H.R.45

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Gun owners have been fighting the license requirement for years and there seems to be two reasons. One, it creates a national database of firearms owners, which they believe will ultimately be used against them (and they're probably right). Second, a licensing requirement can effectively be turned into a ban on firearms owners if you make the requirements for licensing so steep that no one can qualify.

I've heard of cities doing similar things with handgun registrations. Want a handgun? You have to fill out a permit form available only at the city clerk's office. So, you go to pick one up, and, you guessed it: for some reason, the office is never supplied with the forms. The handgun registration, as a result, essentially becomes a handgun ban, because the permit applications are never made available or are printed in such low quantities that they're always out.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


There is a great deal of ignorance at hand that seems to create a problem. The Constitution makes it clear that the Right to bear arms is in place so that the citizens of the USA need not face tyranny unarmed. The word INFRINGED is used and that means that CONGRESS has NOTHING that it can say or do about a RIGHT that is UNALIENABLE. If the People are deprived of a way to defend themselves from crime or tyranny than our Constitutional Republic will die!

Being forced to take a picture or supply a finger print or a list of any arms that the citizens own violates the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment since we must assume that the government will conduct searches based on laws that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I submit that the "Drivers License" in and of itself is beyond the scope of this discussion since there is no Right to Drive found in the US Constitution and it is then regulative. In accordance with the Bill of Rights the government is seeking more and more power. It will be stopped but it will not be pretty.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by Alpha_Magnum]

reply to post by Alpha_Magnum

I guess I am dumb then, I did not realize that owning a gun was a constitutionally protected right. If that is true then there would not be a need for gun laws would there? I mean I have the right to free speech with no limits, correct? So you are saying that's just like the right to own a gun, the same thing, or maybe I still dont understand.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


No disrespect meant or intended but guns are what protect yours and all of our right to free speech. This is just one more step in their plan to disarm the American public. If that did in fact happen do you think it would stop there? Again no disrespect intended but I think if your were to think of the broader picture here you may see where we are coming from.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


SCOTUS has already ruled that the 1st Amendment is limited. I don't remember the name of the case but you can't yell Fire Fire Fire in a movie theater if there is no fire or something like that. A license is a form of regulation that attacks the Civil Liberty directly. Shall Not Be Infringed assures the Citizens that the government has no power to regulate guns. Naturally they do each and every day but I assure you that all of it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Here I can add the numerous George Washington GUN quotes but google them yourself and read. Most of us that hunt and fish already have licenses and this type of license falls into the area of regulative since there is no "Right to Hunt". In the past if I wanted to obtain a shotgun all I needed to do is produce proof of age and if not then show up with my dad. Most of my guns were bought prior to the federal purchasers card with money from my paper route and my dad's blessing (he got to shoot everything I bought).

Imagine if you had a death in the family and became depressed. Your doctor in the past would have prescribed Valium but now they prescribe anti-depressants. Even though you never committed a crime and have ultimately gotten over your depression anti-depressant use even if discontinued will cause a denial. If your parent passed away and left you their arms you would be forced to turn them in or face a felony charge if the license was denied for any reason.

This serves the government's purpose well since the majority of gun owners are law abiding and will not want to be considered felons and so will "Do the right thing" even though it is the Wrong Thing.

reply to post by WSPfan

"all of you right-wing gun nuts "

... might you be reminded of the General ATS Discussion Etiquette.

Broad-brushed generalizations typically equate to individual Assumptions... the downside to such being associating one's self with the first three letters of the latter.

'tis best to form and postulate one's own opinion, at all times.

just sayin'....

Originally posted by WSPfan
Funny how all of you right-wing gun nuts overlook the WELL REGULATED portion of the amendment. Doesn't matter anyway. Bills like this get written up ALL the time. It doesn't mean anything, it would never see the light of day, I promise. To me it sounds like most of you just want to start some type of revolution. Maybe not even a bad idea, but let us look at REAL and BETTER reasons than some house bill that is written simple to stir the pot.

Funny how you over look the words of the men who created this country.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. (Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. (Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).)

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...(George Mason)

[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. (Zacharia Johnson)

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. (The Virginia delegation)

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
(Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.)

We The People Are Militia.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by C0le]

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


I apologize. I certainly did not mean to infer that the guy on page 1 who threatened to shoot anyone who tried to take his guns was a right-wing gun nut. My bad. SHOOT AWAY!!!

when does this bill go into effect?

Originally posted by WSPfan
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

 

I apologize. I certainly did not mean to infer that the guy on page 1 who threatened to shoot anyone who tried to take his guns was a right-wing gun nut. ...

Huh?

Funny how all of you right-wing gun nuts overlook the...

Which one?!

Originally posted by b3r6a8d8
when does this bill go into effect?

NEVER! It never will. People on here are doing what both right and left sides do. Fear mongering to their side. This bill will NEVER pass. Bills with crazy ideas and crap like this are written all the time. It will never become law.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
I have said it before and I will say it again now.

In the event that guns are outlawed I, as a good citizen, must obey the law and turn in my guns and ammunition. I will do this with great haste and due diligence. I will first turn in all bullets and may even purchase more since I have mechanical means in my hands to render them no longer able to be fired. In the interest of fairness I will give one or two to as many elected officials as I can find so none may feel left out or particularly special. I ask all good Americans to do no less.

reply to post by WSPfan

A well regulated militia means that those in the militia will ascertain who will be in charge and who has the most experience to lead should the need ever arise. You should read the Federalist Papers. They explain almost all of the reasoning behind the bill of rights as well as the heated discussions that took place to arrive at the language used. It helps if you know what it is before you try to denegrate those that do!

Zindo

reply to post by C0le



That is awesome. Great quotes. I am sure that is what ALL founding fathers felt. Surely it wasn't meant be flexible to ANY interpretation. So what did they mean by WELL REGULATED? Just asking? Did they have anything to say about what that part means?

reply to post by ZindoDoone


I am not denegrating your views. I just think the well regulated part is overlooked and not up to ANY interpretation ever. I am not worried in the slightest that this bill will pass. No one is taking your guns. I just wish that ALL of us could get up in arms, pardon the pun, over the raping of our economy by the elite instead of worrying about an ignorant bill that will never become law.

I will admit it, I am a gun nut. I am also a freedom nut, to me they go hand in hand! I will not give up either, nor will many of my fellow Americans. On the day they try and take our freedoms people will be glad to know that us "gun nuts" are still around.

reply to post by b3r6a8d8


Well a bill needs to go through the House (this one started there) then the Senate and then the President and then it is a Law. The thing about this is that we pay the representatives to write just and Constitutional laws. They see the Constitution's Bill of Rights as an action item agenda list to nullify. We the adults that pay these people are being treated like inferiors or children that would all perish if they didn't muck about.

I posted this thread since HR45 is only a bill at this point. Naturally it is better that I brought it up now then if I waited till the President signed it into law. We must discuss this, post about this, write our congress persons about this, write the SCOTUS about this and if needed PROTEST THIS! The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment.

Originally posted by WSPfan
reply to post by ZindoDoone

 

I just wish that ALL of us could get up in arms, pardon the pun, over the raping of our economy by the elite

I agree with you on that point, there should be mass outrage over this! I guess it will take more than this to get the masses "up in arms" and disarming or trying to would do it.

Originally posted by WSPfan

Originally posted by b3r6a8d8
when does this bill go into effect?

NEVER! It never will. People on here are doing what both right and left sides do. Fear mongering to their side. This bill will NEVER pass. Bills with crazy ideas and crap like this are written all the time. It will never become law.

How do you know? The assault weapon ban happened and now that it expired this is just the thing to happen next. The correct thing to say is that now that we know this bill is in the House we will take steps to ensure that it dies a swift death. Your method says that we should simply "Have faith" in what? God or the Government? Why even post on this thread?

reply to post by Reaper106



By then I fear there will be very little left to defend with your arms except the right to keep them. Republican, Democrat, Bush, Obama, it doesn't matter, they have ALL failed us. They have fed us so much devisive dribble through the feeding tube of the MSM that we are at war with each other instead of with the powers that be which pull all of the strings like some sad and sadistic marionette show.