House Passing "Assault Weapons Ban" Just Admitted They Want to Defy The Supreme Court

HR 1808 Assault Weapons Ban
bit.ly/327ElwA
During the AR-15 Ban hearing, or as they like to deceitfully mislabel it, the "Assault Weapons ban" hearing, the Democrat politicians in the House made it clear they wanted to defy the United States Supreme Court.
In an exchange between (R)Dan Bishop and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (D)Jerry Nadler, they confirmed just that:
(R)Dan Bishop: Is there anyone on the other side that would dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States Today?
(D)Jerry Nadler: Yea, That's the point of the bill
(R)Dan Bishop: 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?
(D)Jerry Nadler: Yes, The problem is they are in common use
The supreme court made vital rulings on the second amendment in the Miller and Heller cases.
These cases, as a precedent, established explicitly that you have an individual right to keep and bear arms and determined that what the second amendment covers are weapons in common use.
Anytime the supreme court says anything about the constitutionality of a firearm, what they're going to try to do is find a way to create a law to get around it.
This is ironic because these are the same people who like to talk about so-called loopholes in the gun laws while trying to find loopholes in supreme court decisions to pass gun control laws.
But he did expose how their overall goal is to ban firearms.
AR-15s are in common use.
There are over 20 million of them.
They don't care about the supreme court decision even though they are in politics creating laws that are supposed to be based on the constitution.
This begs the question, does it make the anti-gun politicians the real criminals?
Don't ever forget.... Yes, AR-15s are protected by the second amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It didn't say only handguns it said arms!
AR-15s Are Protected by The Second Amendment Shirt,Hats & More
➡️ bit.ly/327ElwA
Join MY Exclusive 2A Advocacy Text List while AUTOMATICALLY being entered in our monthly 2A Giveaways
➡️ bit.ly/3FFLHJi
Let's Go Brandon Merchandise
➡️ bit.ly/3EbcXP8
Get UnApologetically 2A Content In Short-Form On KZbin & Help Protect The Second Amendment
➡️www.youtube.co...
FREE BOOK - If I Only Had One Concealed Carry
➡️ www.mrcolionno...
PRO 2A Message Hats In Trucker, Dad, Snapback & More
➡️ shop.mrcolionn...
Looking to help further our Pro Constitution, Pro 2A message, donate below:
www.MrColionNo...
UnApologetically 2A Content Content On Other Platforms:
Twitter - / mrcolionnoir
Instagram - / colionnoir
Facebook - / colionnoir
Gab - gab.com/Colion...
Truth Social- truthsocial.co...
KZbin Shorts - kzbin.info...
#2ANews #ColionNoir

[@jdawg4219]

Anyone who doesn’t uphold the US constitution should be removed from office. There has to be repercussions for people who defy Supreme Court rulings.

[@bigyoppa3403]

Maybe we need to stop talking about it and come together as a country and stand up against this tyranny and evil. The government been trying to divide this country, it’s time to come together

[@8wheeledassassins.]

I believe this is exactly the purpose of The Militia. To protect the nation from nefarious actors, foreign or domestic.

[@traeucity6087]

That's why we have the Second Amendment. People nowadays are just too sissified to use it.

[@ericheick7044]

Well, they just guaranteed it will be overturned. Nadler is almost as stupid as Mazie Horono

[@danratsnapnames]

@@8wheeledassassins. agreed.. it is the VERY REASON THEY CREATED THE 2nd in the first place!! a well regulated militia being essental to a free state.. how else is the militia going to keep us free? by doing demonstrations and being hauld into a fake ass court that has no intentions of following the constitution of the united states, the Supreme law of the land..

[@genejeffries2888]

Isn't passing a law known to be in direct opposition to the constitution a violation of their oath of office?

[@georgemartin2599]

So much for the oath to defend the Constitution

[@oxigenarian9763]

IMO - yes

[@SuperEightball1]

Punishable by death . Drawn and quartered In the rose garden a PPV event

[@moneeybadger3775]

Yes but the problem is no one does anything about it so nothing happens

[@dwrutsgnt4225]

It’s definitely treason and dereliction of duty is a start for sure

[@megatronVS]

These "people" are the reason the 2nd amendment must be exercised.

[@largol33t1]

Well, we FAILED to use it on Jan. 6 and this is the price we're paying. Instead of physically removing Penasty and her evil ilk from office, we sat, hugging our overpriced box of ammo. This is why we're losing our rights, one after another.

[@shempshempleton4746]

Excellent use of the quotation marks!!!

[@believe722]

Holy Balls!! They should be impeached for even trying to pass a bill like that.

[@rishz7857]

Representatives & Senators who vote for this unconstitutional crap should be removed for violating their oath to defend the Constitution.

[@seanoneil277]

Welcome to the 3-part government. Congress can try to pass any legislation it wishes. The Constitutionality of such legislation is for the SCOTUS to rule upon, if a proper situation presents itself. The pragmatism of such legislation, whether the citizenry can tolerate it, is left to each citizen. And the enforcement of such legislation? Well, until SCOTUS has a justiciable case regarding the legislation, the Executive branch (DOJ and its various subparts and analogs like DEA EPA DOL etc) gets to enforce the legislation according to its own policy whims, which may differ from what SCOTUS would suggest or what those voting Yea on the passing bills desired... and certainly may be contrary to what the citizenry desired. This is why being a sleepwalking zombie, and voting like it's the Super Bowl -- in a huge Us vs Them contest, and then believing that "your guy" or "your team" happened to "win," that's the end of your responsibility as a citizen -- has brought us to this charlie foxtrot situation the USA finds itself in presently. Your responsibility begins the day you consider yourself an adult. And if you had good parents, it may have begun even earlier, if they taught you self-reliance & honesty & helping others who aren't con artists. You shouldn't cast your vote as if you were voting for "most popular" in the 10th grade yearbook survey. You should be investigating who funds a politician, how the politican votes, what work the politician has done outside politics. You should check the politician's votes and advocacy once in-office -- many slicksters say the right thing to get your vote, and do the opposite in office. You'd be surprised if you bothered to check on how your vote was applied in office. And it's no consolation to say, "yeah the other guy would've been worse" when you learn YOUR guy voted contrary to your interests.

[@Daddy5444]

@@seanoneil277 Actually the ONLY PEOPLE that are Supposed to have the DUTY to Vote are People that are EMPLOYEED, OWN LAND or OWN Companies!!! That way People are NOT VOTING for FREE THINGS!!! Think About it!!!

[@seanoneil277]

@@Daddy5444 Did you just do a soyboy beta redditor invertebrate's "Ack-chew-ull-lee..." and then proceed to spew nonsense? Which branch of the soys considers that "humor," it's got to be some smoothbrain's sorry attempt at sarcasm -- right?

[@RayR0041]

Everyone that voted for the bill needs to be removed from office for not adhering to the United States Constitution!!!! That should be a law that disqualifies them from holding an office where they swore to uphold the constitution!!!!

[@dangerousfreedom4965]

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights Look this up

[@Daddy5444]

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859). "The laws (or RULES) that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." The RIGHT of the People to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, Shall NOT be INFRINGED!!! “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

[@DWS1435]

They are not regular citizens. They think they are special so they don't have comply or care.

[@westlock101]

@@dangerousfreedom4965 So in other words nadler committed a crime. sooo who will arrest him??

[@FIREBRAND38]

@RayR 0041 Yeah, the mystical process is called elections when Americans get out and vote.

[@srtmetal7647]

I'm infuriated there is no accountability for such direct aggression toward a constitutional amendment.

[@ChristThroughTheLens]

That's what happens when you socially engineer a loud 20% if the Republicans libertarians and constitutionalists alike were to hold them accountable arrest and try the masses would riot because we would be forever enshrined in a light of insurrection and tyranny. One side of the spectrum as almost won forever on the simple fact that they won over the minds of the unintelligent and ill minded

[@PROPHET_-ly1pq]

@Survival prepping for normal people well said

[@spottheborgcat6523]

We only have two methods of combating this. Vote them out of office, or insurrection.

[@ekidd3000]

Accountability lessons can be found in a magazine. Page 223

[@AnthonySmith-ky7zh]

@@spottheborgcat6523 revolution, it's not insurrection... to fight for your own rights, the government is seeking to take away from you.

[@myronhigh3527]

They should be stripped of their government seat, and jailed for intentionally defying the Constitution of America!!!!!!!!!

[@randomyank7777]

Hung , it's treason . They've wasted enough of our time , & our money !

[@ethanwilcoxen2721]

Only downside is there’s no one to actually uphold the law on them. But yes I agree with you

[@denisdegamon8224]

@@ethanwilcoxen2721 yeah there damn sure is.....it's We The People!

[@soulknife20]

But why? How is this law unconstitutional?

[@lordsylph414]

@@soulknife20 did you even watch the video? This new law directly ignores the recent SCOTUS decision

[@kanaancross317]

These people need to be thrown out of office

[@dukeofearl6256]

He stated they are consciously defying the Supreme Court and violating his oath.

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here

[@raboo3211]

👍🤨

[@imdaisybelle2]

The president thinks he can do it too.

[@GhettoFabulous99]

@@imdaisybelle2 you misspelled "potato."

[@raboo3211]

@@GhettoFabulous99 😂🤣😂🤣👍

[@MrSoarman]

This is exactly what the founders wrote the 2nd amendment for, when our government gets out of line it is our duty to get it back.

[@MikeAIright]

This short 3 min clip explains how dumb the 2nd amendment is. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHW9Z6igjrNpZ5I

[@archer4922]

When the ballot box doesn't work we the people only have one box left, the cartridge box.

[@sway696]

@@MikeAIright luckily for the first amendment people can spew dumb rhetoric all day🤣🤣🤣 and it gives even people like yourself an opinion even if you just don't get it. The second amendment protects our rights to arms. The only thing that keeps our government in check and prevents them from being a dictatorship that makes your decisions for you. Your welcome. Because we get to keep our arms, you get to post silly videos of comedians saying " what if". 🤣🤣🤣 but you don't get it. Try posting your witty videos in China or Russia. 🤣🤣🤣

[@OpRaven-62]

@@MikeAIright no it doesn't, the founding fathers knew about the exist of machine guns, and they made the amendment precisely because THEY had to fight back against the British government. you're stupid mate, it's not dumb to give the people the right to self determination, and the ability to keep the government in check.

[@73abbott]

The founders would've enslaved this guy 😂

[@ryangullstrand7531]

Whoever votes yes on this bill should be put up on treason charges.

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here

[@raboo3211]

Exactly, !!!!

[@traeucity6087]

That's not going to happen. So, what are you going to do?

[@nil981]

Or executed.

[@danratsnapnames]

agreed but its not going to happen, so i'll ask the same question that another peson already asked. "WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?" if nothing, then shut the hell up and eat your popcorn and enjoy the shit show.

[@robertbrooks4413]

No. What they did was to willingly and knowingly violate the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. Jail should be the next stop.

[@jameslenaburg4378]

No More "Compromise". We never get anything. Only give up something or get something less bad than what they wanted.

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here

[@bigyoppa3403]

Well then we don’t compromise, we don’t comply, we as a country need to stand up against this tyranny and evil

[@brianscottculp1891]

I WILL NOT COMPLY

[@randallcolvin6006]

You are exactly right! The word "compromise" is misleading. It implies that two sides are negotiating a mutually beneficial agreement. When you have an established right and you "compromise" it you are essentially forfeiting it by degrees. What do you get in return? Nothing except waiting for the next "compromise". It's a ratcheting effect - you lose by degrees getting nothing in return but a steady erosion of rights until there are non left.

[@tedkaczynskiamericanhero3916]

Exactly why I will NEVER support the NRA. GOA or others similar who know what "Shall not be infringed" means

[@ronhamm]

What great lawmakers we have, knowingly passing a bill they know is unconstitutional!

[@jimmywall7325]

And one they know everybody is gonna fight !!

[@dongquixote7138]

"nOtHiNg In tHe CoNstItUtIoN iS aBsOLuTe"

[@dapv144]

@@dongquixote7138 true. But very sinister way of looking at things. Plus it's a proposition, this bill. It won't hold up and won't pass as it is written now.

[@dangerousfreedom4965]

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights Look this up

[@NoBaconForYou]

Hmmm reminds of the following statutes that make such an action criminal: 18 U.S.C. § 241 18 U.S.C. § 242

[@Hastertjb7654321]

Just perfectly written. 246 years and they still won’t be able to find a loophole in “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

[@daa3417]

Some states like PA say ‘shall not be questioned’ but like the national cancer in DC we’ve got our own cancer in Philadelphia. That should tell you exactly where this nation is headed being the place where it was born.

[@fordxbgtfalcon]

But yet it’s the most infringed Amendment of them all.

[@Barskor1]

The first part is the problem they use it as a legally actionable section when it is merely descriptive of why the second half is important.

[@sgtrocksalty]

@@daa3417 , SoCenPenn here. IDK how WolfBreath gets away with all the BS he's pulled. And Shapiro with his " in my opinion" Bullshit is just as bad. His opinion is NOT law. "Shall not be questioned" IS law. It means, if you want to say ANYTHING about gun control in PA, keep your opinion to yourself, because, we can have ANY firearms we want to own.

[@GK-mr9ko]

@@daa3417 I hate our state redundant background check for handguns.

[@whatcanihavethen]

If you're in office violating rights you should be thrown in prison to rot

[@curiousmind868]

Nothing will change until Americans do what our founding fathers weren't afraid to do.

[@dylanhughes5944]

they're cowards but for a good reason. The US government is literally the most powerful organized crime syndicate in human history. They know who you are, where you are, what your health condition is, what you need and what will hurt you the most. They can detain you at any time, murder your entire family and all your friends in the blink of an eye, and it can all be covered up. Anyone who follows the trail is killed. To merely speak of their criminality when they can see what we're writing and hear what we're saying through our devices over the internet requires a lot of courage in itself... we're technically already in a communist hell-hole because they're able to do the above without facing any consequences, but with a twist - we all have guns. In history the oppressed were always disarmed. I don't see our armaments going away and if they do that will only spark a violent armed rebellion because we all know what they have in store for us. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[@mrsimpleesarcastik3494]

violence doesnt work if you are white,,only blm can use that

[@firewarrior6084]

I would argue that the American people would need to take it a step further. Because the United States have an entire population (SJW's extreme woke leftist mob) that needs to be destroyed.

[@beerman9807]

Well muthaphuckin said

[@DavidJones-fp7mz]

Im with you, we just need a few million more willing to come together and go take out the trash

[@evanf1443]

“Does anyone here deny that this bill would violate the constitution?” “That’s the point of the bill”

[@juliapigworthy]

It also explains exactly why "shall not be infringed" was written, and why those weapons might have to be deployed against the anti-American government, being a domestic enemy waging open war against the Constitution that sets all Americans free.

[@sway696]

The sad part us that he wasn't even intelligent enough to realize he was being baited. Because he himself doesn't know the constitution, what it means, and what it stands for. He got played and doesn't know it. And he simply doesn't believe in the constitution he put his hand on and swore to uphold and protect.

[@johnup9252]

did you think they care about the constitution

[@sway696]

@@johnup9252 they will when it bites them in the backside. 🤣👍

[@tylerjohnfrederick]

This seems like an accurate translation for plebes. Thank you

[@BruceBoppoTiemann]

They only want the Supreme Court when it rules the way they want it to. Otherwise, no. If it weren't for double standards, some people wouldn't have any standards at all.

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here

[@pauljohnson9445]

Outcomes over principles. That is where the left lives.

[@danratsnapnames]

any law enacted by congress that is a direct voilation of the consititution is not a law at all. .it has no bite, it has no merit, and thus you have no duty to follow it. because, any law that is in direct conflict with the supreme law, cannot be law at all but mearly a voilation of your consititional rights under the color of law.

[@voltaire5427]

It's a dictatorship. They don't get to play by the rules and there's no political consequences for it.

[@pamtnman1515]

Lawless Democrats only follow laws that suit them, and they ignore all other laws. But they also demand that you follow all laws, under penalty of absolute destruction. The Democrat Party has not changed one bit since 1860. Still in open insurrection against the USA

[@abowla7187]

They're gonna fuck around and find out.

[@batmanforpresident9655]

Saying gun ban laws prevent gun violence is like calling a demoRAT a "Constitutionalist".

[@theannoynggamerlovestheusa2566]

yup

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here

[@david-468]

Well they think abortion is a right in the constitution and sheeple believe it so maybe they’re right if they can make people think they are

[@CrankyBarista]

Republicans are just as guilty. Lets be real.

[@theannoynggamerlovestheusa2566]

@@david-468 yeah that is too true

[@jasonn277]

Shall not be infringed! SMH 🤦🏾‍♂️

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here

[@EdwardJamesKenway...]

@@sidemanshorts3532 What does that have to do with the second amendment? it has nothing to do with the second amendment! What made you think it was a good idea to post an irrelevant video that has nothing to do with the second amendment on a video that has everything to do with the second amendment?

[@josephpe90]

@@EdwardJamesKenway... it’s a bot my friend

[@johnsondoe3827]

The police will protect the politicians before they protect us

[@jasonn277]

@@johnsondoe3827 that’s 100% correct

[@OldSchooled]

Now you know why it's so dangerous for them to pack the court and to call the Supreme Court "illegitimate"

[@Daddy5444]

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859). "The laws (or RULES) that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." The RIGHT of the People to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, Shall NOT be INFRINGED!!! “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

[@1DwtEaUn]

@@Daddy5444 Nunn v. GA, and 92 US 542 (1875) "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. "

[@iamnotpaulavery]

@@1DwtEaUn Was that ever overruled by a subsequent SCOTUS case?

[@finger2214]

Exactly. They're tyrants.

[@horustrismegistus1017]

@@iamnotpaulavery No. In fact, the SCOTUS just reinforced the 2nd amendment like right before the house did this. They are acting unconstitutionally. THEY ARE DOMESTIC AGGRESSORS AND AGITATORS for what seems to be an enemy. Beholden to that and not us. Defiant of us.

[@theokrueger6286]

He should be removed from office immediately.

[@poostertherooster]

When freedom is outlawed only outlaws will be free

[@MatJustChillin]

“TRUTH” well said

[@raboo3211]

Yes well here we go 🤨

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here

[@danratsnapnames]

breaking any law that is unconstitional doesn't make you a criminal.. it makes you a PATRIOT.

[@Mike_44]

“The Right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall NOT be infringed”!!

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here

[@jamesmcgee1566]

Is just a phrase that doesn't mean anything and that lots of people say that don't have the balls to actually act on

[@EdwardJamesKenway...]

@@jamesmcgee1566 use punctuation. Holy shit, it’s not hard. The day that the feds come to take my guns, is the day that this comment you made will be wrong.

[@coupledyetivonvanderburg5385]

@@jamesmcgee1566 People assuming that patience and the desire to exhaust every non-violent method of resolution is equivalent to cowardice are the true fools. The founding fathers themselves spent years on years trying to resolve their grievances with Great Britain peaceably, but when it became evident rule of law no longer applied, only then did they take up arms. This is the point we are at now, and the evidence suggests we are truly on the brink of civil war. The cost of living is through the roof; personal efficacy is through the floor; satisfaction with the government is non-existent. Between our economy's inevitable collapse and the ruling class' denial thereof, the ever growing political divide, and the inability to affect change through peaceful means, there will be a war, sooner rather than later. In other words, the powder keg is burgeoning, the fuse is planted, all that's left is the spark which cannot be unmade.

[@kennethhamby9811]

That is the Law of the Land

[@brentiers]

At what point do we stop concerning ourselves with being law abiding citizens when the law does not concern itself with us?

[@black87FXR]

💯

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here.

[@danratsnapnames]

at the point when the law its self is unconstitional.

[@markcab2055]

When they come by force to take away peoples right to defend themselves, then its on, let the blood start spilling, many people will comply, but many will not and fight to the death, time will tell.

[@enriquemino9963]

Like right now we should go on a revolt and flood the market with untraceable guns bought in the black market, lets see how long the dems stupid gun laws become shit.

[@MurseJay]

Thank God for "Check and Balance".. thats why it's important we protect the Judiciary!!

[@edwardzamorski3711]

I am sick of the never ending fight for politicians to create a tyrannical state and disarm it's citizens

[@dazzling3237]

Stop watching the news. It's never gone anywhere, except under Reagan and Trump...

[@bvegannow1936]

Ban pro gun controllers from gov jobs. "equal protection of the laws." - constitution. means its illegal to have seperate gun laws for gov and non gov. "Those government employees who failed to take the 1862 Test Oath would not receive a salary; those who swore falsely would be prosecuted for perjury and forever denied federal employment." 18 usc 1621. Perjury generally. 18 usc 1622. Subornation of perjury. 18 usc 1016. Acknowledgment of appearance or oath. 18 usc 1918. Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government. 18 Usc 241. Conspiracy against rights. 18 usc 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. "To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents"- federalist no 78. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" - constitution. "(based on the plain language of Article 22, UCMJ, Article 37, UCMJ, and RCM 104, a sitting president of the United States is capable of committing both apparent and actual unlawful command influence). " armfor. uscourts. gov/digest/VA1.htm Imprison gov members conspiraring or attempting to commit the crime of violating 2a and not treating everyone equally under the law. Charge gov members that want gun bans with perjury for breaking their oath and ban them from gov jobs. Petition for ballot initiative and tell your representatives and canidates to ban pro gun controllers from gov jobs Criminally charge the pro gun control gov members trying to pass gun control the same as someone who tires to steal a gun from a cop, active military member, or bidens security guard.

[@ionracer24]

Amen!

[@Robert-ds8ec]

Us too

[@oblivionsa7973]

They're totally not going to do that though, they promise. It definitely won't work out just like every single other time a government disarms their citizens.

[@nukiesduke6868]

Any politician attempting to infringe on the Constitution, especially one that says shall not be infringed should instantly be removed and promptly charged with treason. Any citizen making a push for it needs to either be barred from voting or deported. The Constitution is the very basic foundation of our country and legal system. If people can't even abide by and respect that they have no business being here.

[@sbdreamin]

Isn’t that what our guns are for?

[@Milo_1368]

Not like there's a mechanism to hold them accountable ... unless ...

[@danielwolfe873]

It's the people that supposed to keep those crack head politician in check. It's call vote them out OR remove them from office.

[@joshwarner1390]

Deport? What? You can’t deport anyone just because of an opinion they have that sounds radical. But I agree with the politics one violating their oath to defend the constitution

[@Red_Four]

There needs to be an amendment added that mandates criminal penalties with mandatory prison time for any and all government bureaucrats and elected officials at the federal level that are found to knowingly sponsor, vote for, or enforce any law or bill that is found to be in violation of any portion of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. If those pieces of human trash think they might be facing time in a federal prison, they'll be much more careful as to what they vote for.

[@neighborhoodwatch470]

My jaw dropped when Nadler literally admitted to it.

[@MatJustChillin]

Yup 🤦🏽‍♂️

[@TheEaglekun]

When you say the silent part out loud

[@daa3417]

What do you expect he’s used to his tribe being above the law.

[@johnstanton2853]

You must shock easily. When nadler lost all the weight a substantial portion of the loss was brain cells.

[@Blanc247]

they dont hide anything anymore they say it then do it and nobody can do anything shits is gettin different real different🤦🏻

[@jdsmooth7419]

Im with you all brother 100%

[@satanspit4101]

They can shove their funky gun bills. No new gun laws.

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here

[@genejeffries2888]

And death to the old gun laws.

[@government_is_violence]

well stop voting then

[@bbb462cid]

It feels like I'm in some kind of horror movie set in a dystopian land these days. Just what does it take for these people to be found guilty of crimes against this country? Holy crap this is beyond unsettling. We need accountability and damned fast.

[@2ndarymotion]

We need wood chippers. Lots of them. Running day and night until the scourge of communist tyranny is purged from the land.

[@OkTxSheepLady]

Add in digital currency and it gets really horrifying. No food for the defiant. Chinese are facing this right now.

[@WhatIsYourMalfunction]

Vote. Every election both high and low and understand what the person does or does not stand for when you vote. People in lower elections move up the food chain. Get them the support or fight them even if they are a city or county elected official. You never know when they will run for state or federal office.

[@danratsnapnames]

too late.. no accountability with the MULE exploit these days.. if you dont know what a mule exploit is, watch 2000 mules and see for yourself what it is..

[@thebigokie6.4_392]

@@WhatIsYourMalfunction school board elections as well.

[@BestAuntieEver]

Anyone who is anti-gun should immediately put a sign in their yard that states they're a proud gun free home.

[@jefferywalpole6406]

Why can't they be held in contempt of court for defying the judges ruling.

[@saulor1182]

Dude, you do one hell of a job protecting the Second Amendment by educating the public! Hell of a job brother👏

[@MikeAIright]

This short 3 min clip explains how dumb the 2nd amendment is. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHW9Z6igjrNpZ5I

[@patrickhenry236]

He left out that the Miller decision also specified that the second ammendment covers not only common use firearms, but firearms that could serve a military purpose. Miller was decided on the idea that a sawed of shotgun couldn't have a military purpose(at the time).

[@patrickhenry236]

@@MikeAIright no one cares about how short you are or your clip. Take your nonsense elsewhere.

[@s3rv3nt79]

@@MikeAIright 🤦 That short clip did absolutely nothing for any arguments against the 2nd Amendment.

[@MikeAIright]

@@s3rv3nt79 Did you watch the clip?

[@GCD1791]

Wow. We knew it but hearing them say it out loud rings even louder of tyranny

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here

[@bungoungo6926]

It's time to prepare

[@OkTxSheepLady]

@MarshyMellowYellow one at a time the folks with lists will politely knock on doors and ask to verify your guns, then take them away. What’s one person going to do with six guys showing up at the door with a clipboard and a smile until you say no? Networks are needed asap.

[@beeamerica5024]

Yes hey tyranny we should all rise up against all enemies foreign and domestic

[@beeamerica5024]

@@marshymellowyellow8104 you don't think it is you must be a Democrat

[@Timboykee]

"Contempt of Constitution." It needs to be a law. Fines and imprisonment.

[@andyeighttre]

Punishable by death*

[@kentwelch8787]

We have those laws already. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241 CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW What needs to happen is to arrest and prosecute any that willfully deny the rights of the people and break these laws.

[@andrewcanady6644]

@ Kent: Thanks for placing that in here. I will be using that to write to my Congressman, whom I have no respect for because he made the America Last vote when it came to sending 10s of billions of our tax dollars to Ukraine, to ask him what he intends to do about Nadler. Nadler and all in support of this legislation are breaking the law.

[@tailspindas]

@@kentwelch8787 thank you for the information.

[@Daddy5444]

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859). "The laws (or RULES) that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." The RIGHT of the People to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, Shall NOT be INFRINGED!!! “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

[@LastExile1989]

Now here's something to protest.

[@VintageGold]

100% agree with your take, Colion. They are not representing the people, only their lust for power and money.

[@holdenbauer1255]

I think the gentleman who posed the question was actually very intelligent for doing this. By pointing this out even if the bill is passed the Supreme Court can shoot it down because it violates the Miller decision by the bill proponents own admission.

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here.

[@enriquemino9963]

Well of course because compared to chairman nadler whos IQ is way, way, way lower then anyone there his IQ is about the same as the squad. So any question looks very intelligent compared to nadler.

[@MTMILITIAMAN7.62]

Heller (2008), not Miller (1939). DC v Heller found that the Second Amendment is an individual right unconnected with service in a militia and that a ban on any class of weapon in common use for lawful purposes is unconstitutional. So when the question was posed concerning "common use" of the weapons included in the bill, it was obviously framing the bill against court precedent in Heller for inevitable challenge in Supreme Court.

[@holdenbauer1255]

@@MTMILITIAMAN7.62 us vs Miller was the case that determined the government could not ban firearms"in common use" which is what the gentleman I was referring to was going off of. Thus the ar15 could not be banned because it is a weapon in common use by the public. Heller was more defending the right to own firearms as private citizens for lawful purposes(defense, hunting, recreation, etc).

[@MTMILITIAMAN7.62]

@@holdenbauer1255 No, in US v Miller, the court found that the Second Amendment did not protect Miller's right to own a sawed off shotgun because the weapon had limited use for service in a militia. Therefore it was decided that weapons with reasonable use in a militia were protected by the Second Amendment. Heller decided the common use standard. Miller decided the reasonable use standard. The AR15 meets both standards.

[@er9895]

Our biggest mistake as a society was letting "lawyers" become politicians,.........who better to cheat the game than the ones who know the game in its entirety. You can't count cards without knowing blackjack inside and out.

[@junglejim5785]

Exactly E R. So called lawyers make it so most of us can afford to be represented and they can play us like chess pieces on a board. and they hold ALL the moves.

[@strongbear9304]

Problem is that most Attorneys don’t know what the Law says in it’s entirety. They learn enough to pass the bar exam and that’s it. Question? What do you call an attorney that finishes absolutely last in his class and takes 8-10 times to pass the Bar Exam? Answer: an Attorney!

[@enriquemino9963]

some countries ban lawyers from serving in the body that represents the people (parliament, congress etc)

[@tumadrechupapinga6252]

@@enriquemino9963 now that is a great idea for USA.

[@MTMILITIAMAN7.62]

32 of the 56 in attendance at the Constitutional Convention were lawyers. Colion in a lawyer...

[@ericdark6183]

Oh go ahead...They won't be in office very long after that. All of them can get walked out in handcuffs.

[@the.original.throwback]

I think people who say, "Screw the laws. We're going to do what we want to do.", are commonly known as criminals. It is not a stretch to say that knowingly passing an unconstitutional law is actually a crime in itself. Jess

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here.

[@dillonc7955]

It's worse than a crime. It's a crime that'll allow more crime to sprout from it.

[@SirMattomaton]

What do you expect from these neurotic narcissistic, illegitimate, pseudo-intellectual, leaders... It was always going to end up like this.

[@jameskaraganis2569]

@@dillonc7955 Yeah. Criminal fertilizer.

[@government_is_violence]

no anarchists and people that are not statist say screw the laws, government authority doesnt exist but i guess you want to find out the hard way dont you? shooting yourself in the foot by believing in the mythical authority of government

[@davidkiser4758]

And this is the exact reason there is a 2nd Amendment. A perfect example of a "Tyrannical Government" which is why we need guns to protect ourselves from the type of lawmakers like Nadler, Pelosi, Schumer, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Pocahontas, etc.

[@rishz7857]

Amen to that.

[@joey6119]

Exactly who's going to use them

[@ST4X-0N-ST4X]

​@@joey6119 certainly not us glowie

[@ballsack8937]

Yup

[@alpha2957]

Farida. This is the reason why all those names listed are to invite them all on a deep sea fishing expedition. 🤣🤣🤣👍👍👍💯

[@TranceMechanic7]

To paraphrase: "yes, the point of this bill is to defy the constitution and the courts, and strip citizens of their rights"

[@bencool8239]

Any defiance of the constitution is NOT a law..

[@pogo1140]

They are at least telling you what it's about. And it has to be passed in the Senate before it can be law. Compare that to qualified immunity which has no basis in law and was made up by the Supreme Court in 1982. It's bad enough that a cop can beat you up with a plastic flashlight and get away with it if the only case that found that he could not involved a metal flashlight.

[@Bearded923]

Come and take nadler! Come and try!

[@ChickenPermissionOG]

@@Bearded923 Thats why no one believes you all bark no bite.

[@Daddy5444]

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859). "The laws (or RULES) that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." The RIGHT of the People to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, Shall NOT be INFRINGED!!! “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

[@brodrickrobertson3459]

So they care less about The Constitution!

[@jimgilbert7790]

as a Marine I swore an Oath, it was binding, oiur those in office not bound by their oaths, if not then why have them? Did they commit a felony by breaking that oath, Simper Fi!

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here.

[@OkTxSheepLady]

A felony or treason? I think treason is what they are doing.

[@MWR-lg9qp]

There really does need to be ramifications for politicians who knowingly break the law. Wait, that sounds exactly like the standard every citizen is held to.

[@Daddy5444]

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859). "The laws (or RULES) that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." The RIGHT of the People to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, Shall NOT be INFRINGED!!! “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

[@philobetto5106]

the whole system needs to be di'sma'nt,led and rebuilt from the top down kzbin.info/www/bejne/aqaoXqenmpWrqbM The Declaration of Independence (as read by Max McLean) kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYaYmJSph92Mmrc Constitution 101 | Lecture 1

[@kingbeestacker873]

When will these "representatives" be held accountable for the tyrannical and unconstitutional acts they are perpetrating.

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here

[@chriswood9836]

Olny when good people of the United States introduce them to the end of the rope

[@traeucity6087]

When people use the Second Amendment for what it was enshrined for.

[@government_is_violence]

by YOU and the people, nothing will be done until YOU do something, should of had a revolution before 911

[@danratsnapnames]

when enough people are willing to die to bring them to justice. only with blood will the states remain free. until the blood is paid, we are all screwed. MULE exploit will ensure they will always be in control.

[@davedavis3963]

Keep that truth coming brother

[@texasranger24]

18 USC 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law Lock them all up. Seriously.

[@Loliondo76]

What the hell is going on with our Government these days? This is ridiculous and these politicians are so out of control. Where the hell is the "For the People, by the People"? This is getting real close to... well, you know... that line.

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here.

[@BG-mh6pc]

The worst part is, there will be no accountability and no consequences for it. Things are so disgustingly skewed one way in this country - in every aspect - I’ve lost complete hope in my own country.

[@fffiilpsnamecaps9004]

If you've lost hope, they've already won. You've fallen for their rhetoric, their incessant voices booming over the airwaves and loudspeakers, when YOU KNOW they do NOT speak for us!! They do not speak for the ONE HUNDRED MILLION+ law-abiding gun owners - that's a THIRD of this country, and you know there are more who don't own, who don't carry, but KNOW that these sub-human puppets don't speak for them, for US...don't lose faith. We're with you.

[@Mark-uh4zd]

Same. I too have no hope for the country as well. These politicians are so corrupt and so out of pocket now. There are no repercussions for defying the constitution or the blatant corruption happening at the fed level. They do not care about “we the people”, but rather how to enrich themselves on the back of the American taxpayer. They are disgusting subhuman trash.

[@leandersearle5094]

@@iceebalboa3177 Yep, youtube does that. It's two hidden replies at the time of posting this.

[@leandersearle5094]

I almost gave you a like, then I read that last phrase. I can assume that many other people agree with me, or you'd have a much higher like count.

[@doom5895]

Don't lose hope WE are the hope! We can regain our rights

[@aarongoodwin4845]

"By The People, For The People"! Nowadays - 'For The Subjects'!

[@TheBeardandTheBlonde]

I will not comply

[@BG-qx2st]

At what point do we start removing these officials from office either by voluntarily resigning or forcibly removed?

[@dirtyblueshirt]

Kudos to Mr. Bishop for getting Nadler to admit on the record that this bill is unconstitutional. That will make it much easier to get an injunction in the unlikely event this bill ever passes Congress. Now the question is if Nadler didn't know that he was admitting the bill was unconstitutional or he just didn't care.

[@ilikehardplay]

Actually, didn't he just confess that he is engaged in the criminal acts of "conspiracy against civil rights" and "deprivation of rights under color of law" (18 USC 241 & 242) trying to limit by statute a Supreme Court identified constitutional right?

[@robinj.9329]

Nadler just "Didn't Care"! These CRIMINAL MONSTERS must be stopped!!!!!

[@seanoneil277]

Nadler did not admit it's unconstitutional. His argument is legal sophistry embodied; he is suggesting that 2d A can be interpreted as HE wishes rather than as it was drawn up in its era. Bishop could have asked a preceding question regarding the effects of existing SCOTUS precedent on 2d A, and then added specific follow-up Qs regarding each of the Heller and Miller decisions. And THEN -- only then -- asked the question seen in this clip. That would have set the stage for Nadler arguing against SCOTUS precedent, which would by extension suggest "unconstitutional." But it's still by extension and not explicit. Nadler did not admit he's defying SCOTUS. Because he's Jerry Nadler the shifty snake.

[@ilikehardplay]

@@seanoneil277 "Nadler did not admit it's unconstitutional." He does not have to.... If he knew or should have known that the US Supreme Court had made the interpretation of 2nd Amendment clear, and he deliberately acted to overturn a Constitutionally protected civil right via legislation....then he is guilt under 18 USC 241 & 242. And I rather doubt that he could argue qualified immunity, since the US Supreme Court as a part of the Bruen decision made clear that prior state assault weapons and magazine bans failed to fly under their current interpretive framework.....and the framework certainly does not change just because Congress is mucking about. The only way Congress can change this is by a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT....which they are not even close to having the votes for.

[@seanoneil277]

@@ilikehardplay Nice speech. Politically naive. I agree on whether it's Constitutional -- it's not. I'm talking about what a con artist Jerry Nadler is, how megalomaniacal he is, and how badly he needs to retire to some Florida or Airzona town where he can gum his pureed peas and continue complaining, to an imaginary CSPAN camera, that America isn't quite progressive or jewish enough.

[@Blast335pokemineblox]

It's times like this that I consider running for office. I would have lost it.

[@kevinclause4p55p5]

When do we get to start calling these politicians "traitors"?

[@stewartmckinley7058]

Why aren't you all ready?

[@Normal1855]

Time to arrest them, and defund their security detail.

[@scottoliver4582]

This country needs a man like you in congress or senate sir.

[@nikkiritchie7535]

It would be nice. He’s a lawyer too.

[@willievillock7008]

Any elected public servant that is with such bill should be in prison for domestic terrorism against our Supreme Court and constitution.

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here

[@raboo3211]

Hung !

[@nil981]

I would argue that the United States supreme court is just as illegitimate as Congress.

[@coupledyetivonvanderburg5385]

@@raboo3211 *hanged

[@raboo3211]

@@coupledyetivonvanderburg5385 😏😉✌️

[@alejandres26]

They need to held accountable right away! So they can learn to respect the constitution and people's rights!

[@YouLookinAtMe-Bro]

Wow! They don't care what the Supreme Court AND the Constitution says.

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here

[@raboo3211]

They are above the laws they make.....BULL💩 WE THE PEOPLE WILL BE THE LAW !

[@danratsnapnames]

and this is why we should not care what they say. an unconstitutional government is NO GOVERNMENT but mearly a DISGUISE for the REAL CRIMINALS.

[@markcab2055]

If this does pass maybe we can get a judge to put an injunction on it, this bill basically turns over 100 million Americans into criminals over night.

[@YouLookinAtMe-Bro]

@@markcab2055 Right, I believe Justice Thomas is getting tired of this and he's going to make yet stronger stand. Nationwide Constitutional Carry and Reciprocity... no licences, fees, or permits. If you can pass the background check, you're good!

[@brucemartini2288]

Anyone and EVERYONE that is "for, or votes on infringing our 2nd Amendment, Shall be FIRED immediately!

[@wealthessential4515]

As the first person here let me just say this is crazy what the house has done.. and could start a war! It really is dangerous

[@therapinape9757]

The entire plan is to start a civil war,

[@gozorak]

no its not going to start anything unless hot heads who want a war use this as a pretext. This is nothing more than political posturing on the House majorities part. It has zero chance of passage in the senate and would obviously be thrown out by the courts. The Dems are so out of touch with reality on the issue and wish to ram through prohibitions based on ignorance and fear. That is not a winning hand. They are going to pay a big price at the ballot box. Whatever advantage political they thought they would have with the recent court decision in regards to abortion will be overwhelmed by the blatant disregard for common sense on the issue of gun control.

[@nukiesduke6868]

Republicans are spineless do-nothings. They've had the whole turn the other cheek, take the highroad mindset for years and that's exactly how we got to where we're at. Throw in a common mentality is "Im going to move out to a cabin in the woods and get away from it" is ultimately a cowardly 'run away' mindset to have.

[@MukoroJr]

how do I go about obtaining a fire arm legally I dont wanna wait a year though before giving one or approved…please help

[@rovidbouski4022]

THEY WANT A WAR! Civil war justifies the government to involve NATO and UN forces to enslave the US population

[@CrowFuu]

The fact that there are ANY laws on guns is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Its doesnt matter what was said before or after, but what was written. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There are no Ifs, Ands, or Buts. Shall NOT be infringed is VERY clear and these criminals need to be fired and exiled for treason.

[@ronbloomberg]

I've been saying this for years.... It's none of the governments damn business! We the People will regulate ourselves when it comes to the acquiring and possession of firearms. That is how it was supposed to be from the beginning.

[@tobykits]

Thanks CrowFu, your first sentence “ANY laws on guns is a violation of the 2nd Amendment “ Is absolutely correct - why is this so hard for people to understand? Why should these clowns who work for at least half of the people in this country be allowed to make one single gun law, state or federal that violates the 2nd Amendment?

[@Tom-xp7dl]

That well regulated militia sat on their fat asses too long and lost our country.

[@SharkVsTree]

*"The fact that there are ANY laws on guns is a violation of the 2nd Amendment."* That's not true. *:Its doesnt matter what was said before or after, but what was written."* Exactly. The word "arms" does not cover anything man-portable, like anti-tank weapons or surface-to-air missiles and such. They were clearly referring to personal weapons, like rifles, pistols, swords, knives, hatchets, etc... There is room for compromise here. But we've already compromised those things because it makes sense to more strictly control access to that kind of weaponry for the public good. *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."* Yes. Arms. What does that mean? To me, that means any weapon that's designed for person-to-person combat. Including so-called "assault weapons."

[@CrowFuu]

@@SharkVsTree Where does it say we cant own tanks or ANY kind of firearm? It doesnt. All a tank is IS a firearm of a larger caliber that is mounted on a vehicle. So no, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment referred to FIREARMS, which is EVERYTHING, including explosives. You can beat around the bush, but the 2nd Amendment states ALL firearms are legal, no matter what.

[@D_S_88]

It's never a compromise. It's always a concession, remember that. These people want you defenseless so they can have their way with you. It's our job to ensure this is never allowed to happen.

[@americanguy87]

Amen to that. It's time to stick together.

[@AnthonySmith-ky7zh]

Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.

[@AnthonySmith-ky7zh]

Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?

[@AnthonySmith-ky7zh]

Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?

[@Daddy5444]

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859). "The laws (or RULES) that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." The RIGHT of the People to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, Shall NOT be INFRINGED!!! “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

[@albertvaldez214]

You need to run for the Senate, run for Congress. I don't care which one. We need people like you.

[@cald9606]

Wow. These tyrants need thrown out of there positions and never involved in politics again. How hard is it to understand that good people are responsible with your weapons, their tools, their life/lives saver. It’s sad having these small minded individuals in such a high power. Love how they think criminals are going to follow their gun laws. THEY ARE CRIMINALS. They are going to break any law you make. Protect the 2A at all cost. Arrest and charge these people who want to take away are constitutional right to protect are selfs, friends, strangers and most importantly family.

[@peshewa0529]

They need to be escorted out of the USA or face Execution !

[@bvegannow1936]

Ban pro gun controllers from gov jobs. "equal protection of the laws." - constitution. means its illegal to have seperate gun laws for gov and non gov. "Those government employees who failed to take the 1862 Test Oath would not receive a salary; those who swore falsely would be prosecuted for perjury and forever denied federal employment." 18 usc 1621. Perjury generally. 18 usc 1622. Subornation of perjury. 18 usc 1016. Acknowledgment of appearance or oath. 18 usc 1918. Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government. 18 Usc 241. Conspiracy against rights. 18 usc 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. "To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents"- federalist no 78. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" - constitution. "(based on the plain language of Article 22, UCMJ, Article 37, UCMJ, and RCM 104, a sitting president of the United States is capable of committing both apparent and actual unlawful command influence). " armfor. uscourts. gov/digest/VA1.htm Imprison gov members conspiraring or attempting to commit the crime of violating 2a and not treating everyone equally under the law. Charge gov members that want gun bans with perjury for breaking their oath and ban them from gov jobs. Petition for ballot initiative and tell your representatives and canidates to ban pro gun controllers from gov jobs Criminally charge the pro gun control gov members trying to pass gun control the same as someone who tires to steal a gun from a cop, active military member, or bidens security guard.

[@mse4486]

He just admitted what we always knew.

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here.

[@williamwilliams7706]

When they took the oath to uphold and defend the US constitution they must have had their fingers crossed behind their backs.

[@aintthatthetruthmadeintheu2723]

Get them out of here, and fast!!!

[@bobstaurovsky3506]

They need to be arrested and put in jail, No Trial for them !!!

[@chriswood9836]

Your wrong they don't need to be put in jail they need to be hung for treason

[@spencerathearn3586]

So in other words they violated what the Supreme Court already ruled on and what is law of the land, so it sounds like they broke the law knowingly.

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here.

[@josephwright5825]

= Tyrannical Government

[@benerval7]

Any lawmaker that votes for a law that they know is unconstitutional must be dragged into the streets. Tar and feather any of them regardless of what party. They know they are in violation of their oath and attempting to overthrow the constitution.

[@dangerousfreedom4965]

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights Look this up

[@InfernosReaper]

I would just say brought up on treason charges because they're literally trying to subvert the supreme law of the land

[@Chilidog335]

I totally agree.

[@dreday941]

Let us know if you get a visit from the alphabet agencies 😓

[@benerval7]

@@dreday941 Tarring and feathering is a comment referring to how citizens handled corrupt politicians in much older American history. I would not worry about one of those clowns knocking on my door. All they would get is a history lecture about the "usedtocoulds" in America.

[@stevenbaughman704]

Right On !!!!!!

[@Junior-jw1bb]

This is about the 10th time I’m repeating myself -, ANY POLITICIAN WHO TAKES THE OATH TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND DOESN’T - SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THEIR POSITION IMMEDIATELY !! We need to make as much noise as the left !!!

[@alkehrer1986]

Not just removed arrested

[@Turbo_The_Femboy_Fox]

@@alkehrer1986 not enough, removed from the world.

[@linds6609]

It's extreme difficult and expensive to own a semi automatic rifle without a special license in South Africa where I live but that doesn't stop criminals from having them. They are used in most CIT heists, high jacking and home invasions. The only people that our ban has restricted are law abiding citizens... Banning the won't stop criminals from using them

[@Bigbacon]

Nothing stops criminals from causing crime...ever.

[@ionracer24]

Exactly!! They got it ass backwards. Arm the citizens! No more crime!! Its unfathomable how they dont realize such a simple concept

[@preplife533]

Of course, your laws can never be draconian enough to stop criminals and they know YOU cannot possess those and be a threat to them. I question why people keep voting in officials that restrict their freedoms.

[@GregoryM1]

It baffles me these people are allowed to make laws when they blatantly say they are surpassing the constitution and the supreme court. Vote this November. Vote like your guns depend on it, because they do.

[@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz]

Vote for who? Only 4% of the public vote for a party that wont ban firearms.

[@bic94]

@@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz Exactly. The republicants are just as bad as the other party. Trump signed in the bump stock laws, he wasn't pro 2A either.

[@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz]

@@bic94 not a law, but yes.

[@morganhillfightclub2996]

vote republican democrats are anti gun pro slavery nutjobs

[@davemarcus2303]

Colion I've been watching your pod cast for quite awhile now... I'm glad that young men and women like you are out there still defending our rights as an American people... I'm proud and also honored to see you and others speaking out about a tyrant that call themselves Americans and thinks that they know what's best for the people and this country... They are making decisions on emotion and not facts.... So thank you and I stand with you and the others that stand with the people we the people...

[@John-pr6sw]

How these people swear to uphold and defend the constitution and openly defy the court is beyond me

[@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz]

Because theyre politicians. They all lie, it just varies how much.

[@uniquescorpions4802]

Last time I checked, when you are under oath in office or the military, you are to "UPHOLD THE CONSITIUTION" not destroy it. I'm a Centrist, and I think freedom is FAR more important for the people.

[@LooperEpic]

Freedom > safety.

[@silent1267]

The question is... are you all going to just let it happen or are you going do actually stand up to this tyranny?

[@donpeterson9900]

We will NOT comply!

[@ManiacalManiac]

I'm fairly new to gun ownership by a few years and after living in Minneapolis down the street from the riots and the BS Democrat policies I will not be giving up mine. As a matter of fact seeing these politicians blatantly disregard out rights as they have been doing on unprecedented levels makes me want to go buy more.

[@Daddy5444]

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859). "The laws (or RULES) that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." The RIGHT of the People to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, Shall NOT be INFRINGED!!! “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

[@chrisguemmer7748]

hey hey, MN native here too :)

[@rickoehlerking9806]

Welcome to the side fighting for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[@FreedomInc]

So yourself a favor and don't take this clown seriously. He openly supports violations of the rights if the people. Het claims to be pro rights. Also, please never use the communist phrase "muh 2nd amendment rights". You notice in this video he stated that the second amendment give you a right. The 2nd amendment like the rest of the constitution is 100% restriction on government. You have the right to own. Any firearm you choose. Government doesn't own you or anyone else. Unfortunately what phrases like this lead to is communism. And here is how. When the next generation is alive when the 2nd amendment is repealed, they will believe they no longer have "2nd amendment rights" because the 2nd amendment would behave ben repealed and in essence no longer exists. So they will believe the right doesn't exist. People have the right whether the 2nd amendment existed or even if the constitution disnt exist the right would. And don't buy into the trash. For instance "that ceimain is prohibited". The premise being the right is acrually a privilege that daddy government gives. Another belief of clown man here. A murderer has the right to keep and bear the arms he has as he is using it to murder. He doesn't have the right to murder. It's two seperate issues. Even men on death row have the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, that is a factual statement. However what they don't have is the liberty to utilize their property because it has been restricted because they allowed themselves to be prosecuted per the 5th amendment (the criminal justice e system os completely unconstitutional but thats a different thread). Noone, not even government has thw authority to tell someone. Or someone else what they can or cannot own. Peeiod. Of you are inclined to believe otherwise then you have no idea ehat rights are. And like clown man here then you are the problem.

[@spasjt]

You and everyone else. Even criminals are doing it, well, illegally since they try to steal them.

[@TheEmperorsChampion964]

One of the only things the government is supposed to do is to ensure that constitutional rights are upheld and not violated. Politicians who consistently refuse to abide by the constitution should be removed from office for dereliction of duty by force if necessary. There's precedent for this from the reconstruction era following the civil war, Grant had to send federal troops to protect the constitutional rights of former slaves

[@mikehunt3222]

It should be done but it isn’t. Quid Pro Quo Shanghai Joe has been performing dereliction of duty since day 1 of being in office. He opened up our southern border to an invasion of illegals, criminals, gang members, and terrorists. I’ll be surprised as hell if we don’t have another 9/11.

[@Red_Four]

Problem is, the current "president" is in their party.

[@communitytrust1005]

what is the government supposed to do? but tax, fine and lock yo azz up, just like the good little 2nd class citizens you are .., y`all should read HJR 192 and the 14th amendment they call you chattel .. haha

[@Daddy5444]

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859). "The laws (or RULES) that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." The RIGHT of the People to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, Shall NOT be INFRINGED!!! “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.

[@communitytrust1005]

@@Daddy5444 The right of a citizen? which citizen not a U.S. citizen they dont have rights -

[@WhatIsYourMalfunction]

A brilliant question asked by that representative. If it ever gets passed (I doubt it) and is challenged in court, the intent of the law and it's explicit disregard for the Constitution is in the Congressional record, and WILL be used in court to strike down the ban.

[@Daddy5444]

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859). "The laws (or RULES) that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." The RIGHT of the People to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, Shall NOT be INFRINGED!!! “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

[@georgevanaken925]

Unbelievable, my God…

[@shoncunningham4749]

Just amazing. How is this the land of the free?

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here

[@redneck3962]

It amazes me that this bill is even allowed to continue. I wish our system of checks and balances would allow the SCOTUS to stop this thing dead. Our legislature is wasting enough time with stuff like this. I'd love for them to spend time to do good things for our country rather than waste our money

[@johnx140]

This is naive thinking. It is the people's responsibility to keep the public service in check and always will be.

[@InfernosReaper]

there is *supposed* to be a constitutionality review of bills, but it clearly doesn't happen. Otherwise, that admission would've killed it right then

[@truthprevails4386]

@@InfernosReaper should have killed it

[@shealdedmon7027]

@@johnx140 that's true and we all know it's not gonna happen. We're out working trying too realize the American dream we don't have time for racing out to our reps. I think it's fair to say candidates make us believe they represent our values. We elect them. Then we never hear from them again until the next election cycle.

[@earlwyss520]

Too bad SCotUS doesn't have the spine to hold him & his fellows in contempt of court like they just held Bannon in contempt of congress.

[@danielelhadidy4845]

Wow! It’s out in the open. Now they are just saying it out right!

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here.

[@philshock3805]

I remember not long ago when warnings about democrats wanting socialism was written off as a "right wing conspiracy theory". Look at where we are now. "Convert" doesn't work fast enough for them any longer -- they are pulling out all stops with the mids right around the corner.

[@InsidetheBoothTV]

wow that is so true!!

[@spinuck9180]

They admitted it….to no one’s surprise

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here.

[@edwardbranch3520]

Politicians should have to step down ( loose their position immediately ) if they break the law! No re-election as well!

[@bbb462cid]

They should lose their citizenship

[@sidemanshorts3532]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/horFq2SIqLqahJI Finally it's here.

[@genericdude6551]

The question I have is how can a weapon be in common use if it's banned outright to where no one can get it in the first place. Also, I was under the impression that full auto weapons were in common use until 1986 when newly manufactured full auto weapons were no longer available to private citizens. Politicians sure do play ridiculous games with the 2A.

[@Daddy5444]

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859). "The laws (or RULES) that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." The RIGHT of the People to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, Shall NOT be INFRINGED!!! “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

[@itsfine9136]

Abolish the NFA

[@brianmccarthy5557]

Full auto has required a special license since the 1930's. Because the license is deliberately made expensive, time consuming and hard to get it effectively makes them illegal to all but the rich with lawyers. Whether this is constitutional is very questionable but the Court hasn't heard a case on it for many decades. Your basic question is very intelligent and hadn't been answered.

[@Daddy5444]

@@brianmccarthy5557 "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859). Nunn v. GA, and 92 US 542 (1875) "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. " "The laws (or RULES) that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." The RIGHT of the People to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, Shall NOT be INFRINGED!!! “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - US Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

[@MrDeez1111]

Word! Keep up the fight Colion!!

[@sgt.squirtle2528]

"Those capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it" Lysander Spooner