Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill

[festus]

Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill - The Hill's Video


These guys never give up, they are like the energizer bunnies of the anti gun movement

[fuhr52]

What the heqq do high cap mags have to do with cyber security. Give me a brake. These gun grabbing liberals will stop a nothing to get what they want. Of course they don't want to repeal the 2A. Do you know how difficult that would be legally to do. No they don't want repeal the 2A, so they will chip away a little at a time. We will do it for safety and for the children. People will buy into that. It has worked so well with other liberal agendas. Just have patients and before long the 2A will be so watered down before you know it shazam, the guns are gone and the gun loving crowd is shaking their heads saying, wow how'd that happen?

[jameshd]

Leaving aside all the grammar and spelling errors in the article, it's a pile of something. "Schumer also pointed out that it would be reasonable for the right to recognize that background checks on those buying guns is necessary — as called for in the Brady law. He also said average Americans don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves." Well, the average Americans also don't need sports cars, computers, riding lawn mowers, calculators, cell phones (or even land lines, for that matter), or any of a multitude of other modern conveniences. But Schumer would be lost without them, as would most of us. The mere fact that we don't need something doesn't mean that we don't want it. If you take away everything that we have but don't really need, we'd be back to grubbing in the ground with sticks and hitting game over the head with clubs for food.

[njsportsman]

If it passes the Senate it has to go through the Congress correct?

[Nightmare45]

I will give up my gun when the police give up theirs, lead by example.

[rich45r]

way to o smuckie !!!!

[fuhr52]

If it passes the Senate it has to go through the Congress correct?

To change an amendment I believe it has to be ratified by each state as well as the congress which is the house and the senate. Not an easy thing to do. That's why the liberal game plan is to chip away in increments and before you know it your rights are gone. This game plan has worked well for liberals and we the people continue to let them get away with it.

[S&W645]

To change an amendment I believe it has to be ratified by each state as well as the congress which is the house and the senate. Not an easy thing to do. That's why the liberal game plan is to chip away in increments and before you know it your rights are gone. This game plan has worked well for liberals and we the people continue to let them get away with it.

It is an amendment to the CS Bill, not the Constitution.

It has to be voted on to be added to the CS Bill and then go to a conference committee. The committee then sends it as changed to both the House and Senate for a new vote. House can kill it as can the conference committee.

[Rayb]

They know they can't attack the Constitution directly, so normal thought process on protecting it, or the legal process that exists to prevent them from changing or nullifying it are not in play. These cowards have been chipping away at the Constitution methodically over many years and will continue to do so with politically correctness and bleeding heart BS until one day it will be gone if they get their way.

[buckey01]

It isn't about what Americans want or need. According to the founders most responsible for the Bill of Rights, the 2nd amendment was not to protect hunting or allow citizens self protection against criminals. They had just fought a war that began in Lexington and Concord when the British tried to confiscate the firearms stockpiled by the colonists. The founders wanted Americans to have the ability to protect themselves against their own government. Military style rifles are exactly the type of weapon that Americans should possess. Jefferson and Madison both believed no standing army of a tyrannical government could subjugate a fully armed citizenry. All of the founders believed that the natural progression of government was from liberty to tyranny. They believed that armed citizens would stop this progression in their newly established republic.

I am in no way suggesting violence. I am simply stating easily provable historical facts. Perhaps our current political hacks should study the Constitution and the history of the Republic before making their persistent idiotic statements.