Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Anti-gun group claims to outline Constitutional justification for confiscation

Slippery slope? If the other side gets its way, it will be a Teflon precipice. Read Kurt's analysis, then be sure and follow the link to the original article.


Mark III said...

What they don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter if they manage to out "lawyer" us, not that this weak argument is much threat. The bottom line is that even if they win the debate, even if they change the Constitution, when they show up at the door we will kill them.

SWIFT said...

Those who advocate the use of the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment, are never the ones who will engage in the actual door to door, taking. That has always been the case. Limp wristed, left wingers, always want to send someone else into harms way. Yes, I will shoot those who try any type of confiscation, regardless of justification. But what about those who sent them? Why should they be given a pass on dying? Wouldn't a hunt afterwards be in order? Wouldn't it be reasonable to put enough fear in them, that they all go into exile, as opposed to having dirt shoveled in their faces? Surely some commie regime, somewhere on the plant, would welcome them. I think we should become strong advocates, pushing for these people to go into exile, before it gets ugly.

Anonymous said...

Gotta love the misdirection. This track right here is WHY the Law of Rights(Formerly known as a Bill prior to ratification) was adopted as a PACKAGE deal. See, the Framers KNEW at the time creative lawyering already existed.

These fools might think they have come up with something new but in reality they have not. Even though cars aren't specifically protected in name like ARMS are, providing an even lower threshold, vehicles could not be confiscated be legislation in the name of "public safety". This despite the many thousands who are harmed and killed each year.

This angle fronted totally ignored the presence of the Second Amendment and the "why " is simple.even THEY are finally starting to understand ( though not admit) that the ONLY way their arguments stand up is if they pretend the Second does not exist. Hence they admit, without wanting to, that their only recourse rests in total repeal of a Natural right identified in our Declaration of Independence as self evident and codified by Constitution. In essence, this gun control piece is an admission that they have indeed lost the debate entirely.

Hefferman said...

Mark III that is part of the problem They think they are safe in their homes.

We have not voiced the idea that when they send their paid thugs, we the defenders of the Republic will not only shoot the thugs at our door steps, but we will go hunting for the wannabe tyrants who sent them, and their backers.

As a vet and a nephew of a couple of Vietnam vets, I look forward to the day I see Jane Fonda hanging like Benito Mussolini.

Anonymous said...


By the way, I found out how to pronounce it from a Greek friend.

Mo-lon: (Both o's are long o's, with the accent on the last syllable.

La-be: The la is pronounced like the la in fa so la singing notes.
The "b" is pronounced like a "v". The "e" is pronounced like a long "a". The accent is on the last syllable.

Whew! - for whatever that was worth.

- Old Greybeard

Yank lll said...

Pass all the illegal laws you want.. the real trick is in confiscating them and surviving.

Yank lll