Magazine Ban Alert !!!!!

[virginia mountainman]

Got word this AM that they are trying to sneak a magazine ban into a normally benign Federal Aviation Administration bill using an amendment in the U.S. Senate..... It has not hit the floor yet, and most folks don't know anything about it.

I contacted both my senators, Senator Warner's and Senator Webb's office and they confirmed that they have gotten phone calls on this issue this morning from concerned constituents. They say nothing is on the docket for today and they can't yet confirm the validity of the rumor, but they are working on doing so.

Time for us to get the word out, and kill it where it stands!!! If we don't quash this, and it becomes hotly debated, our election prospects in 2012 get much worse, even if the bill fails, it WILL have a devastating impact on us..

We run the very real risk of becoming a regional party over stupid crap like this.

[shadowrider]

1. Who sponsored this? Any idea? And, politicians would NEVER be underhanded, would they?

:sarcasm:

[virginia mountainman]

3. If I had to guess..

It would be Lautenberg.. He has a long history with the gun control movement..

[lawodevolution]

2. Thanks for the info I'd expect anti gun folk to try to force laws without backing

Of the people. It's their nature to be anti democratic and anti liberty

[Khan Descend]

4. Thanks for the warning! Even if it turns out to be a false alarm, we have to keep an eye

on the bastriches.
:thumbsup:

[virginia mountainman]

5. even if IT IS, a false alarm..

....They will know where we stand.......

[Glassunion]

7. Those fhaarking iceholes...

[shadowrider]

6. The first thing that went through my mind though, for some reason was

Playboy?
Hustler?
Redbook?
Southern Living?

[Sherman A1]

8. Will that include

Photography Magazines? I really like those and would find it unfortunate....

As far a guns, well they can ban them all and I would be okay with that....

I will await the expected level of disdain and "interesting" remarks from those who will certainly disagree.

[lawodevolution]

9. You want to ban an important part of my culture and heritage, you are the one with disdain

[Sherman A1]

14. Not at all

We simply have a different understanding of the 2nd Amendment. I like the whole thing which includes the "WELL REGULATED" part.

as for your culture and heritage, I bear you no disdain at all.

[shadowrider]

15. Well regulated, back in the 1700's, meant well trained and well functioning

Don't apply modern language to terms used hundreds of years ago.

[Sherman A1]

17. Does this mean that assault weapons will magically

go away then with your interpretation? Everyone still carrying muzzle loading black powder rifles these days?

I understand the society and technology have changed.

If we are not to include "well regulated" why should be include the rest of the amendment as it was written about the same time I suspect.

We are not going to agree on this, the Court to date has made it's interpretation very clear. I simply disagree with it.

[RSillsbee]

23. Why are you using electricity to post on the internet?

Shouldn't your first amendment rights be limited to technology that was available at the time the BOR was written?

[Khan Descend]

11. Darn it, I never can seem to recall which of the Bill of Rights is for photography magazines

can you refresh my memory?

[Statistical]

12. It is sad you can't see that a government which tramples one Constitutional protection can trample

any of them.

You don't have to be a gunowner or even like guns to be concerned with the idea that guns would be banned in violation of the 2A. Why would the government stop there?

Either Constitutional protections mean something or they don't.

[Sherman A1]

16. They do indeed mean something.

I just read the whole 2nd amendment, not just the gun aficionado cherry picked part of it.

[beevul]

18. Do you understand...

Do you understand, that the bill of rights grants no power to government, and in fact restricts exercise of power by government?

The fact that those two things are both true, rules out any restrictions on people based on the "militia clause".

[Sherman A1]

19. You are absolutely right

and perfect in every way.

[beevul]

20. Well...

My other half would certainly disagree about me being "perfect in every way", but I'll make a point of telling her someone said I was.

[Sherman A1]

21. .....

:sarcasm:

[YllwFvr]

24. the militia act of 1903

shows that the organized militia in the National guard, and the unorganized militia is all males between 17 and 45 years old. That is the militia in modern day. All American males between those ages.

[guitar man]

22. does "ban them all"

include taking them away from the police, military and any other government agency?

[YllwFvr]

25. If they ban them from

your average civilian then police shouldnt be exempt from the ban. I would be fine with the military being exempt. FBI and other govt agent should not be exempt either.

[rrneck]

10. I would support a ban on the last one. nt

[Tejas]

13. Number of the Bill?