H.R.45

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
So what if you have to buy a license? Big deal I gotta buy one to drive my car.

And how is this the beginning of the end for gun rights? There is another Bill, as the poster above shows, that is making it EASIER for Americans to carry their concealed weapon(that the carry concealed after buying their permit) across state lines.

Not only would you tell me you were armed, but, with what and with how much ammunition you can bring to bear. You will tell me whether it is in your home, place of work, etc. and, exactly where. With a gunlock, you will ass ure me you have secured the weapon in a not so ready state and that I'll have X amount of time to disarm you. And whether I have an additional X amount of time, should the gun lock not be in place, for you to actually load and bring such weapon to bear. Again, I already know what you have to bring to bear, and how much ammunation you have, as well as, your estimated quickload or manual reload time. Because, I also know whether you have a quickloading capability.

If it's not at your home or place of business, etc. I will know, or be more easily able to conclude that it is on your person. Of course, I can know such concealement or open carrying of such weapon has been debilitated if you use mass or public transit, where such carrying-- publically or concealed-- is prohibited, except as exempted. That and, even if concealed, I know where are your person such weapon is located, to make it easier to monitor your movements and disarm you.

What's more, if I you take or are made to take firearms training, then, I'll also know how proficient, deficient, gung ho, or gun shy you really are.
All these things, these Intelligences, will make you easier to predict and control. And, even if I allow that you have more than you claim or that the weapoms and ammunitions are not where you claim them to be or the condition (Ie: gun locked, unloaded- loaded, concealed- unconcealed, etc.) I'll still be in a better condition to guage my response and yours.
Now, I'll tell you it's so little Bobby or Cindy don't find it and shoot themselves or each other to death. I'll tell you it makes people uncomfortable. I'll tell you that only licensed lawful professionals should be in possession of them. I'll tell you we are well beyond the dark ages of our past. I'll tell you that legally licensed professionals and law enforcement officials and citizen's should be trusted to use them to protect you and your family as they only have goodness in their hearts.

What I won't tell you is that I and my criminal dark hearted cohorts have put on uniforms, suits, and ties and have infiltrated good, moral, productive places in Society, and have been disarming you so we or our progeny can come in and shoot you to death, or wound you into submission. And those we don't kill or injure, we will sadistically put you and yours to work for us, until the generation comes, that your victim mentalities will actually begin singing our praises. We long for the day you think we are the best government you have and defeating us will not be in your best interests.

Then you will know how it is to be a Citizen in a military- police- dictatorship- or monarchal type Culture.

Nothing personal, but, I'd have to dissent from the ideaology proposed.

While it can be argued that licensing does not infringe on the right to bear arms, it does, as it infringes on the declared intent of the right and the reasons for the right to bear arms being guaranteed.

Originally posted by MilitieTempliSalmo

Originally posted by j2000
reply to post by MilitieTempliSalmo

 

Sorry Mr. Europe. BUTT OUT!!!

You can have your socialist life and have a crappy guarrantied job with no performance checks etc for life all you want. We left you over 200 years ago for a reason. Leave us alone. I really don't care what you think about this subject because it has nothing to do with you.
This is for americans to sort out. If you want to chime in, there is another thread for that at the moment.

Raht ohn Mr Wayne... yall keep shootin' yo'selves raht ther' now ya hear? Just like ya use to do 200 years ago! Now keep showin off thos' big barrels o' your's and downt let enyon' tell you othe' wahz! You come into mah lawn you'll be lookin' into my M4A1 tha' I bawt for personal security! Hell yea! yo' the sheriff Mr Wayne!

Actually... now that I see your words... you better own a gun. Cause if you cant be civil otherwise, at least you can be under the law of the gun! Being civil, talking, and sorting things out and living in community without guns isnt for you I see... and thats why you have the highest score on violent crimes in the civilized world!

Just dont trust your liberty to a gun, cause it will run out of ammo... sooner or later

Tell ya what buddy, next time someone invades your country (refer to the past if you think it can't/won't happen) don't call on us "cowboys" like you crybaby sissies always do when Hitler or someone else is kicking your cowardly behinds all over Europe. Notice that people do not try to invade the USA. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that they know that 70% or so of the population has firearms. If they can get past our military, they still have to battle 300+ million armed citizens and they understand this, so they go to Europe to invade the sissies instead.

[edit on 1/26/2009 by DarrylGalasso]

For those who think violent crime justify the diminishment of guns. well, if there were an increase in gun distribution, tell me how, oh how, these violent crimes would be committed?

That said, the right to bear arms does not only mean a right to carry (bear) them, or to brandish them and take aim (bring to bear), but, further to use them as you deem fit and necessary (bear upon) and to come before a Court of Peers-- locals similiarly situated and therefore affected; even in a world where neighbor doesn't even know neighbor; to account for that usage AFTER the fact.

*** A Right is that which none may take away-- UnAbridgable by Law enforces the Citizen's Right to treat Government as Hostile Combatant's should they pass or enforce such InFringement Abridgement's of Law-- even the mild licensing one's-- unless they give up the Right, then, it is no longer, in a sense, a Right.

(However, if one set's aside the Right, they may at any time ReClaim the Right and, by Nature of being a Right, it will become their Right once more. As technically, a Right does not cease just because it is neglected or forgotten) ***

As guns were diminished, so too the crime rates rose. In every single instance.

The old West was more peaceful than the modern West.
Violent Crimes were so rare they made National Coverage and InterNational Noteriety, whereas today, they barely merit local coverage.

Infringe my right and 'll enforce it. I guess we are coming to the point I'd be more proud of being a Criminal than a Law Abiding Citizen. How sad is that. The day seems to be approaching that the Law Abiding Citizen's may actually become the real Enemy.


[edit on 26-1-2009 by PhyberDragon]

[edit on 26-1-2009 by PhyberDragon]

reply to post by resistor

We're in the endgame. Just as Germany was destroyed and split up in order for a united socialist Europe to be put in place, the USA will be destroyed and split up in order to bring about a one world socialist empire.

Logically consistent and supported by the data ...

Being people have to go through the insta-check system to buy a firearm (Handguns, rifles, and shotguns) they already have a record of who has what firearm. Every FFL (Federal Firearms Dealer) dealer has to record every serial number off everything in his inventory. When someone buys a gun that serial number is removed from his list and now that weapons serial is attached to you. If you say..sell a gun to someone outright and not through a FFL dealer and the gun is used in a crime then then it will come back to the last registered owner. I have seen guns that were stolen twenty years or more ago that were used in a crime and the person that the gun was stolen from get a visit from LEO. The bill in question is just a stepping stone to more sinister end.

We Americans as long as we have been Americans have been rabid about our rights. The country was founded on the ideal that no one was going to enslave us the way England did in colonial times. Non Americans might believe that to be irrational. Just as many of us cannot understand why people in other countries allow things to go on the way they do. Our cultures are different. Don't lie it. Then don't. It really doesn't matter. you don't live here and the way this countries people opt to run our lives is of no concern to you.

It's not as much the the gun that many of us fight about. It's our governments trying to take from us what people fought and dies for throughout our comparatively short history. The American people as a whole are not inclined to give up out liberties without trying to do something about it. WE have seen what has happened to other countries and we do not want that here. Non Americans may like the way their laws are. But that's not America and it is non of my concern.

The idea that people want to make fun of us can use ..interesting dialect when typing only shows the ignorance of themselves. I would never try to stereotype someone because of how their country does thing. It's offensive and down right ignorant.

Yes I am one of the many gun owners in this country. I have a pretty large variety of guns at my disposal. I used to hunt but don't as much now due to a back injury but still like to hunt the ever illusive paper plate or pop can. I bought and paid for all of my guns legally and from a FFL dealer. Each of those serial numbers once in a dealers inventory are now in mine. there is no need to try and make me register them again. That is a simple ploy to try and disarm the people. It happens in some stated that require residents to get a license before purchase now. They just ran out of the forms and wont know when they will get more. Also by getting owners to RE-register their weapons they can get a better idea what everyone has that that moment. It is still legal to transfer a weapon private party to private party. A "fresh" list can only be needed for some reason other reason that the government is not letting us know quite yet but I'm sure most any gun owner in the states can figure all that out easily.

The bottom line is as Americans we have always had the right to own and use our weapons and most of us gun owners are not willing to give up that right. Non Americans, call us what you wish. It just makes you look less intelligent. You get your U.S. news off the TV, from Hollywood, from other propaganda devices used by those that wish to take our rights away. Maybe some of you have visited. But we live here. It's our country, it's our rights they are playing with. History shows what the American people are willing to do when we feel our back against the wall. WE the people are not willing to just let things be taken freely. And we should not be expected to.

If they get what they want, they will then proceed to murder those or jail those that don't agree and if they can disable us by using socialized medicine, then taking away the guns will bring it about, it sounds more like a step towards eugenics and classism.

reply to post by Beaux



"Rifles are used for hunting game, pistols are used for killing humans."

I'm so glad you cleared that up for me.Now I have to go apologize to the deer and small game I've taken with my pistol.I guess the ASPCA would be proud of me for humanizing the animals though.

reply to post by DarrylGalasso


Look here cowboy... the first and last time that anyone invaded my country was 1807 and it was Napoleon... oh and we drove them back with the aid from the british (oldest military alliance in europe) a year later... by this time you were in the middle of the 2 barbary wars against the regencies of the ottoman empire and in the brink of war with britain and france by the time that james madison was elected president of the US.

In WW2 we were allied with Britain but our leader was ... kind of a friend of little Adolf so we were mainly the world center of espionage, something like a neutral ground for you all to meet and talk without shooting yourselves.

So my friend... I owe nothing to the cowboys. Oh and get some history lessons cause you sure need them. WW2... come on...

reply to post by PhyberDragon


PhyberDragon, it's good you got into this one.

Glad to read your words. I am ready when anyone starts to put together people with enough balls to go and staighten out DC.

They are really starting to push some hot buttons with all that they have done and will do in the next months. I don't care whom the President is, it never mattered anyways. These boneheads need to get back to the Constitution. Period.....

They can try.




It won't work out like they planned.

reply to post by loki41872


Heh..Nice..Is that a Bulgarian AK? It looks to have a stamped receiver is why i ask

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by brimstone735

 

The Senate, on the other hand, would likely pass it. The Dems may not have a filibuster proof majority, but they don't need it. There are probably half a dozen GOP senators who are as anti-gun as any Dem, so the odds of its passage in that house of Congress are high. And there's zero doubt in my mind that Obama would sign just about any anti-gun legislation that crossed his desk.

Sorry, friend, but any anti-gun Republicans are long since extinct, leaving only true right leaning Pols. In September there were 85 easy pro-gun, Democratic votes in the House, and that's simply on deregulating existing firearm laws to make it easier to purchase them.

For a new bill? Those numbers would swell. Forget the Senate, because any movement would immediately draw fire from Tester in Montana, Webb in Virginia, the new Gillibrand in New York, and many others. They might scrounge 30 votes in the Senate, and that's being generous.

Restricting gun ownership rights means that the Democrats lose Montana, Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Ohio, with Wisconsin and Minnesota teetering. It's political suicide, and nobody wants to be where the GOP is trapped now.

Seriously folks, this is hucksterism. There is an entire caucus within the Democratic Party called "The Blue Dogs", and they won't support any bills restricting or limiting ownerships rights on firearms. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying, or trying to jack up the price on his carbine for sale.

reply to post by DrumJunkie


Romanian WASR. I also have a Russian Saiga. Both are AKM's. I wish I could afford a "true" milled Russian AK-47. And they will have a hard time forcing me to register them.

reply to post by brimstone735


That's pretty much what I said in the paragraph prior to that one. The Dems would have a difficult time ramming a major gun ban through the House due to their recent wins in conservative districts. They would likely lose those districts if they tried.

In the Senate, I think it would be closer, because they can count on a handful of anti-gun Republicans to join them. As a result, they can afford a few defections in the ranks in the Senate.

And again, I agree, it would be foolish of them to attempt it, because there will be a backlash in 2010 and 2012, but politicians aren't the smartest group of people in the world. Most of the Dem leadership, particularly Pelosi in the House, is highly anti-gun, and I'm certain they'll at least make the attempt at a new AWB fairly soon.


[edit on 26-1-2009 by vor78]

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by Beaux

 

"Rifles are used for hunting game, pistols are used for killing humans."

I'm so glad you cleared that up for me.Now I have to go apologize to the deer and small game I've taken with my pistol.I guess the ASPCA would be proud of me for humanizing the animals though.

You are right, I should have been more clear. Pistols are MADE for killing humans.

You could use one to pound nails too, they make handy can and bottle openers, lock removers. Heck, a couple shots in the air could even call the kids in for lunch.

Plus, I forgot about that whole line of Winchester deer pistols.

Originally posted by Beaux

You are right, I should have been more clear. Pistols are MADE for killing humans.

Actually pistols are made to shoot ammunition, it is up to the human holding it to determine as to what to shoot at.

As for hunting, Alka-Seltzer is uncannily effective at killing ducks but I would not say that it was MADE for that purpose.

edit to add that there a number of pistols that fire 410 shells in various length barrels including a derringer sized over under.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by Ahabstar]

"The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake." - former U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wy.)

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry

Originally posted by Beaux
You are right, I should have been more clear. Pistols are MADE for killing humans.

You could use one to pound nails too, they make handy can and bottle openers, lock removers. Heck, a couple shots in the air could even call the kids in for lunch.

Plus, I forgot about that whole line of Winchester deer pistols.

Clearly you are off topic! You are no longer discussing HR45 or for that matter firearm legislation. You have no new information to add to the thread and are whipping what is a dead horse. You approve of legislation of firearms while the Constitution forbids the same. Since your still riding the thread one can assume that you have an ulterior motive.

Originally posted by vor78
Its not a surprise. We all knew that when the Dems regained full control of the government, they'd try to ram through a gun ban of some sort. Heaven forbid that the 'civil liberties' party support the Bill of Rights.

Hopefully, the liberal Dems in Congress that favor banning firearms will have trouble finding support even amongst the moderates in their own party. In any case, I'm sure they're going to pass some type of ban in the next two years. With any luck, it'll turn into a long, drawn out fight and that what passes is a watered down bill that isn't particularly restrictive.



[edit on 25-1-2009 by vor78]

Don't worry - this libral DEM with vote OBAMA out faster than a hot potato if this is a GUN BAN...

That was my promise to you cons on here and I will keep it.

reply to post by Reaper106


Not many states; but you have the Lakota Republic, among many other organizations.

en.wikipedia.org...

Look at that, you have the potential for a Rebel Alliance against the NWO and its Palpatine. There are greens, libertarians, conservatives, liberals and Native Americans.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by Darky6K]