Do you want to see a national level semi auto and/or detachable mag ban go to a vote?

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I as many of you, have heard nothing but anti gun rhetoric and out right lies for over a week. Its been non stop and day by day it seems to escalate in madness. I'm uneasy about it as I'm sure many of you are.

What do you guys think, I'm curious for some different opinions and discussion.

Would it be more likely to end up with a good or bad result for us, if there was some sort of national 2a referendum like an attempt to ban semi autos or detachable mags?

My thinking of possible outcomes, if it goes to a vote and gets trounced then the issue will be settled. If it goes to a vote and we lose, then we all make the personal choice of knowing who has laid their cards on the table and where things are going . Obviously that has a lot of uncertainty and potentially going downhill quick, but at least it would be some sort of direction and you may at least know what decisions you would make. Who knows maybe if it goes to a national vote the end result would be the SCOTUS deems ny safe is unconstitutional and we get out rights back like the rest of free America.

I dunno I'm just sitting here with too much time thinking. I'm sick of the non stop gun hate lately and I don't like the uncertainty of it.

 

[Deplorable Me]

As long as it includes removal of the unSafeAct. Then FUAC.

 

[96coal449]

Sorry .... I'm not clicking the pol. Shal not be infringed. No votes on an unconstitutional law. I hope ONE lib learns from this post.

 

[GOPerfect]

I voted yes. With a big "Depends".

If it would finally stop the States from making up stupid laws that make zero sense.

One law across the entire country, kind of like the 2A

 

[meketrefe]

Vote for pretending Gun Free zones to be illegal and hold those passing those laws accountable.

This is what a real School Gun Free Zone looks like around the world....

 

[ArmedCorgi]

What I would like to see is a push back from states who don't buy or spout the liberal ban bs. The hope being it would force the issue and put it to rest once and for all. If it results in a fracturing of the union, then I would accept it as a necessary split. However, something we all need to keep in mind, is that this is absolutely about control of the population, and not at all about public safety. The evidence is in their actions and through and through, their actions have been to make the public less safe and more dependent on government.

 

[livingston]

Lawsuit: 100,000 noncitizens registered to vote in Pennsylvania
More than 100,000 noncitizens are registered to vote in Pennsylvania alone, according to testimony submitted Monday in a lawsuit demanding the state come clean about the extent of its problems.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation, which has identified similar noncitizen voting problems in studies of Virginia and New Jersey, said Pennsylvania officials have admitted noncitizens have been registering and voting in the state “for decades.”

But state officials have stonewalled PILF requests for access to the data that could expose the problem, the group says in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Harrisburg.


“For months, Pennsylvania bureaucrats have concealed facts about noncitizens registering and voting — that ends today,” PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said.

He said Pennsylvania had already admitted to a “glitch” dating back to the 1990s that had allowed noncitizens applying
Lawsuit: 100,000 noncitizens registered to vote in Pennsylvania


After seeing the DNC cheat in this last election ... We will have lost even before the voting has begun ....

 

[MikeyCNY]

Even if there were Voter ID laws.. NO.

 

[96coal449]

I guess my first post is a no on the poll now that I reread it all.

 

[Uzi]

I suppose the hope would be that it would spark a civil unrest to some degree in which all state and local gun restrictions would be overturned on the federal level. Most of america hasn't a clue what restrictive firearms ownership really feels like yet. The south will hate it so much in particular and that's probably enough to get the ball moving.

 

[Burzum]

In theory there should be NO infringement, I would NEVER give an inch because BOTH parties have screwed us hard historically.

However in reality, a federalized handgun policy would make more sense. Handguns are used in far more murders than any other gun and are the best choice for self-defense and overruling Sullivan would be nice.

 

[Target]

One problem is the MSM provides the information that the voters will use in their decision at the ballot box.

They all think that everything is full auto, 42 rounds per second, faster than the speed of light.

Voters are not well informed let alone mediocrely so.

 

[Cooolone]

Sure...

As long as we can vote on what the media can publish... What politicians can say... What sexual preferences get protected.

Ridiculous progressive liberal mentality that in our "Democracy" we put things to a vote to show that when 50.000001% agree, then that's the way we do things!

They dismiss that we are a "REPUBLIC" and the other 49.999999% of the people are Represented too.

They dismiss "RIGHTS" as mere conveniences bestowed upon the masses by the whims of the elite, or here, by Vote! They are morons...

So NO... Rights are NOT dispensed by man... Sorry!

And agreed, the one "RIGHT" with explicit language to make a point "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means just that!

 

[Twogunwilly]

 

[Grimscale]

My thinking of possible outcomes, if it goes to a vote and gets trounced then the issue will be settled.

I used to be naive like that.
No, if it goes to a vote and gets trounced it WON'T be the end of it. Like the Republicans on abortion, when they lose they just regroup and start picking away again from a different direction. Only now the Democrats have learned the same tactic to use against the 2nd Amendment, and actually have enough judges in their pocket to make it work.
And if it goes to a vote and passes there will be only one way to get our Rights back, and that would end up in bloodshed. Obviously the Supreme Court doesn't understand the Constitution or its purpose or they would have ruled differently.
It can start with passive resistance, marches to raise public awareness, ads on social media, etc. (assuming they'll let us buy ads there). But if you look at other countries who have tried to restore their freedom it always ends up in violence. Oppressors and usurpers listen to nothing else, they are too busy clutching to their perceived power.