Top 10 Take-Aways From Yesterday’s House Hearing On ‘Assault Weapons’

[livingston]

Top 10 Take-Aways From Yesterday’s House Hearing On ‘Assault Weapons’
Thirty years into the national debate over semi-automatic rifles and ammunition magazines designed for defensive purposes, the only thing that has changed is the openness with which Democrats demonstrate their determination to prohibit the private ownership of firearms.
On September 25, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, held a hearing on semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15, which Democrats call “assault weapons,” “weapons of war,” and “weapons of mass destruction,” and on what they call “large” or “high-capacity” ammunition magazines, meaning those that hold 11 or more rounds, regardless of the firearms for which the magazines are designed.

Some of what transpired was a regurgitation of civilian disarmament activist groups’ sound bites and talking points, heard since the debate began in January 1989. A few new revelations took place as well. Here are some highlights.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/2...-yesterdays-house-hearing-on-assault-weapons/

 

[livingston]

I posted this article earlier ... Just wanted to make a point ..
7. Actually, Democrats Want To Ban All Guns
To Rep. Sensenbrenner’s question about “hunting rifles,” Chief Brackney answered, “I believe that any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned.” In other words, all firearms. Under questioning by Rep. Gregory Steube (R-Fla.), she repeated the statement over and over again. She also made a convoluted statement that indicated a belief that only a police officer should be able to fire a gun under any circumstances.

This is the crux of the entire gun argument ... When this Chief Braknenly was sworn in .. Was she not required to take an oath to the constitution ? Perhaps some LEO folks could answer this.
We have a person in charge of enforcing the laws .... Here is a person that wants to abolish an entire right. I know you folks that have in the service take an oath ... just wondering about this.

 

[Blimey]

I posted this article earlier ... Just wanted to make a point ..
7. Actually, Democrats Want To Ban All Guns
To Rep. Sensenbrenner’s question about “hunting rifles,” Chief Brackney answered, “I believe that any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned.” In other words, all firearms. Under questioning by Rep. Gregory Steube (R-Fla.), she repeated the statement over and over again. She also made a convoluted statement that indicated a belief that only a police officer should be able to fire a gun under any circumstances.

This is the crux of the entire gun argument ... When this Chief Braknenly was sworn in .. Was she not required to take an oath to the constitution ? Perhaps some LEO folks could answer this.
We have a person in charge of enforcing the laws .... Here is a person that wants to abolish an entire right. I know you folks that have in the service take an oath ... just wondering about this.

Their oath is consistent with their belief that heller/mcdonald are incorrect and that the 2nd refers only to muskets and/or milita members.

Movements often play the long game. Notice how virtually no dems have called for dumping the 2nd amendment. Rest assured that with enough time they will start to do that. Some want it gone now but the main party members don't go to that. They will. Many of them truly do not believe people should have guns at all, in any capacity, hate hunting, etc. Some others probably remember vaguely their grand father hunting, so for them they're okay if you have a tube-fed bolt gun or a double barrel shotgun for hunting pheasants.

I really think it very likely that for some of us younger folk on here we'll be able to tell our grand-kids how back in the day we actually were allowed to not only buy handguns but carry them around for self defense.