Rep. Thomas Massie on "Banned but Not Banned" Mini-14 in Assault Weapons Ban - 7/20/22

[@R005TERILLUSION]

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sporting. Only tyrants are afraid of an armed citizenry.

[@floydhawk2169]

As well they should be.

[@rkba4923]

Maybe hunting oath breaking usurpers!!!

[@madcow9421]

@One Two so you’re threatening tyranny to end democracy?

[@FP194]

@@madcow9421 The United States is not a democracy Democracy is the new buzz word used by the left and being a good sheep you just repeat it

[@feedupamerican.7146]

@@madcow9421 I don't think it was a threat. An I think what is was saying is when the US citizens have had enough of the government slowly taking the rights an freedom's from us we will take a stand an defend them. Also if you take a look at history are government was never supposed to have this much power over the citizens in the first place. An take a look at how the government officials think we Americans work for them instead of them working for us an having are best interest in mind. A criminal will find away to kill no matter what. May it be with a knife or even a bow. Take a look at the countries who have banned guns. People are still killing people. Just because some bans something doesn't mean a criminal is gonna follow the new laws when they don't follow the ones we have now. All governments are afraid of an armed population due to the fact that in an armed population will not be controlled an an unarmed population will be. An we where never supposed to be a democracy. We are an was meant to be a constitutional republic. As we the people are feed up with the lies an slander an corruption of are government officials. History is slowly repeating its self.

[@flowoflife2772]

Ah man they're arguing over the mini-14 when the actually M14 the military used had wood furniture, no pistol grip, and no folding stock.

[@immikeurnot]

I think he's saving that for a later debate.

[@SuperDriver379]

Does anybody realize the irony in banning “military like features” and trying to discredit the fact that “Arms” are protected explicitly by saying the fact that when the constitution was drafted they only had muskets, when muskets were literally military issue? How can you have a conversation about legislation with a group of people, when their argument has the counter argument, in the argument????

[@JackManiacky]

But the M-14 has the dreaded shoulder thing that goes up! 😱

[@muddogtracker7449]

Both my Mini 14 and mini 30 had wood stocks..... when I bought them.

[@donaldduck4867]

I have both M-14 and Mini 14. I love them both!❤️🇺🇸😎

[@jeffhuntley2921]

Perfect. Laws as clear as mud. And we’re responsible to know the laws. Written by people that know nothing about firearms

[@jeffreygunn3530]

In their defense, they generally know nothing about most of the things they write laws about. It's not just guns

[@jeffhuntley2921]

@@jeffreygunn3530 very true

[@jeffcouncilor6621]

Very well said...

[@GamingProspector84]

On purpose; it means they can arrest you and throw you in jail for violating laws that aren’t clear

[@tomhubbard353]

YES they MUST HAVE whatever new law they dream up in their dementia brains, nobody understands what it actually means but YOU Joe citizen WILL obey, but ignorance of the law is not a defense. Sounds like freedom to me!!!!!! Or something.....

[@troyh3628]

"Lethality, and power" is his argument when both versions fire the same round, with the same powder load. We need someone to make a video taking these two versions of the Mini-14 to a block of ballistics gel and put that before everyone. If they refuse to acknowledge that there is no difference then they aren't just stupid they're stubborn too, and that's an extremely bad combination.

[@camrynsmith7631]

Willful ignorance is a horrible plague, too bad out government is rife with it.

[@DANT98]

I caught that too. How you hold the gun has zero to do with power. Maybe it has to do with accuracy, which seems debatable, and is therefore related to the overall effectiveness of the weapon, but to say any of the features he listed has anything to do with power is entirely wrong and misinforming people who don't know better.

[@circeciernova1712]

I especially love when they argue that SBRs need to be illegal because the short barrel makes the weapon "more powerful"

[@circeciernova1712]

@SomeRandomFurry Loving the implication that rocket launchers and artillery are unwieldy enough to be safe for use by the general public, but a single-shot .22 Short derringer is just too dangerous. We have people who don't know the first thing about guns legislating gun control, and people with no clue about the Internet or truth legislating truth on the Internet.

[@sexyt-rexy9205]

@@DANT98 Yeah i think his point was more about ease of use and deployment and concealment rather than fire power. As in, its easier to conceal that gun, to aim it, and to shoot it all around with those features, hence making it more deadly. The argument as a whole is valid, but he seemed to use the wrong word. Granted, speaking on the spot its pretty easy to misspeak so i think its safe to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't mean fire power.

[@737215]

"If you need 30 rounds to hunt, you suck at hunting!" A. 2nd Amendment wasn't written for a deer uprising B. If you need to disarm people to lead them, you suck at leading!!

[@robinstewart6510]

Of course, the 30 rounds is to help ensure you don't run out of ammo and have to reload in the middle of a firefight, something no sane person wants to do. That number of rounds is overkill perhaps, but not if someone is trying to kill you.

[@UncleMilty]

I don't make it a habit of calling anyone an IDIOT but Mr. Cicilline makes it hard not to.

[@timjugovics1790]

I'm pretty sure that's his middle name amongst others.

[@Vin-Dogg]

don't be afraid brother speak your mind.. that mofo is a stupid bastard

[@JG-PyroTX]

Its not an insult if its an observation of an objective fact.

[@silentcapture1994]

You should see Cicilline trying to convince everyone that putting a pistol brace on an AR pistol mysteriously turns it into a bumpstock................dude is CLUELESS! And taking away our rights in the process.

[@SeekerNJWC]

As he was talking, in my head I heard Bug's Bunny say: "What a 'Ma - roon'".

[@Kyle-sr6jm]

Never let people who cannot define what a woman is define your Constitutional rights. Vote out Blue, no matter who.

[@metalbob3335]

And RINOs too huzzah !

[@cliffs1956]

they can't define what a woman or firearm is. stupid is as stupid does.

[@fordmud]

I don't want to vote out blue, there's a lot of red that really makes me want to punch them in the face. I want to vote out Idiocracy.

[@dylanthompson5750]

Yep for mid terms anyone with an (R) next to there name is get a vote

[@dylanthompson5750]

@UCltjrnnTbVcfzY-pvKq0pIA you can go to Canada sure Justin Trudeau will take you!

[@gregsmetalworks]

So basically the receiver is not banned unless they feel it should be banned. This bill is written by a person who knows nothing about the subject matter in which its written. Playing on the fears of his supporters no matter how ignorant they are.

[@joshuakeys1596]

If they make a law vague enough then it's meaning can be used at will.

[@rockstarofredondo]

He thinks guns are only legal if they’re for hunting or sports.

[@Nightgig]

@Pure Blood That moron Cicilline said the gun in the upper left had a folding stock. That's not a folding stock.

[@benjamintaylor8780]

Only if you put the wrong hat on it

[@MrHeavy466]

rockstarofredondo And after this bill passes and nothing changes, then he will think “military style” pistols will need to be banned.

[@zacharywranovsky]

“Has no sporting or hunting purpose” dude, they’re literally just arbitrarily choosing what is or isn’t “military grade” and banning it on no grounds in reality

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

Massie had the perfect chance and unfortunately he missed it. "It has two of those features that have a military purpose that have no hunting or sporting purpose." "One, the Second Amendment says nothing and has nothing to do with hunting or sport, and two, even if it did, they have no hunting purpose? To hunt, you have to be able to hit what you're shooting at. To hit what you're shooting at with a rifle you have to have a steady rifle. A pistol grip, telescoping stock, and forward grip all help to steady your aim, the first by allowing you to grip the rear half of the rifle better, the second for enabling you to adjust the stock to fit your body, and the third for enabling you to more easily push the rifle into your should and thus reducing sway. The same applies for shooting sports like competition shooting where you need to be fast and accurate with your shots. The previously mentioned features help you do just that. Nothing you have said so far makes any sense and you know that but you just have to desperately defend your broken, unconstitutional, and nonsensical bill."

[@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932]

He didn't have enough time to say that.

[@emymorgan7656]

bruh, favor ethics over technicality, "the second amendment says nothing about hunting/sport", so what, people are getting shot, kids are being shot, who cares what it says, protect the people, furthermore with your second point, you are cherry-picking the argument, Cicilline says two things, lethality and concealment, you don't need to conceal your gun from a deer dummy, although I will admit that the lethality argument was stupid

[@williamirwin4328]

I have always thought it strange that the points you're making aren't used more often. Seems common sense to me that safe legal gun owners should have access to anything that will help them be more accurate since that would inherently make the gun handling safer. Why would they want people to be more likely to miss their target jn a self defense shooting? That's part of why it seems so dumb when they try to ban pistol braces, etc.

[@colealia7988]

@@emymorgan7656 but it’s not legal gun owners that are killing them

[@colealia7988]

@@emymorgan7656 something like 90-94% of all murders with a gun come from people who can’t even legally possess a firearm in the first place

[@mhughes1160]

Guns are illegal in Mexico and yet their murder rate is 400% higher than the US This bill is just another step in banning all guns. LoL 😂

[@Eidolon1andOnly]

Guns aren't illegal in Mexico, but they do have way more restrictions on where to buy, who can buy, and what they can buy.

[@Rtb323]

@@Eidolon1andOnly ur right they only have 1 gun shop in the whole country 🤣 it’s in Mexcio City and even then u have to have a lot of money to get one

[@Eidolon1andOnly]

@@Rtb323 Yup. Think the only one is in Mexico City and not only are the guns expensive, but all the legal fees are too. From what I remember you have to have a "valid reason" to buy a firearm too, such as protecting livestock from predators. Even the self defense laws are tricky.

[@eldeguello9573]

To all the comments above, you're only talking about legal purchases, the Cartels don't give 2 fucks about price or ease of purchase 😉

[@Eidolon1andOnly]

@@eldeguello9573 Because that's a given. No one is surprised that criminals break the law, the issue was the law itself.

[@sarahbrown5073]

Representative Massie, I'd like to say that the firearm on the top, and the one on the bottom ARE different. The one on the top has a telescoping stock, that allows a small frame, short armed woman like me to use it. The polymer makes it lightweight enough for me to hold easily as does the pistol grip. The addition of a forward grip allows me to hold it with both hands without putting my hand on the barrel, which sometimes gets hot even with the shroud. The addition of a sling makes it almost impossible for a bigger, stronger man to overpower me and take my weapon. The attack on these features is nothing but an attack on a small women's ability to safely and effectively defend her home and the lives of herself and her children.

[@DistendedPerinium]

I actually own that model of mini-14 and I want to point out a couple of things. First, the stock folds to the left and the design of the stock interferes with either the firing hand or the foregrip, depending on the position the telescoping portion of the stock is in. The folding stock is also bulky, so it is necessary to hold the rifle in an unnatural position to fire it. I have a feeling the folding stock was meant for how I use it (storing in a smaller space). Second, the gun is heavy for a 5.56mm rifle, coming in at 7.5 pounds dry (no ammo or accessories) weight. Third, Mini-14s are not beginner rifles to maintain. They take a little bit of knowledge to properly care for one. I would not pick this rifle for a novice shooter. There's upsides to these rifles, but I won't get into it here. Smaller frame people would be better served by something like an AR-15 or a pistol caliber carbine like a Kel-Tec Sub2000 rather than a Mini-14.

[@Horrible_Deplorable]

@@DistendedPerinium I stay away from pistol caliber carbines. I'm of the thought, why carry a rifle platform in pistol caliber?

[@Ranxerox1911A1]

Amen sister.

[@mrgfix]

What cosmetic feathers make the MINI-14 more dangerous than the stock rifle. We can do the exact same thing to the Ruger 10/22. There are more examples.

[@BowWowPewPewCQ]

@@Horrible_Deplorable To each his own. Ammo commonality with increased ballistics / performance is the idea behind PCCs. The same type thinking with AR pistols only reversed. That said, my only crossover caliber is .22LR.

[@nothanks3236]

The presence of a pistol grip has no real effect on the lethality of the firearm. A competent marksman will hit their target with either one of those Mini-14's, pistol grip or no. So in effect the Democrat's standard for what an "assault weapon" is, is a firearm that "looks scary."

[@gunner1534]

And some how the folding stock increases the lethality and power as well, What a joke the left is.

[@Jaslath]

Yep.

[@offgridgecko]

so if I paint it pink...... lol.. They should just come out and say that, black paint bad. All firearms must be some color other than black for more than 50% of their visible silhouette

[@billyboyd418]

That’s exactly why CA has had some of the dumbest laws, everything they see in a movie scares them. They think suppressors make your gun silent. You can’t make up this level of stupidity. You would think that something they want to get rid of they would take some lessons.

[@fieldsj007]

Lol I don’t know about that, the mini 14 is inherently inaccurate 😂😂 I own several

[@heraclitus6100]

As someone who owns a lot of firearms, both with and without pistol grips, I can say that it makes no difference in lethality. And the fact that the people trying to ban certain ones are the same people who are defining them is really stupid. Especially when said people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to anything related to firearms.

[@finnl6887]

A pistol grip and folding stock do not lend themselves to the "lethality, the power, the portability, or conceilability" of a weapon. The pistol grip allows the person operating the gun to hold it with their wrists at what is, for some people, a more comfortable angle. Having a stock that is adjustable or folds does not do those things either. It merely alters the length out from the body one is holding the gun, again, for comfort of use. Neither of those are features of "military weapons". There are literally bolt action hunting rifles with both of these features, many to make using the rifle more comfortable for people of different sizes. This does nothing to reduce weapon lethality at all.

[@chasslez]

Folding or collapsing stocks absolutely affect the portability and concealability of a weapon. A weapon with a folding stock can fit into a much smaller bag or case than one without, and my rifle wouldn't fit in the carry case I have if the stock didn't collapse.

[@finnl6887]

@@chasslez you still need a carry case. That makes it "concealable" in the same sense that putting your alcohol in a brown paper bag conceals liquor in public. So technically, from the standpoint of the law, you're right. But it's not true in reality. We still see it, we still know you've got it, it's just not being flashed around. And even if you managed to drastically reduce its size AND get a big enough coat that not only would cover the length but the sheer bulk of a rifle, and also moved in such a manner that your stiffness would not stick out, then MAYBE you'd have true concealability. But that's very, very unlikely. Hell, even handguns that are conceal carried leave a "print " where people can see that you're carrying as often as not. I find the idea that a weapon so large as a rifle could be truly concealed by merely folding a stock hard to believe, and even further doubt that you'd achieve any real increase in lethality from said situation.

[@KailzzTV]

It don’t even have a folding stock on that version in the upper left.

[@Thomasfboyle]

Representative, you’re making too much sense. The tyrants in government aren’t very keen on common sense, thank you for being a thorn in their side (:

[@ObservationofLimits]

Ironically there's tons of court precedence that ambiguous laws cannot be enforced and any conflicting or indirect language in a law MUST be interpreted in the manner of greatest benefit to the individual.

[@dustingre8]

I agree. These evil people only have one agenda and don’t care how it’s achieved…complete control of the American people, and they don’t even take the time to understand what they are doing to achieve it.

[@Aaroncarter95]

"The only people who want to disarm the populace are those who plan on controlling them. It's hard to control somebody if they can fight back." Try kidnapping somebody and see the difference between a gun owner and a non gun owner.

[@Thomasfboyle]

@@Aaroncarter95 i agree guns are good tools, simultaneously however I know that there’s no way I take on a gang of 8 guys by myself

[@Thomasfboyle]

@@Aaroncarter95 i agree guns are good tools, simultaneously however I know that there’s no way I take on a gang of 8 guys by myself

[@JohnWest-yc9ol]

No gun should be banned it is the right of the people to have guns for this type of overreaching governments like this one I'm so sick and tired of the government not leaving peaceful people alone

[@johnsullivan799]

The exact reason why it's positioned as the 2nd Amendment.... 1st Amendment allows citizens to petition their tyrannical government. And 2nd Amendment Rights to keep and Bear Arms... and Shall Not Be Infridged.... Ladies and Gentlemen.... When tyrannical bills become law; Rebellion becomes Duty. And that doesn't mean act of violence unless the government proposes violence on lawful citizens and then you will have history repeating itself of Revolutionary and Civil War combined...

[@galacticzrx1788]

Facts

[@markasteelsr.5990]

They are all flailing in their delusional/drunk with power bubbles! Throwing everything at the walls to see if it will stick. Marbury v Madison: "REPUGNANT TO THE US CONSTITUTION, null and void"!

[@Drizo41]

Anyone not in prison or on parole is constitutionally able to own and posse a fire arms. It all started when they killed mlk jr then they said felons can’t own fire arms. Then said in 1997 is your commuted dv misdemeanor you can ever own a fire arm. In 2014 and now in 2022 if you commit dv ( which by the way includes you raising your voice and I shit you not, pinching) you are banned for life. They use the term women beater to keep people scared of going after the launtenberg law. But Justice Thomas said the lautenburg law need to be looked at because it is the only lesser crime punishable by taking away a right. Which felons may be pardoned, expunged, set aside, presidential pardon, and civil rights restoration. Under the launtenberg law you may only have a presidential pardon or governor pardon which both cost between 15k-300k. A felon can spend 315 dollars and get their rights back. Tell me how this isn’t unconstitutional? The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[@raizen21ss56]

Every gun law on the book is an infringement period

[@GaryASherman]

Cicillini said that an arm brace made a firearm into an automatic rifle.. its a complete lie and I hope you all said something.. because this is either willful ignorance or intentional malice.

[@kingofkingsmoonpie4075]

The buffer tube and the pistol brace makes it a bumpstock rapid fire automatic assault rifle. When I heard that, I about pissed myself laughing so hard. His internships that write this 💩 are as sharp as a bowling ball.

[@jackbright2125]

He might know, but his base doesn't. It's been going on for too long to be stupidity. It's malice.

[@lordsheogorath3377]

Lmao they just pulled the bill. Probably because Cicillini was so incomprehensibly stupid. I haven't read the entire text of the bill but I'm sure it was filled to the brim with basic logical errors like this one any 4th grader could have spotted.

[@beep-beep]

Usually, I err on the side of ignorance per Occam’s Razor, but his only reply to any of his points were “the furniture you mentioned and explained is ultimately inconsequential is what make boom boom stick shoot fast” and also the classic “you can keep the ones you have, cross my heart…”

[@isosev]

It is undoubtedly intentional malice.

[@mel0nman803]

That man just said a pistol grip and folding stock effects the gun’s power and lethality. These people are defining our rights

[@timrobinson6573]

The Democrat said that the plastic furniture makes it more concealable but you could cut the stock off of the wood furniture rifle and still be in compliance with the federal laws regarding rifle Overall Length and have a more compact gun.

[@skizilla]

Sir, I'm sorry you have to hang around with these people all day. Someone who thinks a pistol brace can be used to increase the rate of fire in any firearm shouldn't be allowed to write laws pertaining to them. Your tact is admirable.

[@TheLogitech91]

This can't be real!!! It just shows this is not about safety or protecting people. it's about making people feel good.

[@lbear3321]

Politics 101

[@TheLogitech91]

@Pure Blood I know. If they disarm us we are done.

[@dsldarklordspaniard6672]

Mr. Massie should also be pointing out that a pistol grip and collapsing stock have little to no impact on their lethality or portability. They are arbitrary features that appear 'scary' to the uninformed, and it would be like banning all black vehicles because they look more badass than any other color... The second amendment shall not be infringed, and the founders intended on the populace to be armed with the current military grade weapons anyways, so why are they trying to ban weapons with "military" features? Tell these people that they should try to legally amend the constitution if they want to infringe on gun rights.

[@joelbeske1504]

Likewise, we should ban all sports cars that look and perform like race cars. Let's see how that works.

[@chuckpettit3356]

Don't forget all sharp kitchen knives & untied shoes

[@Averagegunenthusiast]

I live in California and that is 100% correct. I have an ar a2 clone. The first set up was featureless and I used a thordsen stock which for those of you who don’t know replaces the pistol grip with a traditional rifle type stock and the buffer tube gets a cover over it. Shouldering and firing the rifle I could not tell. Recently I installed an ar mag lock so it can be classified as fixed magazine so I can have the pistol grip and a2 stock. First time out I can change magazines in 3 to 4 seconds. I can only use 10 round magazines in it, i can’t use my freedom week magazines because inserting them into a fixed magazine firearm is a felony however the week before it was fine when it was a featureless rifle. I can also tell you, you don’t need 30 rounds since you can reload so fast and banning 30 round magazines will do nothing because of the same thing. The criminals will come prepared to commit crime, they will bring more 10 round magazines instead of using 30 round magazines.

[@Blackdawn1975]

ban all red vehicles because everyone knows they go faster

[@redonk1740]

@@joelbeske1504 "Nobody needs a car that can go 100mph" I used to use this analogy with anti-gunners, but I fear that they're so lost that I don't want to give them any ideas. I honestly wouldn't put it past them to ban cars that can go 100mph (which would be pretty much any modern vehicle - a perfect analogy to what they're attempting to do with firearms).

[@beep-beep]

An NRA instructor friend in our church when I was growing up took me out shooting with a Ruger Mini-14. A .22 to start and then moved up the Mini. 5.56, a perfect intermediate cartridge for plinking and to teach kids and recoil sensitive shooters the fundamentals of marksmanship… it’s a very fond memory and started a lifelong passion, and I even served in the army. It’s sad to think that experience is going to unavailable for kids in the coming generations.

[@finalhalo3]

I wholeheartedly believe that all members of the government should lose their armed security first before being allowed to create any 2A infringing laws.

[@daveb3910]

Hear hear, I second your motion, who approves? Can we establish a quarem

[@Eidako]

Rules for thee, not for me.

[@NFDBenTubeYou]

Love how you dismantle stupidity at its surface and core lol. You deserve a standing ovation 👏🏼!

[@gabimarie8]

These legislators trying to pass this should be sent to jail for treason.

[@shawnathan89]

Agreed, they flagrantly ignore and mock SCOTUS rulings, if government officials refuse to follow the law, that's wrong, but refusing to follow the law laid down by the highest form of law in this country is downright treasonous

[@d.i.m.eproductions6925]

Treason isn’t a jail sentence!

[@shawnathan89]

@@d.i.m.eproductions6925 you're right, under the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice), it still to this day carries the death sentence, under circumstances with respect to a government officials, at the very least he/she will loose their seat, never be allowed to work in politics again and will LIKELY carry some form of jail time, so what's your point?

[@d.i.m.eproductions6925]

@@shawnathan89 I can’t say what my point is here, after all this is the enemies platform

[@shawnathan89]

@@d.i.m.eproductions6925 fair point, social media and KZbin are controlled by the left

[@ajantics]

Thank you so much Representative Massie! You are a true gentleman and a scholar.

[@derekweigel1479]

I'm sorry but the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with accessories that is not used for HUNTING.... IT says "Shall Not Be Infringed!!"

[@bsmith8564]

As a gun owner, marksman, veteran. I wish they would call a duck a duck. Do not say a gun without external magazine is the same as a 6 or 7 round rifle. The AR platform is preferred for coyote or pigs, 4 legged or otherwise.

[@zettour.]

I'm confused. Both guns are Mini 14s and both use external magazines. The only difference is the Mini 14 on top has a pistol grip, a folding stock, and is made of a different material.

[@bsmith8564]

@@zettour. My bad I The picture showed the mini without a mag and I confused it with the M1

[@zettour.]

@@bsmith8564 Gotcha. Definitely looks like an old war rifle.

[@immikeurnot]

@@bsmith8564 The Mini 14 was purposely styled to look like a scaled-down M-14, which is basically just a slightly altered M1 Garand, so easy mistake to make.

[@Rafael_Fuchs]

@@bsmith8564 m1 integral mag is 8. Fun side fact, it was suppose to be 10, but then they changed the cartridge it used. The specifications from the government was that they didn't want the magazine protruding, so the final product was 8. Which later birthed the m14, after they removed that silly restriction and wanted detachable box magazines. Even the people ordering the guns in government, have no fucking clue what they're doing. Lol

[@jeffhayes6843]

I actually LOVE that he’s done this. I have already used this video to show non-firearm people how arbitrary their ridiculous regulations are and how clear it is that they are trying to chip away at the Second Amendment and little by little make every firearm they can illegal.

[@chasemccarty3952]

Dude was stumped and had no idea what to say. Lmao what a clown

[@dondelchulia3189]

Can someone please clarify for these people that the 2nd amendment is in no way to protect hunting or sporting? Is was written immediately following the war of independence. Someone with a BASIC understanding of history can see that the amendment was written to protect WITHOUT QUESTION the rights of citizens to defend themselves against tyranny. I don’t know how those against this bill have allowed themselves to be put into the democrats box of hunting and sporting. The constitution should be leave this debate completely without question here. This bill is a direct infringement on the right.

[@martindrengenxbox360]

Politicians should be forced to educate themselves PROPERLY on what they want to ban, I don't just mean read sources from their echo chamber. In regards to firearms, they should get training with the guns they want to ban, learn about ballistics and practical features. Buzzwords and lies should equate to corrupt conduct and have them removed from their position as it is actively decieving the population.

[@zjdre2009]

I only liked this because I did not like this...Thank you Thomas for upholding our rights

[@chrisparker2118]

Let's be honest and frank here. The right to bear arms does include weapons of war. Anything that infringes, subverts, or limits that right is null and void before it even reaches the floors of any government chamber.

[@bakedstreetyt]

they had boats with huge ass cannons back in the days, not just muskets lol

[@jamieboer3466]

@@bakedstreetyt And gatling guns

[@R1GAMBLER]

*SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.* simple as.

[@juniorjohnson9509]

No one ever claimed that the gun grabbers were intelligent.

[@micnor14]

I was waiting for someone to chime in that the "bannable" aftermarket Mini14 w/Tapco furniture will never be a "military rifle" whereas the "allowed" Mini14 was and still is to some degree LITERALLY A WEAPON OF WAR

[@Swamprowdy]

Whatever

[@Vibe77Guy]

None of them can be banned under the restrictions contained in the Constitution, as interpreted by several Supreme Court decisions already on record. Under Marbury v Madison, this legislation is moot and void even if passed.

[@Mishn0]

Yes, but the sleazy authors of the bill added a clause to the end. On the last page it says that if any SECTION of the bill is deemed unconstitutional, the REST of the bill is still in effect. They mean to make it so that EVERY part of the bill must be individually sued over, part by part. That would make it difficult and time-consuming to try in court. Sort of a "line item veto". I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if that will work.

[@gregoryeverson741]

@@Mishn0 all they have to do is deem the whole bill Supreme Court just has to say: NOPE

[@therealdadoom7509]

@@Mishn0 Then the first thing you sue over, is that last bit

[@Mishn0]

@@gregoryeverson741 I hope you're right.

[@beep-beep]

@Mishn0 sounds like pricing average Joe out of challenging their “Indian Peace Treaty”

[@Liberty4Ever]

I'm sick of these stupid distinctions based on folding stocks, or pistol grips, or the Shoulder Thing That Goes Up (TM), because some ninnies who don't own guns and therefore believe no other citizens should own guns believe that makes a firearm a "weapon of war". They argue that such guns don't have any legitimate sporting purpose (they do), but that's not the point and we lose every time we engage in that discussion. The entire point of the second amendment is clearly that United States citizens should own weapons of war. That's the point of putting "militia" in the justification clause, but now the word militia is being used by the anti-gun zealots to argue that the second amendment only applies to those in the National Guard. The SCOTUS has invalidated that nonsense, but politicians and government bureaucrats opposed to armed citizens are now ignoring SCOTUS decisions they don't like, knowing that their flagrant disregard of our Constitution will not have any legal consequences for them and will allow them to operate illegally for years before the slow Just Us system finally forces them to obey the law. We need a SCOTUS ruling that "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says and therefore federal gun control laws are illegal, and via the 14th amendment, state infringements on our right to keep and bear arms are also illegal. There is no wiggle room in the right to keep and bear arms. It's explicitly recognized in the second amendment. We need a no-compromise attitude on our unalienable rights. Based on his behavior and demeanor, I don't think Mr. Nadler likes Thomas. :-)

[@BowWowPewPewCQ]

I don't see them going out for beers later either

[@Kyle-sr6jm]

We don't need the Supreme Court to rule on the 2nd. We just need to excercise the 2nd. When law becomes tyrrany, rebellion becomes duty.

[@richardstephan2684]

In fact the argument should be we need to make select fire rifles legal. This nonsense to ban semiautomatic rifles should not be even be brought up. It should be the unbanning of select fire rifles. If Biden can give thousands of M4 rifles to the Taliban he should keep his filthy hands of ours.

[@edub6205]

NYSRPA did exactly that. There is no history or tradition of banning any firearms from the founding or the time when the 14th was ratified.

[@nexus1g]

The Second Amendment is exactly about citizens having arms for the purposes of war. To quote George Mason at the Virginia Ratifying Convention: "No man has greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defense - yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, - will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally defusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?"

[@youngspectre5356]

You gotta love how Mr. Cicilline waited until Rep. Massie's time expired before answering/dodging the final question.

[@ConveyApp]

I think a solution is that who ever supports these laws has to abide by them and have the consequences there of. Those who oppose them do not have to abide by them or the consequences there of. I have no problem with people freely giving up their own constitutional rights, but I do want to keep mine. I want to keep all of my rights.

[@gregchamberlain7554]

This Bill is playing games with the public, The author of the bill has no idea what he is doing or talking about!

[@nighthawk2174]

It even seems that he may not even know what's in the bill lol.

[@Liberty4Ever]

This bill has been kicking around in one form or another at least since the sunset of the so-called Assault Weapon Ban in 2004. They keep adding to it and reintroducing it every year, but they don't know what they're doing and the bill is now a bloated pig with a lot of nonsense and as Thomas demonstrated, some contradictory provisions. Remember Carolyn McCarthy being interviewed by Tucker Carlson, when he asked what (at that time) her bill was banning and why. She spooled off some anti-gun talking points about getting the most dangerous guns off our streets. Tucker specifically asked her what a barrel shroud is and why her bill sought to ban barrel shrouds. She tried more general talking point diversions but Tucker asked her again. She said, "I think it's the shoulder thing that goes up." Tucker's response: "No. It isn't." She had no idea what was in her own bill because she didn't write it. She got it from anti-gun ninnies and put her name on it and tried to pass it.

[@heydeereman1040]

@@nighthawk2174 of course he doesn't. They don't write it. They are given a piece of paper and they sign their name on it because that is what they are told to do

[@jdmcdorce876]

The counter-argument is that the author of the bill knows exactly what he was doing and is counting on the general ignorance of the voting public to buy into the illusion that this bill will actually do anything to quell violence in America with the hope that it will convince voters to ignore the policy-driven economic issues facing us on a daily basis.

[@Cinnabun]

Why do conservatives pretend he doesn't know what he's talking about? he's very aware what he's doing, he designed the bill. this is all intentional. Ban the parts that are common under the guise of them being used in 'assault weapons' and suddenly you get a two-for-one ban on pretty much all weapons. this isn't stupidity, its cunning.

[@k333rl]

after all these years the mini 14 comes into light. doubt anyone even knows what a mini 14 is but here we are.

[@MrLilhauughh]

@@AR-GuidesAndMore Yea, exactly right. I pity the fool who tries to take my Mini-14. HAHAA

[@badcarrm]

Nope never ever heard of A mini-14. But I bet Cicilline thinks an oar in A kayak will make it A speed boat!!

[@k333rl]

@@badcarrm only if it has the shoulder thing that goes up, is as heavy as 10 boxes that you might be moving and shoots 50 caliber bullets.

[@beep-beep]

@k333rl are the boxes full of steel or feathers?

[@mrochner]

I would bet that well over 95% of the population of the country wouldn't know a mini 14 if you handed it to them.

[@EdwardSatterfield]

Vote all demorats out of office and take a rino with you!!!!!

[@zangetsudx1]

There is no legal standing to ban any arms Every arms whether it's a bazooka or a tank is legal.

[@Tyler-ju3iv]

The author of the bill just said “Your gonna be shot by the gun at the top or the bottom there’s no question about that” He then goes on to say that the top one is bad because of the definition he made up in his own bill. How tf can somebody take this gun control bs seriously? He doesn’t sound too confident that his ban will do much good.

[@KailzzTV]

I wish dude pointed out that it wasn’t even a folding stock.

[@mlrllama]

Representative Massie, I can only imagine the frustration you face dealing with these clueless Derp Donkeys... God bless you.

[@daviddemand6856]

Rep. Thomas Massie, you’re a great man that not only the American people, but one that the founders of this great nation would be proud of.

[@glennianuale3582]

What is this world coming to? The guy who wrote the bill on guns doesn't know anything about them, and the old guy running the country doesn't know who shit in his pants.

[@ccul8339]

God bless this man. We need more of people like him in Congress 🇺🇸

[@juliantuttle8720]

so true

[@The_Econom1st]

I don't understand why if Reps are in control, is it normal for Dems to run committees? Nadler is awful, why does he have control? Maybe I'm wrong here.

[@jamiecollett8840]

Thank you representative Massie for fighting for the 2nd amendment!

[@Ryan_1997]

Shall not be infringed

[@FreedomandBaconHomestead]

Massie speaking the truth!

[@hellstorm8536]

Definition: (Assault Rifle) - a firearm that has the function to switch between fully and semi automatic. - what in the hell does any of this have to do with how you hold the damn thing

[@MrRobreg]

It should be made mandatory that anyone wanting to ban guns must be required to take a firearms course to first learn about the items they are trying to ban

[@sokyoutdoors588]

Thanks for all you are doing Representative Massie. Please keep showing these gun grabbers ignorance to the world.

[@anthonyperry6113]

I think everyone in congress and the senate should be required to take a 2 wk firearms course to serve as a representative. They are creating laws and regulations on things that they no nothing about.

[@grantteaton1727]

I disagree. I think if they became experts in firearms they would still want to ban them, but the bill they write wouldn't be so full of loopholes, mistruths, and obvious contradictions. They would write much more effective legislation if they knew what the hell they were talking about and it would be much harder to argue against. Remember, they're not banning them because they think pistol grips are dangerous. They're banning them because they want to be re-elected and they think they can convince their idiot constituents that pistol grips are dangerous. Huge difference.

[@barfo281]

@anthony perry - How about classes on history and the Constitution instead?

[@HardcoreFourSix]

There should be ZERO regulations, rules, bans, registration, background checks, fees, taxes on firearms and other weapons. Free people should be FREE to own whatsoever property they wish. There is no legitimate authority for any level of government to control the people's access to the means of defense.

[@t.dig.2040]

"Shall not be infringed" is the simplest legalese I can think of.

[@Eidako]

Ehh, swinging a bit far to the extreme. If Tyrone Ghetto has documented anger issues (documented because they've resulted in the K9 unit being called in each time), an extensive rap sheet of armed robberies and hard drug possession, and has spent the last five years in prison doing arts and crafts on the remains of small animals he tortured to death, do we really want him to be able to walk into the local Walmart and walk out with a glock? Or put another way, should we not jail violent offenders because doing so infringes on their rights?

[@talleywa5772]

@@Eidako If he has a history of armed robbery then he already has a gun.

[@Eidako]

@@talleywa5772 Had a gun. Under current law, once convicted of a felony a person loses any right to possession and is blocked from legal acquisition. That definitely doesn't mean they can't go through unlawful channels to obtain a new gun, but it does mean if caught with any gun they are going back to prison for another five years. Going with OP's proposition however, that person would legally be able to buy and possess a firearm with no restriction.

[@Ankarmorre]

That long pause was heart warming. Could hear the herculean leaps of effort to put down the shovel of the hole Mr. Cicilline has neatly dug for himself.

[@Motoguzzi2231]

Ambiguity is not a bug, it is a feature. Having the threat of arrest and imprisonment hanging over your head will lead many people to not risk it by having any firearm. Next up will be guns that fire a shot with every trigger pull, assault revolvers.

[@WurledPeas]

There’s nothing in the 2nd Amendment about “hunting or sporting purposes” The Founders and Framers meant for you to have the same small arms the military uses. Ergo, this bill and the NFA, GCA68 gotta go.

[@duallity2403]

Not just small arms. You want a battleship? Get one. Cannon? Get one. When the greatest American document ever written was penned, private citizens with money had better weapons than our military. And it should be the same today. Legally, it is the same.

[@codyjenn8785]

This assault weapons ban needs to be abolished and all these infringements there doing to our 2nd amendment doesn't do anything to stop criminals it actually hurts us law abiding gunowners this bill needs to be abolished and these anti gunners need to be abolished to and the 2nd amendment shall not be infringed

[@Dmpreciado]

Sorry buddy but aborting your sisters fetus you put in her is an infringement too so too bad. 🤷🏽‍♂️ just gotta deal with it. Don't worry we're coming for your guns next 🤫😉

[@codyjenn8785]

@@Dmpreciado your funny and your probably an anti gunner that don't know crap and I don't have a sister or a brother your probably the one that got your sister pregnant and your really upset you can take your bs somewhere else

[@JohnWest-yc9ol]

If u wanna be specific all guns are used in war from bolt action rifles and pistols literally everything has and is being used and war people are not educated about these things should not be even talking about this subject

[@Thomasfboyle]

Yeah governments outlawed crossbows in war at one point in history because they thought it was an unfair advantage. Now you can fit a pistol with 150 rounds in your phanny pack

[@sarahbrown5073]

It doesn't matter if it is used in the military. The Second amendment of our Constitution was written to protect the citizens rights to be every bit as well equipped as our military.

[@1nfamyX]

@@sarahbrown5073 amen

[@BowWowPewPewCQ]

@@sarahbrown5073 We should all have RPGs and Javelins provided by the ATF. I would also like a M134 mini gun for my pickup.

[@Eidako]

@@BowWowPewPewCQ Pfft, small arms. In order to pose a reasonable deterrence against government overreach, strategic nuclear weapons are needed. One Peacekeeper per household might be a bit much, but one silo per county is reasonable.

[@ChevTecGroup]

Thank you for being one of the few people, let alone politicians, that I feel is actually knowledgeable about firearms.

[@anthonyl9273]

if someone uses a 2x4 to physically beat someone. do we now ban assault trees?

[@Teklectic]

That is some astonishing doublethink, somehow changing the furniture of a rifle affects it's lethality in a significant way. I don't really understand how these people can hold two disparate ideas in their minds at one time, it's actually kind of impressive in a way.

[@FUNKOfilms]

He actually tried to claim it becomes "more powerful".

[@beep-beep]

His last comment is very telling. “You can keep the ones you already got”, how many times have you heard that one?

[@stonehalo1632]

Especially to cicilline he couldn't control himself when challenged on anything guess you gotta be emotional when you're not honest

[@grantteaton1727]

Yes, exactly. The sheer arrogance is astounding. To his own detriment too because I'm pretty sure if Cicilline just said 'You know what. You're right. Let's edit that part so it makes the intention a bit more clear. What do you suggest it should be?', the other guy would have instantly lost the argument and Cicilline's bill would be stronger and therefore be harder to argue against. The fact that he snapped at the other guy for asking a legitimate question even though there was an obvious contradiction in his work suggests that Cicciline is an arrogant pa- rick and probably has anger management issues.

[@BowWowPewPewCQ]

Give them hell Tom! They hate hearing someone knowledgeable talk common sense on their "common sense" bill. Your engineering mind is showing through presenting facts not BS. Can someone explain to me the logic that a pistol grip, by it's self, increases lethality. A folding stock, the same. Hand them a Mini-14 with a folding stock and have them exhibit how it can be concealed. "Is the receiver legal, yes or no?" reply: crickets Chairman: Time's up. How do these idiots possibly expect any respect? WTF does having "no hunting or sporting purpose" have to do with anything? Self defense is a legitimate and legal purpose for possessing a firearm. Nowhere is it written "Thou must use your rifle to hunt only"

[@diapysik]

"a folding stock and pistol grip makes the gun more lethal and powerful." Yeah this guy shouldn't be writing gun legislation.

[@Dylan-da-Spider]

Did he seriously just say that a pistol grip and a folding stock makes a weapon more lethal?

[@Rafael_Fuchs]

And that they make them more concealable. Also that an uncontrollable firearm is more safe, if you extrapolate on his statement that a more controllable firearm is more lethal.

[@rickiatackett3934]

Lmao 🤣 Thanks Congressman Massie

[@habibsspirit]

"The stock and the pistol grip determine a gun's "lethality", "power", portability and concealability." - Is Mr. Cicilline ignorant or just lying? Either way, why is he allowed to be objectively wrong in a conversation like this? Shouldn't there be consequences for lying/not knowing what you're talking about under these circumstances?

[@sexyt-rexy9205]

I mean the only thing he is really wrong about is the power because power in that context would more assume fire power, in which those attachments do not affect. For lethality, you could easily argue being able to hold, aim, and use the gun with more ease makes it more lethal. For portability, that's an obvious if you can make gun smaller/fold it up, it's easier to hide and conceal. Personally, it seems like him saying power was just a simple misspeak, which happens all the time. I think the main point to focus on is that his reason for banning that weapon specifically does hold some grounds, but since internal components can be shared you get into a situation when a receiver is banned because it's used in gun A that is banned, but that same receiver is used in gun B which is not banned. Just seems like the bill is banning things for actual reasons, however the bill did not focus on internal components as much as it should have, so a lot of ambiguity is created.

[@mikeweaver7747]

He let David hogg talk longer than a setting congressman that should tell you all you need to know.

[@thecommentguy9380]

Now if im going their way, ill simply prohibit public carry of these weapons, means you just cant take it out of the border of your house. Even then, i cant exactly stop them from carrying those guns to go hunting or to the range for practice despite the fact they have to carry it outside their property, there's nothing illegal about that. But either way this will do no real changes because if a shooting is going to happen, they just get a gun that isnt banned. Also the way he classify the gun just shows how little he knows, seeing both assault and battle rifle can have the same appearance. The only difference and key factor to determine the type is the caliber of the ammo, battle rifles use stronger rounds like 7.62 while assault rifles use 5.56. If i am so bold, i'd say he's only using the appearance as a scare factor to make people think they should be banned, while allowing the gun to have wooden appearance to make people think that their rights are safe, at least until the police knock on their door and say the gun that they were allowed to buy is actually also banned.

[@NotJustAnotherAverageJoe]

Ah yes, I always add a pistol grip to my guns to increase their firepower. This one time, I taped a pistol grip to my .22 lever action and no shit, it split a deer in half. Truly terrifying.

[@talleywa5772]

I glued a pistol grip to my pistol grip and welded a pistol grip to my forward grip. The power was so vast it shattered the mag as soon as it latched.

[@johnrhardin6460]

Who in the world told them after shooting a deer with a .223 round that you wouldn’t be able to eat it?? 🤣

[@beep-beep]

Someone talking out their ass. Could have been anybody in DC!

[@raizen21ss56]

If only the January 6th "insurrection" was as bad as the media claimed it to be because nobody deserves it more than these people. I wish nothing but pain and suffering for these criminals

[@johnstark4723]

It's long past time to bring down the demokratik kommunist party freak show

[@owenboyle7220]

@@johnstark4723, I enjoyed seeing those brain-dead insurrectionists get arrested the same way I enjoy hearing about how confederate soldiers were slaughtered when they tried to succeed. You should go for it... try and overthrow the government... do it... I will enjoy watching you fail.

[@mhughes1160]

Assault weapons if you hit someone with a rock 🪨. That makes a rock 🪨 an assault weapon and rocks 🪨 have been used in war so are we going to ban rocks 🪨 ? LoL 😂

[@floydhawk2169]

Only if you add the feature of a stick attached to it, which makes it a War Club.

[@grantteaton1727]

I mean if you're going to go down that road, the M1, M1A, and M2 used in World War 2, the Korean War, and Vietnam all have the same profile as the 'allowed' mini-14. That would make it a literal weapon of war.

[@grimalkin6676]

@@grantteaton1727 There are literal weapons of war allowed by the bill already. However there are guns banned by it that were specifically made for civilians for self defense or hunting and have never been used by the military.

[@mgillee1]

Thank you Massie for working so heard on this!

[@orion7873]

A betting man (or woman) would be out buying up as many guns as you can get ahold of.

[@RogunK]

I was in the navy, we didn't have folding stocks. Maybe the marines or army did but I've only ever used them since I've been a civilian so I'm wondering what is "military" about them?

[@turnbacknow1464]

Amazing. Interesting question is, were revolvers and pump shot guns designed and used in war? Didn't Germany file a complaint in WWI over the Browning pump shotgun?

[@mikmik9034]

Simple enough, IF the current civilian weapons are "Military Grade" only for war. Then stop buying those "Military" weapons and use the "Civilian" models. After all, the 1776 military standard was Single Shot Muzzle loading, was it not?

[@nateburdge9157]

A folding stock and a pistol grip add power to the gun? And ....go with the sarcasm.

[@OrigenalDarkMew]

I just LOVE how he thinks the 2nd amendment is about hunting & sporting. Smh.

[@terrygrossjr83]

Thanks for the work Rep. Massie

[@HieuNotHue]

If they didn’t say his time had expired, I could’ve sworn I would’ve started hearing crickets. 😂

[@b237940b]

Wow so the writer of this bill doesn’t even understand what he put in it.

[@markalford5406]

Dude I bought a mini 14 in California so I didn’t have to go through the AW ban stuff now you’re bringing this to the attention of lefties.

[@Refr619]

Our founding fathers are sooo fuckin disappointed right now

[@dc9768]

Notice there was a brief moment of silence. The rest of the room: **I’ll wait.**

[@MunitionsDudTester]

The second any headway or understanding starts to surface: "The gentleman's time has expired." Every. Single. Time. 😂

[@dagger1-140]

This was so well done. I don’t normally comment on political videos but I applaud the fact that rep Massie saw through this gaping loophole and forced the author to see how incredibly flawed and miscontruding and deceiving it is.

[@gwydionrusso3206]

I just looked it up and the “mini 14” is a weapon of war but you know which one shows up the tactical one not the hunting rifle also there is no way that those are the same firearm one of them is tactical one of them is a hunting rifle you can’t just switch out the The bit that you hold and make it look completely different

[@traviskey7109]

What makes you think the second amendment doesn't protect an individual's rights to a weapon of war

[@gwydionrusso3206]

@@traviskey7109 because we’re not at war first second of the second amendment specifically is for the militia a.k.a. the military to own weapons not the individual citizen The second amendment is entirety states “A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” you love to leave out the first half Let me break it down for you oh “well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” A Military with appropriate discipline and training is necessary to protect the country‘s freedom “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” The ability for the people in the military to have and use their arms shall not be degraded. Nowhere does it say the or it could be inferred that the private civilian has the ability to own weapons of war especially when they’re being used to harm other citizens.

[@traviskey7109]

@@gwydionrusso3206 WRONG.. On multiple grounds.. none of the first 10 amendments grants power to the federal government. That's what the constitutions for. To argue.. that's the second amendment grants power to government is laughable... The Bill of Rights was passed after the passing of the Constitution..... The definition and historical definition of militia is a citizenry... Miller v United States says this clearly. Blackstone's commentaries State this clearly. The wealth of Nations States this clearly.. the Federalist papers State this clearly...the Constitution makes a clear two word distinction between military and militia... I have read all of Miller v United States.. you should too... And before you try to twist and manipulate Miller v united states. I am fully aware that Mr Miller was dead before he can bring his evidence to the supreme Court. If Mr Miller had been alive he could have easily shown that a short-barreled shotgun was in fact used during world war I.. the only evidence presented to the supreme Court was by the federal government... The part in Miller v United States where it says it's not to the judicial notice at this time that a short-billed shotgun was used by any military or militia.. it wasn't brought to their attention because Miller was dead. And the state the federal government was not going to undermine their case.. Miller v United States "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the second amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." "The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; (the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia CITIZENS primarily, soldiers on occasion." Even in the Constitution it makes a clear distinction between military and militia. Because they are not one in the same... "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Do you see this last part right here. Where" when the citizenry called fourth for militia service was expected to bring arms supplied by themselves. Those in common use at the time...... I like every single phrase and word in the second amendment. Because it says well regulated militia. Not well regulated arms... The only enumerated power for Congress to regulate the militia is their conduct. They have no enumerated power to regulate the militias arms.. aka the citizenry.. Adam Smith wealth of Nations quoted in Miller v United States Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: 'Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.' Again Adam Smith who heavily influenced our founding fathers point a clear historical definition difference between a standing military and a militia.. From the debates of passing the Bill of Rights in the second amendment. At the time "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1) "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.) Isn't it funny how words mean what they mean and don't mean what they don't mean...

[@Eidako]

Out of curiosity, do you have any historical context for these pants-on-head revisionist arguments, or are you just 12-years-old and/or blindly parroting talking points from those of your social group? The Bill of Rights was drafted in the immediate aftermath of the American Revolutionary War. Said war was an [illegal under British law] uprising of the American colonists against the Crown in response to excessive taxation. The initial combatants were local, unprofessional part-time militia men, who were farmers and millers most of the time and, prior to the war, trained once in a season -- effectively civilians, not the modern standing active or reserve military under federal jurisdiction. Firearms were personally owned, not issued. During this war, the Declaration of Independence was drafted. Excerpts: "...all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government." First item of interest: rights are not bestowed by governments, but are an inherent trait of people and something to be protected by governments. Second: when a government becomes destructive to rights, it is the duty of the people (no mention of any militia here) to abolish said government. This sentiment was echoed later in Madison's draft of the Bill of Rights: "That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution." Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was a response to the objections of the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists wanted to restrict the power of the federal government in favor of state and local governments, which we find in the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Basically stating the jurisdiction of the US Government was matters of foreign trade and defense, and everything else was up to state governments and the people. Federal restriction of the ownership of weapons to active duty US military members is the complete opposite of the intent behind the Bill of Rights, and the historical context of the American Revolutionary War. Please read a history book.

[@brianwilliams1588]

It's starts as "you're not prohibited from possessing that item, you just can't buy, sell, transfer or manufacture it anymore" and it WILL end up as "You are required BY LAW to turn in that item or face jail time and fines and permanently loose your right altogether" If you think the later statement can never happen, you're saddly fooling yourself....

[@TheFarCobra]

So, if a pistol grip makes for a more stable, safer, more accurate firearm … why would that not be beneficial for hunting? On the flip side, if a traditional wooden stock is better, why would the military not use that? Why are the anti-gun nuts weaseling around their intent? If they want to get rid of guns, they should just amend the second amendment.