Soros.

6. That headline is inaccurate.

   They needed to add, “unless they’re under control loyal to me” at the end of that sentence.

7. Alinski Rule 8.
   “Attack, attack, attack from al sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover, re-strategize.”

   In short form, “When you lose, double down”.

   • Lose? Didn’t they just pass a “gun safety” bill with the help of the Rs? That did nothing but encourage them.

     • “Lose? ”

       Yes, lose…Bruen. We have seen states defy the SC (doubling down after a loss), now we are seeing the US House of Representatives doubling down after the same loss.

       • Yes, they’re throwing a tantrum over that. However, I recently read that passing the “most significant gun safety bill in thirty years” encouraged them. I believe it was a quote from a Dem representative. Would they even be trying this if the Republicans completely shut them down instead of working with them?

8. Democrats think they can jam through highly controversial, unworkable “laws” simply because they temporarily hold a bare majority in Congress. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. We’ve gotten too used to this sort of petty tyranny.

   People resent being bullied and being subjected to laws that are unfairly imposed upon them. One of our foundational concepts is: “the consent of the governed,” and there are tens of millions of people who won’t consent to being made criminals merely for possessing firearms that have always been legal.

   The question is how far the Democrats are willing to go to enforce this “law” in the unlikely event it is ever passed? It’s one thing to call for the confiscation of MSRs and it’s quite another how to effect that goal. There will be massive non compliance. Are they willing to send government agents with guns and the threat of force to confiscate MSRs from previously law abiding people’s private homes? Nice Police State ya got there, Democrats.

   The Democrats who drafted this law know absolutely nothing about guns…literally.
   https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-dumbest-ht-we-heard-during-yesterdays-house-assault-weapons-ban-hearing/

   The Democrat’s fixation with guns has nothing to do with trying to solve the issue of increasing crime in this Country but it has everything to do with their bigoted, elitist, snobby class hatred of people they despise and don’t understand.

   If Democrats were serious about getting at the violent crime problem, they’d focus on controlling criminals – especially in Democrat run inner cities. But they won’t because that would be racist. And its easier and so much more satisfying to scapegoat and punish your political opponents.

   FJB

   • Consent of the governed has been replaced by “the vision of the anointed”.

   • My advice to the Congress would be ” Don’t poke the bear”. The British did.

   • I just moved away from NY’s obtuse “assault weapon” laws last year and finally – FINALLY – bought an AR-15. The Democrats are quite mistaken if they think I’ll be giving it up. Bitter clinger and all that.

     It won’t come to it though. This bill is going nowhere in the senate. I’m more worried about the bill that undoes firearm manufacturer protections – plenty of worthless RINOs might find a reason to support that one…

9. I have this to say. We will not comply with Tyranny. Tread lightly you leftist politicians, there are more of us gun owners than all of you. You will have a hard lesson coming your way if you think we will accept banning of our Constitutional freedoms.

   • “Tread lightly you leftist politicians, there are more of us gun owners than all of you. You will have a hard lesson coming your way if you think we will accept banning of our Constitutional freedoms.”

     Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bundy I and II demonstrated the government has nothing to fear from the armed citizenry. There ain’t gonna be no boogie, Lou.

     • Apples and oranges. Gun confiscation runs in a different circle

       • “Apples and oranges. Gun confiscation runs in a different circle.”

         Same public, even more left leaning than in the era of those US government armed attacks on citizens.

         Do not drink the koolaid. Government is not stupid. There will be no armed force moving through neighborhoods, kicking in doors, and removing firearms. Instead, suppression of guns will be just as effective. Make firearms illegal to possess (not happening immediately, but ultimately), and they become useless for the vast majority of legal gun owners; no use of firearms without being subject to arrest and trial (including actual confiscation). Ammunition sales would decline to zero, as there is no need/market for ammo if firearms cannot be legally used.

         To repeat…there ain’t gonna be no boogie, Lou.

       • Puck us off a few at a time, traffic stops, friendly no knocks, red flags, mishap on a form. Anything, the ones that doe resist will be white surpremest super nuts with an arsenal.
         To futher complicate matters I’m having get difficulty in capturing neutrinos, I cant keep the beer cooler full of ice with this heat and I dont have enough fish sinkers to slow them down. Hopefully come this winter and the Briggs&Stratton still runs,I can get my UniversEndingPerpetualFussionNuetrinoBlomb closer to completion.

   • 🙂

10. Start making some informal gentlemen’s agreements with your friends and neighbors. They come for one of us, they come for ALL of us.

11. “So, to clarify, Mr. Chairman, you’re saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?” “Yes,” said Rep. Nadler.

    So we have it on record that Nadler is proposing legislation that clearly is in violation of the US Constitution, as just reaffirmed in Bruem. Can we have this dickweed arrested for treason now? When will CNN start broadcasting the hearings for his impeachment?

12. Come on democrats do it….I triple dog dare you. Touch the third rail. “Text, history and tradition”. None of what is being peddled in todays bill is allowed in Bruen. Regardless of the law democrats think, Bruen is the legal standard. I want to see a cold day in November when I wake up and find out that there are 400 republicans in the house and only 100 democrats. A powerless president who can do nothing. Regardless of the senate makeup, the house can do whatever it wants because they have the power of the purse.

    Amazing how unbelievably unpopular democrats are right now. The dip down to the dirt is happening right before our eyes. I look forward to a day when Mr Nadler is just a minor player who spends his entire day worrying about whether he pooed his pants.

    • MyPrettyAR15,

      “None of what is being peddled in todays bill is allowed in Bruen.”

      United States House and Senate Democrats know that and THEY DON’T CARE!

      In my world passing that law amounts to “Deprivation of rights under color of law.” At the very least, any law enforcement agent who would enforce it is absolutely guilty of “Deprivation of rights under color of law”.

      Note: said bill violates the plain text of the United States Constitution Second Amendment. Furthermore, said bill violates the United States Supreme Court Bruen decision.

      • “Note: said bill violates the plain text of the United States Constitution Second Amendment. Furthermore, said bill violates the United States Supreme Court Bruen decision.”

        What a lot of constitutional scholars ignore is the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…”. The prefatory clause means there must be authority delegated by the constitution (and/or amendments) to the central government for every piece of legislation. The issues potentially arising from deprivation under color of law are not part of the Constitution, but merely federal law, repealable with less effort that an amendment to the constitution.

13. I do not see the relevence that bsemi-aur to matic mechanisms for firearms are probably a hundred years old or more. The fact is that it’s quite a recent phenomena for so many being in genewral circulation and that so many want to own them. As the opening comment states ALL semi-Autos are of Military specf and have but one purpose -to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible and all too often that’s the EXACT use they are put too in far too many massacres in the USA. Nobody actuall needs anything other than a five shot BOLT ACTION Rifle for any legitimate purpose – not even to abide by the provisions of the American Constitution’
    As I understand it the Constitution gives American citizens the right to bear arms. It does NOT say they can possess as many as they want and of any type they wish> Indeed when the Constitution was formulated there were only single shot Rifles and hand guns generally available and I doubt that it was forseen that the would ever BE such weapons as Auto and Semi-Auto weapons would be generally available outside of the Armed Service and the Official Security Services.

    • “As I understand it…”

      Good Lord.
      Please shut up. No, you don’t understand it. You are nothing but a cancer to this site.

      • Bravo, Colonel.

    • We don’t need you either, but here you are.

    • Go bugger yourself you poofter.

    • I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, Albert: You don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about. We used military grade weapons on you limeys once.

      • “We used military grade weapons on you limeys once.”

        Actually, twice.

        • I forgot about 1812!

        • And saved their behinds twice in World Wars with “military grade” weapons! Don’t count on us to do it again!

    • Can’t you watch the sun set on your Empire on a website where you have some relevant knowledge or experience? Maybe there is a site called “The Truth about poor English dental work”. You should weigh in on that site. Just not one that has anything to do with firearms.

      • The sun set on that rain-soaked hell years ago.

    • You’re a total idiot, Albert. Every single weapon you might imagine was developed jointly for hunting, and for military use. The first sharp stick, then the first sharp stick held over a fire to harden the point, then the first sharp stone tied to a stick, bows and arrows, any and all explosive devices that fired a projectile or projectiles.

      You can’t just roll the clock back to some specific level of technology that you are comfortable with.

      Well, in England you can, because so many of you barbarians still worship your God-ordained queen.

    • Oh Al! Hahahaha…oh, my…hahahaha…you’re killing me Smalls…

    • Good point Albert.

      quote————-As I understand it the Constitution gives American citizens the right to bear arms. It does NOT say they can possess as many as they want and of any type they wish—– quote

      If the power mad criminals who started the American revolution could have know that someday weapons of mass destruction would have been in the hands of civilians (who they detested and feared) there would have been no Second Amendment ever written. They would still have sanctioned state militias to cajole the Sates into joining the Federal Government but found a way to put those militias eventually under the complete control of the Federal Government (which by the way is exactly what eventually did happen in the U.S.)

      I might add that the infamous Scalia decision was also a slick piece of propaganda because it stated that the courts had the right to “regulate firearms” a slick way of saying we can and will have the power to ban or restrict weapons when it threatens our absolute power over the people.

      As far as protecting “weapons in common use” the criminal court can simply put so many restrictions on semi-auto firearms that the average person would not be able to afford or qualify to own one and not want to go through all the red tape to own one and keep one. They could also require registration which the far right paranoids would then shy away from ever owning one.

      • The Right To Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.
        If I choose to carry a bazooka I should have that right.
        The second amendment’s was about we the people having weapons comparable if not exceeding what the government that was assigned to the people pocesse.
        That may sound a bit far fetched but when it was written that is what it meant.
        The first ” you cant” with any firegunm should have been contested. Even before
        Wyatt Earp violated the constitution that he took an oath he took to protect. Hes no hero , and inch by inch we misled and make concessions.

      • Yeah I will have a big mack coke and a large fry hold the pickles.

    • Your quote-As I understand it the Constitution gives American citizens the right to bear arms. It does NOT say they can possess as many as they want and of any type they wish> Indeed when the Constitution was formulated there were only single shot Rifles and hand guns generally available and I doubt that it was forseen that the would ever BE such weapons as Auto and Semi-Auto weapons would be generally available outside of the Armed Service and the Official Security Services.

      First off starting with “as I understand it” is never a good idea when debating facts.

      Secondly, you are correct the constitution doesn’t say people can have as many guns as they want. The constitution says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So basically the 2a says we get to have all of the gu ns (limiting amount of guns is an infringement).

      3rd, you said when the constitution was ratified. There were only single shot rifles and such. Well, you’re sort of correct. See there were multishot cannons (Puckle Gun), rockets and cannons to name a few. All of these things were able to be owned by the private citizen. In the federalist papers and other correspondence between the architects of the constitution; the founding fathers were aware of these firearms and allowed everyone to have them.

      Your quote-Nobody actuall needs anything other than a five shot BOLT ACTION Rifle for any legitimate purpose……..Well, send the people of Ukrain that message.

      I hope you read this Albert, but you have a tendency to post a comment and never return.

    • Albert L J Hall, What you know about firearms is about as muck as dacian he Dunderhead knows. Which is close to nothing.

      • Albert L J Hall, What you know about firearms is about as much as dacian he Dunderhead knows. Which is close to nothing.

14. ever seen the pelican brief
    this is not good
    because the democrats have to know
    that this wont pass constititional muster
    not after bruen
    so they must also know something
    about the future makeup of the scotus
    meaning they know:
    1 that theres an imminent opening or openings
    to replace a conservative justice/justices
    and
    2 they have the biggest october surprise ever lined up (even bigger than gretchen whitmer and caesar sayoc) that they think will guarantee they keep control of congress in order to pack the court
    needless to say
    things get really really dicey after that

    • They’re working on a bill to add 4 more seats. They’re trying to push their tyranny through quickly before they get slaughtered in November. They’re IDIOTS!

15. Since ‘Bianchi v. Frosh’ (Maryland MSR ban) was GVR’ed back to the court that made that ruling, this is just a nothing-burger.

    Isn’t it?

    • “Since ‘Bianchi v. Frosh’ (Maryland MSR ban) was GVR’ed back to the court that made that ruling, this is just a nothing-burger.”

      It is purely a political move ahead of the mid-term elections. If the Dims get the bill enacted and signed, they win a great campaign victory. If they lose, they win a great campaign victory.

      • If they lose they piss off everyone involved (failure or trying to succeed) and display their irrelevance before whatever happens in November. But they will get more money from tyranny inc so fundraising for campaign season achieved.

16. Well, my opinion on this has been and will be as follows. Don’t register any firearms. Don’t turn in any firearms. Make their laws an administrative nightmare for them by not cooperating at all. They do not have the resources and manpower to track down 150-million-gun owners in 100 years. When this nonsense was tried in other forms by other states civil disobedience won the day. NY and CT tried to register AR15’s, failure. NJ tried to make people turn in high-capacity magazines, failure. It is not possible for them to enforce a law like that and if they try many in law enforcement know they will be shot and not by criminals alone. They will be shot by people who are normally law abiding who are not going to give up their Constitutional Rights to these so call Democrats. They want them make them come and take them. Molon Labe

17. @Dude
    “Would they even be trying this if the Republicans completely shut them down instead of working with them?”

    The current legislation was planned and organized before the McConnell gun control bill. The Dims were working on a power grab since the moment the 9th Circus decision rendered.

    The McConnell gun control bill was touted as an attempt to pull voters away from the Dims, by appealing the sensitivities of urban voters. If it turns out to be so, the Dims will be looking at a net loss for their momentary victory.

    McConnell may have been doing 5th dimension Chess, thinking that with a mid-term win in the House and Senate, the McConnell bill can be repealed, or, more sneakily, the SC will void the bill, McConnell will be a political genius. If, however, McConnell outsmarted himself on both accounts, then, yes, the Dims will have gained a victory amid such devastating losses as Bruen, Dobbs, and West Virginia v. EPA. All-in-all, a net loss for the Dims.

    • So McConnell would completely screw over his newly courted constituents? While that is 100% believable, I doubt they’ll be eager to repeal anything involving spending money and expanding the government. I think the whole “we’re going to get more suburbanite votes” thing was a sham. Deals were made to get McConnell’s blessing. Cornyn got a piece of the pie as well. That’s how it works.

      • “So McConnell would completely screw over his newly courted constituents?”

        Of course. Think what you will, but McConnell knows POTG are a paper-thin constituency. The overwhelming majority of ~100,000,000 gun owners are not POTG, not 2A activists.

        McConnell knows that even his base are not 2A single-issue voters. If gaining more voters through accommodating 2A squishes means more Republicrat wins, the calculation is simple.

        McConnell didn’t become Majority Leader because he is clueless about how his game is played.

18. The Republicans should agree to vote for it if it to repeal the Hughes amendment. Nothing else is the bill will survive judicial review (violates Heller and Bruen, plus uncompensated taking of property). Based on all the lies and errors in testimony and member comments, it wouldn’t even be able to pass a rational basis test.

19. “…plus uncompensated taking of property”.

    Not quite. If government declared it was building an array of facilities throughout the nation, and that all property within the grounds of the planned facilities are henceforth property of the government, and that no one would be compensated for loss of any property whatsoever…that would be uncompensated “taking”.

    However, if government declares that “from the date of notice, forward, all existing property within the confines of the planned government project was declared illegal contraband, no “taking” occurs, no compensation is due.

    The question then arising would seem to be whether the government can be limited in any way from declaring the entire nation a government project, and all property held by individuals is thereby contraband, or simply owned by government?

20. @mgd
    “I forgot about 1812!”

    Easy to do, if you didn’t grow up listening to Johnny Horton songs.

21. Null and Void.

    https://youtu.be/QSo0duY7-9s

    • “Null and Void.”

      Says who? (it’s an important question)

22. Everything Nadler says always sounds a little Queer to me.

23. Nadless has a face I just want to punch and pencil neck and swallowswell and turtle and……..nasty yes definitely nasty. I know never hit a woman but come on is it really? Can you describe a woman ? I can and that alien ain’t one.

24. ! ! “The Scorpio is ready ” ! !
    Theres going to be a lot of friendly investigations of gunm owners by the BAFTE in the future.
    Some may cut loose The Lone Wolf and go down as the mass murdering white supremacist ( dont matter what color) but it’ll be the white supernut that had an arsenal of weapons of destruction, a time bomb waiting [and the crowd cheers].
    More Gunm Control.
    And in the mean time the Supreme Court upholds the Second Amendment only to have the dessisions slapped down by a letter agency.
    .Bettleback is bring hell to breakfast.
    bureau of ALCOHOL, tobacco and firearmns.
    Theres a really big alcohol problem in the US, lot of drunks, lot of deaths, most accidental. More people killed in vehicle accidents then buy gunms..Sounds to me the AlcoholTF should be spending their time elsewhere .
    It’s all about saving lives,,,right.

    • If accidental gunm deaths were as high as accidental vehicular deaths , Wow what an outcry.

25. Misguided and Misplaced

    I don’t think those words mean what Larry thinks they mean.
    Maybe Malicious and Deliberate would be a better description?

26. I seriously hope they do pass this law.
    Why?
    It would wind up before SCOTUS faster than you can say BANG!
    Thomas I am sure would have a lot to say about it, and guess what, good chance it would shoot down MSR bans across the country.
    Congress has learned nothing.

27. “Hopefully come this winter and the Briggs&Stratton still runs,I can get my UniversEndingPerpetualFussionNuetrinoBlomb closer to completion.”

    Don’t bother. Buy a VR visor. You can have your toy instantly.

28. I am really tired of us not taking the left on when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Oh sure we do some but not really well. The well regulated clause means to be kept in consistent order, as in Jefferson bragged to his buddy that the soldiers grew up shooting the very guns they carried in battle. The fact that they did not have to learn the gun and how to shoot it helped us tremendously. Understanding that you should also understand that makes the M16 the MOST protected gun not the least. Since our kids should grow up hunting with them to understand the rifle when or if they are called into service.

29. Okay drug legalization crowd come on out of the closet. You know you want to. You will vote for the Democrats. You always have in the past. Gun rights mean nothing to you. You’ve never voting for the republicans. Because Republicans like President Trump will never legalize drugs. Because he saw his older brother destroyed by them.

    The drug legalization crowd re-elected Murphy in New Jersey. They saved Gavin Newsom from the recall in California. But the drug legalization crowd is just like the pro-abortion crowd. They demand body autonomy from the government.

    And they still will demand that you “take the needle” whenever the government tells you to.
    Or when the government tells you to wear a mask. Or when the government tells you to not go to church.

    “Democrats turn to marijuana after failure on Biden’s agenda
    Pursue legalization while in Senate majority”

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jul/19/democrats-see-opening-squeeze-marijuana-legislatio/

Comments are closed.