H.R.45

page: 18
67
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
----------Concluded From Above------------


Originally posted by ADVISOR
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
...there are several easy ways not to contract (verbally) when you are presented in front of the judge ("How do you plead?" ...Your Honor, I plead the Blood of Jesus Christ"...you will be amazed to see what happens.


I bet they would think your crazy, it would be a kodak moment none the less, to capture the faces after hearing that plea.

Actually, a better bet would be to declare "innocent." When the judge says that you can only chose guilty or not guilty, I'd reply that since the Supreme Law of the Land declares me as "innocent until proven guilty" & this court cannot honor the Law, then this is an unlawful venue in a court that has no authority to to even Hear, let alone Judge, this case.

That's right...Make 'em prove themselves as a valid authority under a valid Article 3 jurisdiction to even hear any facts of the case.

Geez, 17 pages of thread when I first saw it & now it's so late that I just post what I've got...And I've only so far covered the first 6 pages. Wish me luck later & I'll hope for your patience.




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
As I have stated before if you look at the provided law, you will see things in there that will make you justifiably angry.

What I keep hearing in this thread is "The first steps in taking our guns away" Well folks, sorry to inform you but those first steps have already been taken years ago. Your getting upset now? Over a piece of paper? The law that already exists limits your constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

This bill only affects those people that the previous law already has infringed on. Not those that do still have the right to keep and bear arms.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
As I have stated before if you look at the provided law, you will see things in there that will make you justifiably angry.

What I keep hearing in this thread is "The first steps in taking our guns away" Well folks, sorry to inform you but those first steps have already been taken years ago. Your getting upset now? Over a piece of paper? The law that already exists limits your constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

This bill only affects those people that the previous law already has infringed on. Not those that do still have the right to keep and bear arms.


Here is what you said...


Originally posted by whatukno
Two sides to this coin here, while yes this resolution does seem on it's surface to infringe on Americans constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms one must ask does it make it so?

No, it doesn't, it simply makes people personaly responsible for the firearms they do own. (Not that this bill would stop anyone who wished to get a firearm illegally anyway. People have been doing that unabated for years.)

Today you have to submit all sorts of personal information just to buy a firearm legally anyway. If you can buy a gun legally anyway this "licence" would just be a formality. If you weren't for some reason able to buy a firearm for any reason, you obviously wouldn't qualify for a licence to own a gun to begin with.

This of course on the heels of news that Victims say masked gunman responsible for Miami shootings


MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Miami police issued a plea for information Saturday after at least one person with an assault rifle opened fire on a crowd of people on a streetcorner Friday night, killing two teens and wounding seven other people.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


H.R. 6257 has yet to pass the house at this point (it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security), assault weapons are again being allowed legally on the streets.

With the economy in the tank, people unemployed, suffering, and angry. Violence does tend to go up. Couple that with states whose budgets are being affected by the recession and having to cut back on city services like law enforcement it is a recipe for disaster like the news story above.
 


Safety at what cost?

It doesn't appear that this bill will make it any harder for a law abiding citizen to get a firearm legally. What it does however, it makes it harder for those who do have criminal backgrounds to obtain a firearm legally, which would make it more difficult for law enforcement officials to track guns and prevent crime. A criminal who is able to get a gun legally does so with the knowledge that the firearm that he has purchased is tagged to him alone, any crime committed by this individual with that firearm is more easily tracked to that person, allowing law enforcement a necessary tool in my opinion to track and apprehend that person.

If this bill passes, what happens to that person who has a criminal background? He simply goes to someone who has a gun and buys it under the table, thereby bringing another unregistered gun onto the streets. Or he steals a gun from someone who has obtained his firearm legally making the law abiding gun owner more culpable for any action that the person that stole his gun makes.


Your memory of the nonsense you typed yesterday must have faded and morphed into the nonsense of today.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Alpha_Magnum
 


I think that at this point your just seeing my username and trying your best to argue for the simple fact it was me that posted.

But anyway, if you actually read the law that has already passed years ago, what you will find are things that do infringe on your constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Those things you would have a point with, those things I would wholeheartedly agree with you on. It's those things that do infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. Not a licence. A piece of paper does not infringe on your right. It doesn't say that you can't have a gun, it says that you have to have this piece of paper along with your gun. You still get your gun. How does you having your gun infringe on your right to have a gun? Thats my point.

Nothing else has changed, as far as my position on this amendment bill is concerned. It's just become a fruitless futile attempt at showing the truth to a matter. This bill does nothing additional to take anyone's gun away from them. All it does is better protect the gun owner, but just because it's legislation its automatically assumed it's infringement. Of course without reading and comprehending the entire bill one would not understand that.

If your not going to read and comprehend the matter, don't bother arguing.

For years now, if you make firearms, you are required to have a licence. For years now, if you sell guns you are required to have a licence. For years now, if you transport guns you are required to have a licence. Now that it is you the consumer that may be required to have a licence it's infringement? How about all those people above? Aren't they then being infringed on? If they aren't, why not?

Is it infringement of your right to keep and bear arms that people are required to have a licence for a concealed weapon? In my opinion its a formality that actually more protects the person with the gun.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
I think that at this point your just seeing my username and trying your best to argue for the simple fact it was me that posted.


No, what is happening is that you are riding the thread and loosing track of what you said. I merely pointed out that the one quote you made contradicted the other quote you posted. You have argued with everyone on this thread and to no avail. You have defeated yourself and you keep whipping a dead horse. HR45 foists a whole new layer of insanity upon the Citizenry that simply will not be acceptable. You actually insist that this is, "(paraphrasing) Good for gun owners!" Nonsense!

You are the one riding the thread and being the OP I will reply to any post on this thread. I'm not going to be intimidated by you or suddenly pop out with a, "Dang! You are right and what was I thinking?" I'm not going to go back over all of your wild assertions and hubris posts since it is you that pretends that converting a RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE is a NON INFRINGING ACT.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Now we have another one coming to light.
Another thread has been started. This one has true trickery in it. The items in it seem good. The problem is what is does not say. It try's to define what the right to bear arms would be. Hunting etc. It does not include the right to face the Govt or Tyranny.

HR 17

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

This is just great. The keep us busy defending the constitutional rights and they are robbing the Treasury at the same time. And we know it was really important to have the cell phone camera's make a click noise.
The Govt. is just insane.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by j2000]

Had to Edit link as they moved the Thread off of the Front page


[edit on 29-1-2009 by j2000]

[edit on 29-1-2009 by j2000]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 


So do you disagree that we have the right to defend ourselves from people who wish to do us harm? I am confused. I agree with H.R. 17, I think that if someone is going to break into your house you should have the right to put many large holes in him using the largest calibre weapon you can get your hands on.

But I guess ill be yelled at about that too. :shk:



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by j2000
 


So do you disagree that we have the right to defend ourselves from people who wish to do us harm? I am confused. I agree with H.R. 17, I think that if someone is going to break into your house you should have the right to put many large holes in him using the largest calibre weapon you can get your hands on.

But I guess ill be yelled at about that too. :shk:



No I actually agree with you.
What I was pointing out on the other thread is you have to be careful of Law language when it provides a definition of a Constitutional right.
My problem with HR 17 has nothing to do with what it says, it's what it does not say that could be allowed to define and undermine the 2nd Amendment.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 


H.R. 17 is a National Castle Doctrine bill. It makes it legal to use lethal force against anyone who accosts you with death threats or harm to you or your family or loved ones in any place, at any time you have a right to be. It takes the patchwork laws and melds them into a law more akin to old English law of self protection.

There's another bill (H.R. 197) also to make one set of rules under the commerce clause in the constitution to make national carry legal in every state if you have a CCW from your state. It is:

righttruth.typepad.com...

Zindo

Thanks Rangers Dad for the correction!

[edit on 1/29/2009 by ZindoDoone]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Leave to the Dems to screw things up. Most people will abide by this law, as most will protest and refuse to turn their guns and ammo. The dems want us to be disarm and easy to control. Too make wave for the new world order. Our ecomony is in the dumps and this what they want to work on. Millions of layoff workers looking for a job and they want to pass a gun control law. When the people had enough of them they will rise up and start prostesting againest them. The goverment will be able to control them because the will have no guns. There nation out there who wants us dead and this will make their job easier. Nobody dare invades us because of us owning guns like we can. So easier put. We will have a fight on ours hands and if this leads to a conflict then so be it. We can not sit ilde while this is going on. Call your state rep and seantors and make them hear us.

Wyoming



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
For years now, if you make firearms, you are required to have a licence. For years now, if you sell guns you are required to have a licence. For years now, if you transport guns you are required to have a licence. Now that it is you the consumer that may be required to have a licence it's infringement? How about all those people above? Aren't they then being infringed on? If they aren't, why not?


Here's the flaw in this.

Those who manufacture, transport, or sell arms will not be the individuals firing their weapons at the government if, God forbid, they end up needing to exercise their 2nd amendment rights because it got out of control.

Agreeing to hold your cards backward while you play poker, so the other players can see what you're holding, would be equally as dumb.

History, as well as the actions of our politicians, has already demonstrated that those in power have no problem turning rights into privileges, and then restricting them to the point that individuals are labeled as criminals.

Even at one micron per hour, eventually you will end up traveling a mile.

While it may not immediately affect our ability as law abiding citizens to protect our families and property, it does get one step closer to giving a corrupt government an unfair advantage in disarming the people it wants absolute, and complete control over.

The argument that, because other rights have also been taken away, one more is harmless, is delusional, and clearly shows an inability to see the larger picture.



P.S. I understand your support for the right to keep and bear arms, which is noble, but disregarding this proposed legislation as just a piece of paper, is not in the best interest of us...we the people.


Peace



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


I think you have a typo there..it should read HR 197...not just HR 97.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I think we should ban cars, because they kill more then guns do and even with licenses to drive, people still can't seem to figure out how not to kill people with them. Sometimes they are used in criminal activity and can be used to injure or kill many people at one time.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


Outstanding post!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Last time I checked, automobiles aren't a protected right under the constitution, not that I agree with having to register them.

From a ruling made by the US Supreme Court & upheld in various State Supreme Courts in well over 100 separate cases over the time of several decades is that people have the Inherent, Inalienable Right to Travel Freely on public roads and to transport personal belongings.

DoT & DMV regulations are just that: Regulations with an enforceable jurisdiction over only official (government) & commercial traffic. As a private citizen going about your private affairs, the only thing that the Feds & the States have been doing is to unlawfully extend commercial jurisdiction through deception to include the Common Law private citizen.


I do not mean to sound argumentative as that is not my purpose. I have never heard of these cases, could you please cite a few of them? This could be some useful information when trying to combat a traffic infraction in court.

[edit on 1/30/2009 by DarrylGalasso]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


You obviously failed civics 101...

#1 Owning a firearm IS a Constitutional RIGHT, see the 2nd amendement of the bill of rights!

#2 A drivers license is a privelege, NOT a constitutional right!



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
The old pro gun argument is wrong, at least for true patriots.

The argument being that "If they ban firearms only criminals will have firearms"

Now this is accurate to an extent and actually more so, Yes your run of the mill street thug law breaking punks will most certainly wield overwhelming firepower over the rest of us "law abiding citizens", However a true patriot of this republic will never submit to these unconstitutional trespasses, They will retain their arms and through unjust and unconstitutional legislation become criminals themselves, and lets pray that when that day comes we give new meaning to the word criminal.

Don't tread on me.


Star for you! Amen brother!!

A famous man once said to the undead,..."Come get some!"

They can disarm me when I'm dead.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by vor78
 


I think the punishment aspect of this bill is more of the point than to limit who can get a firearm. Think about it. If someone after this bill is in possession of a firearm without a licence they would be committing a felony and they would be punished under a federal crime. Whereas now it would be under state guidelines as to what punishment they would receive for that same violation. (if any)


And what happens to felons? They lose their right to vote and the right to own a firearm.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
I find it a good thing that the constitution can be changed. The fact of the matter is American society is too unhinged when it comes to the gun issue. The number of gun obsessed, paranoid, unstable individuals is too great. I find it unsettling that safety checks upset some people so much. I think people really do cling to guns, like conservative religion, because they lack anything else in their lives. My time in Sociology has seemed to always support this. The weapon romance is a rather disgusting thing.





new topics
top topics
 
67
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join