H.R.45

reply to post by MilitieTempliSalmo


So you have moved from slandering my country to slandering me personally but now with a new twist lies added.

Please do us both a favor and go back and actually read my response this time and then try if you are capable to respond without lying.

I never boasted about anything nor did I say I was a better person. I didn't even actually discuss my military service what so ever. What I did say was that when I was in Europe you folks treated us like hell. I then said that most people here have not worn the uniform in Europe so they may believe the crap your trying to feed them. So please tell me where the boasting and make me a better person comments came from? Is this more fantasy from inside your head, or perhaps you read another thread or response and got confused? I never asked, insinuated, or in any way proposed that anyone wear my shoes either. Man the further I get into your post the more I am wondering if you even know what the word truth means.

You have come on here, insulted my country, insulted my constitution (with your own beliefs on guns), insulted me, lied about me, misquoted me, and fabricated your own story. Are you part of the media or something?

Then you go on to ASSUME that I own guns, missiles...etc. Well allow me to educate you on that. I do not own a gun, missile, nuke, machine gun, SAM, SSM, AAM, or any other lethal weapon. Not because I do not believe in them but because I have grandchildren living with me and I am not willing to place them in any danger no matter how insignificant it may seem.

Now let's discuss something you obviously know nothing of; law. Our country's law states that it is our RIGHT to own and bear arms, not privilege, not if our leaders decide to allow us to license one, not if the Europeans agree or not...our RIGHT. Perhaps your country has no rights (I don't even know from under which rock you live), perhaps they have no RIGHTS where you live, Perhaps you and your countrymen do not care if your government takes your RIGHTS away (providing you have any); however, there are people in OUR country that do value our RIGHTS and will not allow a corrupt group of people to take them away. If you are willing to sacrifice one single RIGHT you have you are willing to sacrifice all of them (in my opinion).

Now since you accused me of bragging about my military service I will to a very limited degree. I did not give 8 years of my life to fight for our RIGHTS only to have them stripped away by our own government.

I do; however, agree with you on one comment. I would not wish upon one single person to be where I have been, and not for the reasons you might think. Some of the things I saw were in my mind shameful and I was quite embarrassed to be associated in any manner with the people who were preforming these acts.

Since you feel the need to refer to us as Rambo, John Wayne, Bruce Willis...etc because of our RIGHT to own and bear arms, perhaps we should refer to you as Conan the Barbarian due to your apparent infatuation with swords.

I will close with this, (also for your edification), I am NOT pro gun, as I just said I do not even own one. I am pro RIGHTS though and very staunch in that position, again as I stated earlier, I did not give up 8 years of my life defending mine and my countrymen's RIGHTS, only to watch my own government strip them away.

This is the last time I will respond to you at all if you can not learn to tell the truth other than perhaps to paste this final sentence as a response.


[edit on 1/27/2009 by DarrylGalasso]

reply to post by MilitieTempliSalmo
Which would you prefer, Broadsword, Claymore, or Saber? Or would Bowie knives, while your free hand is tied to mine with about 3 feet of rope be better? In my opinion, a blade is a blade, and if you know to use it, and if you have the cojones, you can close on a man with a hand gun and kill him before he knows what hit him, because a lot people who carry handguns are wannabes. However, I wouldn't bet the farm on most of the people here at ATS. I like blades, but I compartmentalize really well, and don't think much about dying, so I'm just going to stand there and blow you away when you try to close on me.

Does this mean I should sell all my firearms and build that HERF gun I always wanted?

reply to post by kettlebellysmith


Well... depends on the situation, I own a couple of "blades" and each one excels in its particular use - oh I dont like sabers. For "flexible handling" my favorites are my katanas, wakizashi and the roman gladius. as for "medieval europe" swords I prefer the longsword or the bastard sword.

but whats funny... what I'm more trained on (altho I trained with most blades) my "expertise" is the Sai (which is not a "blade")

As for "ranged" I would stick to a longbow more than any "gun"... plus is silent. And although I'm against hunting, I dont condone it so harshly if its done with a bow... gives the animal a bit more of a chance.

Bowie knives are very nice blades also.

But I see your point on survivability... thing is I dont like "mechanized" weapons... like for instance, even from the same "age" I despise the crossbow.

So lets see right now in a fantasy world... 1 longbow, quiver with modern arrows of course with 4 bladed broadheads, 1 bastard sword, 2 sai on the back... that would make my day

Oh and... DarrylGalasso... Ok, so its a question of rights, even if the right is wrong. Ok then, sorry.

Oh and btw... I hate conan. I mentioned some cool guys man!!! Bruce and Wayne... come on, the least you could have done was comparing us to some cool guys also, historical or fictional, like Richard the Lionheart, King Arthur, or Hugh de Payens.

Now... owning a huge military arsenal cant compare to having a huge collection of swords and bows of all types.

Unfortunatly I cant really use my weapons of choice in my country neither...

First off We don't get to own M 16's in the way that people that have no real understanding of American life outside of Hollywood portrays it.

You can have a full automatic weapon if you possess a class III license. Not many people can afford the lic. let alone the weapon. Now we can have a semi auto version of that weapon. What most current and X military would call an M Forgery. Checkout any of the gun news groups. It's a pretty common term.

Why should we not be able to have a weapon like that. In reality they make great hunting rifles. Longer barrel AR type rifles can send that 223/55.56 round a good distance and they are really easy to carry around all day. Some people might want them because they believe that the government is up to no good and they want to be prepared. It's funny on a site like this that would be seen as being a nut. I guess we are just supposed to talk about it and not do a thing. Many Americans are just not wired that way. WE want to not only deny ignorance but want to be able to make a stand to keep said ignorance out of our back yards.

Ask about any concealed carry lic holder. You qualify on a target at 21 feet. This is because most all armed conflicts happen at this range. and if you shoot someone outside of this range more often than not you will get a court date for using unneeded force. So it's not some Hollywood cowboy thing.

Man..I wish people that lived in other countries actually learned more about the states. It's not like on the movies. Everyone does not own an M 16 and RPG. There are a ton of gun laws on the books already. We feel like our rights are being wrenched from us. Many of us feel that you start the dominoes falling it will get easier and easier to take more.

reply to post by MilitieTempliSalmo


Sorry about the Conan thing, it's the only sword yielding movie personality I know of other than blade.

And you are correct, Willis and Wayne are pretty cool, but you left out Eastwood.

And to address the right even if it is wrong; it is not a question of whether or not it is right or wrong, if I concede one single right to my government, they will surely take as much as they can get. These people, as history would dictate, do not know when to stop. Although I would most likely own a few firearms if I didn't have grandchildren living with me, I am not particularly pro guns. I do however wish to be able to fend off an attack on my family whether it be from a criminal or my own government. Lets be real for a minute, I understand you prefer blades and that is fine, but the guy coming into my house be he criminal or government is going to prefer a firearm 99 times out of 100 and 100 out of 100 if it is government.

There is an old saying here; "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

I honestly mean you no discontent as you are probably a very decent fellow. But I am rather firm in my contention that my rights (whether or not I choose to exercise them) be protected at all cost. Over the course of our "short" history, well over a million people have lost their lives defending my "rights", I do not wish to soil their sacrifice by just giving them away without a fight.

We as a people in this country took on the world super power at the time to get these rights and by the looks of it, we may have to do so again to keep them.

And if I have confused you with the way I defended my country in this thread and speak poorly of my own government (could appear to be hypocritical) let me explain the way I view a patriot vs. a false patriot. A patriot defends his country, a false patriot defends his government. Germany was full of false patriots as is the USA right now; however, after Hitler fell, guess what Germany is still there. Long after the government here ceases to exist, the country will remain. Governments throughout history have come and gone, but the countries remain. I love the United States; however, I detest the manner in which government is trying to ruin it. I don't know where you live or what type of government you have there. Here it is supposed to be of, for, and by the people. The government should not have power over the people it was intended to be the other way around, the same thing with the Constitution and bill of rights. The government has zero authority over the Constitution.

This is how I see it, the people "created" the Constitution, the Constitution in turn "created" the government. This places the command structure as follows. The people are above the Constitution as it was "created" by them and the Constitution is above the government as it was created by the Constitution. The created can never be above the creator; however, there are people in this country (government) that simply do not understand this. The government cannot take something away that its own creator granted. It's just that simple. If you believe in God, I am sure you understand that God created man, and thus man has no authority over God. It is the exact same principle.

We are supposed to be represented by our elected officials. Represented does not mean they think for us, it means they speak for us. We are the brain, they are the mouth. Unfortunately it has become completely disoriented in the last 30 years or so. Here is a good example; recently the American people opposed the banking bailout and by an exceptionally high percentage (80%) yet the government did it anyway. This is NOT representation. We did not hire these people to think for us, we hired them to be our voice. Every 6 months or so my representative sends me a pamphlet telling me of all the wonderful things he has done for me, yet never asked me once how he should vote on the matters. It would be far less expensive to set up a web site and post what the agenda for the upcoming session of congress is and ask how we want him to vote on each issue, tally up the votes and vote according to the wishes of those he represents. His opinion means exactly two things, jack and squat. He is paid to voice what we say, not what he wants or believes. Give the people all of the information regarding the issue and let them decide what to do, that is how "representation" works.

An elected official's only input to this should be the casting of his own vote on the website as he is afforded the same input as we are. It's not a matter of what is right or wrong, what he likes or dislikes, what he believes or doesn't believe; it is a matter of what the people want, that is his job. My opinion is this, if I work for someone and do the opposite of what they tell me I get fired, we need to start firing politicians. My guess would be that after 50 or 60 get fired, the remaining politicians will get the big picture and conform to our wishes in order to keep their jobs. Our problem is that as a whole we lack the gumption to do that which needs to be done. I am not suggesting a revolution, I am simply suggesting that we fire the people that do not know how to do their jobs the exact same way we would be fired if we did not do what we were paid to do.

The last thing I am going to discuss is lobbyist. If there are any lobbyist at all this indicates that the politicians are following or could potentially follow their wishes. Again this is not representing the people, it is representing the lobbyist's employers....FIRED! Lobbyist should not be allowed at all, period. We live in a world of technology, the only thing needed to properly do the job is the internet or snail mail which would incur huge costs. 2 or 3 people could easily run the web page for each representative which is FAR fewer people than they already use, thus saving the taxpayers even more money. There are far too many outside voices being heard and nearly no voice being heard from the people as the banking bailout would attest to.

Like I said I do not know how your country's government is set up or how it is suppose to operate, but that is how ours is "suppose" to operate, and that is simply not the case.

We the people need to reclaim our country.

[edit on 1/28/2009 by DarrylGalasso]

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
reply to post by MilitieTempliSalmo

 

We as a people in this country took on the world super power at the time to get these rights and by the looks of it, we may have to do so again to keep them.

[edit on 1/28/2009 by DarrylGalasso]

You may well be right. It still escapes me how that can seen as being a nut..cowboy..hell..I can't remember all of the bad things we are anymore

reply to post by MilitieTempliSalmo

I like your choice, though I personally would go with a couple of double edged blades along the same design as the sai. And in a survival situaltion, I would most difinitely have my recurve, plenty a broadheads, and a few field tips. (Never know when that squirrel or rabbit might pop up.) I think I'd go for a couple of boot knives as well, but that's just me.
I's still have my hand gun on my hip. I'm going to take every advantage I can get.

reply to post by rangersdad


At the time of the post the body of the bill was gone. As I had pointed out it may have been because the committee that was working on it revised the wording.

The LAW that this AMENDMENT is tacked on to already exists people. If one were to read the entirety of the law one would see that it also includes the Brady Law and other amendments to it that have been passed long ago.

H.R. 45 is the subject of this thread, This AMENDMENT simply changes a few words, this does NOTHING to take anyone's gun away from them. Sorry OP, but frankly this thread is alarmist without any real research done on it. What you have found is an amendment to an existing law, the provisions provided requires licensing for people to buy a gun, something that most states require anyway.

What this bill is intended for is stricter penalties for people who buy guns illegally. Most states already require the registration of firearms. Up until this bill, there wasn't much anyone could do about it unless the states themselves had a law in place.

As I have stated before, this bill won't make it any harder for you to obtain a gun, you still will be able to get your firearms. However what it will do is give you more protection under the law for those legally purchased guns. It is a provision that however will punish those that purchase firearms illegally and do not register their guns.

For the record, I am very pro gun myself, It is our right as Americans to keep and bear arms. I have used many different types of guns throughout my life and probably have fired off more guns than some in this thread.

If people would actually read the entirety of the law this bill is amending they would see that the OP is being quite alarmist about his response. A usual case when anyone dares to propose any sort of gun legislation. People see the word firearm or gun in a bill and immediately think the government is going to take away their guns. People don't bother to research the bill itself and see what it states. But hey, 50% of Americans are illiterate anyway so it doesn't surprise me.

reply to post by whatukno


The depths you are willing to descend are amazing. Naturally you are fabricating the entire post that I am now replying to...

Actual HR 45 PDF Document

A BILL
To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing
for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of
sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.

The Brady Bill

SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

`(B) any firearm that--

`(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;

`(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

`(iii) is an antique firearm;

`(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

`(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

The fact that a firearm is not listed in Appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from Appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect. `(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

`(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or

`(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.

(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12

I do believe you are spreading disinformation whatukno! HR 45 is in fact a BILL and what is even worse the intent is to also do another "Assault Weapon Ban" since the Brady Bill is the Assault Weapon Ban. By the way "GUN BANS" do in fact INFRINGE along with LICENSES.

On this thread there is no greater lie than this quote by YOU...

This AMENDMENT simply changes a few words, this does NOTHING to take anyone's gun away from them. Sorry OP, but frankly this thread is alarmist without any real research done on it. What you have found is an amendment to an existing law, the provisions provided requires licensing for people to buy a gun, something that most states require anyway.

This BILL establishes a FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE that mandates...
1)PHOTO ID
2)THUMB PRINT
3)TESTING
4)FEES
5)PRIVILEGE GRANTING
6)FEDERAL DATABASE
7)PLENTY MORE BUT TO PISSED TO TYPE

All of this INFRINGES on the 2nd Amendment and playing along removes the gun owners 4th and 5th Amendment protections.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by Alpha_Magnum]

Started a new thread about the antithesis of this bill

HR 17 CITIZENS SELF DEFENSE ACT OF 2009

Let's push back!!!

Originally posted by whatukno

H.R. 45 is the subject of this thread, This AMENDMENT simply changes a few words, this does NOTHING to take anyone's gun away from them.

I'll type this slowly, so it's easier to read...again.

The first step to taking guns away from law abiding citizens would be to have a detailed list of those guns and who was in possession of them.

Making up fabricated disinformation to suit your purpose will not keep others from reading the actual wording, unless they believe it.

If counting the little blue stars in this thread is any indication of that, someone appears to be wasting their time in doing so.

reply to post by Alpha_Magnum


Let's see if I can make this any more understandable. Unfortunately your not getting the point...

...Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection...

Ok now see this above? does everyone see this line right here? Does everyone understand that I am talking about Section 922 of title 18 USC? Is this part clear? This is a law, already passed, already in place, has been for some time. Is this understandable?

ok, if that part is perfectly clear ill move on...

In 1994 Congress AMENDED Section 922 of title 18 USC with the Brady Bill. Ok, does everyone understand this? Is this part perfectly clear or do we have to discuss amendments to previously passed laws? Let's assume that we have figured out that part.

Now let's look at H.R. 45, the subject of this heated and boringly alarmist thread...
H.R.45

22 TITLE I—LICENSING
23 SEC. 101. LICENSING REQUIREMENT.
24 Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is
25 amended by adding at the end the following:
26 ‘‘(aa) FIREARM LICENSING REQUIREMENT.—

•HR 45 IH
(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a fire arm license—

Ok now does everyone understand what I am talking about? I am talking about section 922 title 18 USC. I am talking about a law that has already passed, has been law for some time now and that the Brady law is a part of and the subject of this thread is looking to AMEND! Is this clear to everyone?

Ok now that we understand each other and why our guns aren't being taken away let's look once again at the wording of the existing Section 922 title 18 USC shall we?

18 USC Sec. 922 01/03/2007

-EXPCITE-

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I - CRIMES

CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS

-HEAD-

Sec. 922. Unlawful acts

-STATUTE-

(a) It shall be unlawful -

(1) for any person -

(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or

licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing,

manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such

business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in

interstate or foreign commerce; or

(B) except a licensed importer or licensed manufacturer, to

engage in the business of importing or manufacturing

ammunition, or in the course of such business, to ship,

transport, or receive any ammunition in interstate or foreign

commerce;

(2) for any importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector

licensed under the provisions of this chapter to ship or

transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm to any

person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer,

licensed dealer, or licensed collector, except that -

(A) this paragraph and subsection (b)(3) shall not be held to

preclude a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed

dealer, or licensed collector from returning a firearm or

replacement firearm of the same kind and type to a person from

whom it was received; and this paragraph shall not be held to

preclude an individual from mailing a firearm owned in

compliance with Federal, State, and local law to a licensed

importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed

collector;

Does anything look familiar? Once you see it you will understand why this entire thread is alarmist for absolutely no reason whatsoever. No one is planning on taking your guns away, no one in our government is trashing the bill of rights. All this amendment is doing is rewording some parts of an already existing law.

As I have said before, read the entire law before rushing to think that any legislation that is passed before the house that has the words gun or firearm means the government is planning on taking your guns away. This is ridiculous sad and pathetic.

Please stop getting angry at me for pointing out the obvious. Read what is already there, it's plain and simple. This bill is an amendment to an already existing law. The Brady Bill is an amendment to an already existing law. ANY GUN LAW IS AN AMENDMENT TO AN ALREADY EXISTING LAW.

I don't know how to make it more clear than that. Already people are supposed to have a licence to have a gun. This bill just makes it so everyone who has a gun has to have a licence. People who transport firearms have to have a licence, people who manufacture guns have to have a licence, people who sell guns have to have a licence. What is the big deal if someone who wants to buy a gun has to have a licence?

If you want something to get up in arms about read the entire Section 922 title 18 USC law and your going to find plenty to get pissed about for good reason. But hey, let's not do that, lets instead just get mad at every crappy piece of legislation that comes through the congress.

reply to post by lernmore


Imagine that , some odd person insists that...

Paying money
Photo ID
Finger print ID
Federal database
& Changing a Preexisting Right
into a PRIVILEGE

do not according to him/her/it INFRINGE ahahahahahah

reply to post by Alpha_Magnum


When you understand that you can still buy a gun even if this law passes you will realise that your argument is gone.

Yes you do have a right to keep and bear arms, yes you do. If this bill passes (GASP) you still will have the right to keep and bear arms ASTOUNDING!

If you take the time to read Section 922 title 18 USC your gonna find that there are things in that law that should piss you off. Don't be mad at me. I didn't do it. Be mad at our lawmakers.

But hey it's easier to get mad at me and ignore what is real. Im just someone sitting at a desk typing on a computer screen. Don't worry about reading anything, just see gun legislation and assume that it means they are taking away your guns. Thats right be a good lil alarmist. Throw a hissy fit, go ahead, it will make you feel better.

[edit on 1/28/2009 by whatukno]

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Alpha_Magnum

 

When you understand that you can still buy a gun even if this law passes you will realise that your argument is gone.

Yes you do have a right to keep and bear arms, yes you do. If this bill passes (GASP) you still will have the right to keep and bear arms ASTOUNDING!

If you take the time to read Section 922 title 18 USC your gonna find that there are things in that law that should piss you off. Don't be mad at me. I didn't do it. Be mad at our lawmakers.

But hey it's easier to get mad at me and ignore what is real. Im just someone sitting at a desk typing on a computer screen. Don't worry about reading anything, just see gun legislation and assume that it means they are taking away your guns. Thats right be a good lil alarmist. Throw a hissy fit, go ahead, it will make you feel better.

[edit on 1/28/2009 by whatukno]

Here another entire post of nonsense that shows how far down you are. HR45 clearly INFRINGES the 2nd Amendment by converting a PREEXISTING RIGHT INTO A PRIVILEGE among other things. Then you start the ad hominem business at the end and so I will simply report the post.

reply to post by Alpha_Magnum


look the only reason I reported your post was because you called me a liar, I might be an idiot, but I am not a liar.

Anywho, if you just take the time to read the existing law, your gonna find plenty to be pissed about and for good reason.

This bill does nothing and I mean absolutely nothing to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. A licence is not infringement. They don't specify who is able to obtain a licence, (That's because it's already in the existing law who can and cannot have a gun.) If you bother to calm down a little and actually read the existing law in place already you will see who can and cannot legally own a firearm in this country.

I haven't fabricated anything in any response in this thread. Not one thing. I am just pointing out the obvious.

Originally posted by whatukno

I don't know how to make it more clear than that. Already people are supposed to have a licence to have a gun. This bill just makes it so everyone who has a gun has to have a licence.

Stop making things up. Nowhere does it say that people are already supposed to have a license to have a gun

Lets take the state I live in for example.

Rifles and
Shotguns / / Handguns


Permit to Purchase No No*
Registration of Firearms No No*
Licensing of Owners No No*
Permit to Carry No Yes
*Police record is made of purchases from dealers.


POSSESSION

There are no state licensing requirements for the possession of rifles, shotguns or handguns.

NRA LINK


Still with me?

Before
---------------------------------------------------------
After



Now let's look at H.R. 45,
H.R.45

22 TITLE I—LICENSING
23 SEC. 101. LICENSING REQUIREMENT.
24 Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is
25 amended by adding at the end the following:
26 ‘‘(aa) FIREARM LICENSING REQUIREMENT.—

•HR 45 IH
(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a fire arm license—

Can you see the difference?

Nobody here has been saying that our guns are being taken away like you claim!
That's not the point.

The point is that we are allowed to be in possession of firearms without having to put our names on a list to submit to the government that we are supposed to be in control of.

HR45 would change that, and that is NOT acceptable.

It is NOT a privilege, it is a RIGHT.
Requiring a license makes it a privilege!

What do you not understand?

[edit on 28-1-2009 by lernmore]

Star and Flag. This is just the begining for these gun grabbing socialists. This is why there has been a boom in the arms industry here in the USA. Combine this with the ridiculous pork in the new economic aid package and you may see pitchforks at the capitol very soon.

One sentence comes to mind. "From my cold, dead hands."

[edit on 28-1-2009 by on_yur_6]