Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

H.R.45

page: 4
67
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
If guns kill people, then isnt it true that spoons make people fat?
Ban spoons to stop obesity!
Just think of all the lives it will save!





posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Although the Second Amendment has always been open for interpretation, I also realize that the level of firepower they were discussing then vs. what modern day firearms provide was probably unimagined when it was written. And thus that alone spawns the controversy between gun owners and gun abolitionists, neither seeming to understand the other side's issues.

Gun owners enjoy the sport (target and hunting) and protection afforded by being armed. They fear regulation (banning), believe that one day the Gov't will come for their guns and declare it a right afforded by our Founding Fathers.

Abolitionists fear the weapon, have seen the havoc created by just one armed person, and recognize that many criminals simply steal the weapons from other citizens to use against them. They want more regulation and trust the Law to protect them (cops and the legal system).

To me, I think there can be a middle ground between the two although those leaning heavily in one direction or the other would probably disagree anyway. But clear lines should be drawn and understood with current laws regarding the use of a gun in the commission of a crime followed more strictly by our courts system.

I recently heard Pat Buchanan state that the only firearms that should be banned are those that require a hitch to move. I think that a bit extreme but that seems to be where some draw the line. They argue over terms like "assualt" weapon or semi vs. full automatic. Even the term "arms" could be construed as more than a gun; it could be a cannon, a sword, or a hand grenade. I believe our Founding Fathers were advocating the musket at the time and by insuring that each of us had the right to own one was the only way to keep our young republic safe...from the British, the "Indians" and our own scoundrels. It made sense then...today, not as much considering the arms (fire power) that we face. The person thinking that they can "protect" themselves vs. the modern weaponry wielded by our police forces and military are delusional. If you truly fear that the U.S. Government formed of, by and for the People would wage a veritable war against those People over guns, then you may want to reconsider your paranoia.

Rifles are used for hunting game, pistols are used for killing humans. To me, no rifle with a legitimate hunting use should need be registered, licensed or banned. On the other hand, don't tell me that weapons that exceed the firepower needed to drop a deer or a bear should be OK either. That weapon is only good for killing people quickly.

Handguns should be registered and/or licensed. If you own one legally, great. If your handgun or rifle is stolen and used in a crime, you go to jail for negligence and never allowed to own another. If you are worried about security, go buy another rifle.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I would say make it uniform across the board.

Knives kill to so all of you that have a knife in your house will need a license or you'll have to turn them all in. Plastic is great!

Stones kill to so anyone that has stones on there property will need a license or you'll have to have them all removed.

Alcohol kills so everyone will need a license to drink.

Tobacco kills to, more licenses.

Slingshot more licenses.

And for the Aussie that live in the us, you'll have to hand in your Boomerang's or get a license.

Where does it end? Do these idiots need to keep writing legislation to justify there worthless existence? Yes



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I guess if this bill becomes a law, I'll become a felon. When that day comes, it will be safer to be a felon than a politician.

I hope somebody beats one of these gun grabbing traitors to death with their bare fists. Then everyone in America can become a felon when it becomes illegal to own hands.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Beaux
 


Beaux, I respectfully disagree with a couple of your words, but let me explain my logic.

The entire purpose of the Second Amendment had not one, single thing to do with hunting. It had nothing to do with target shooting. It had little to do with self defense, except from an overbearing government.

That's right, a well-regulated militia, is a well-armed militia, ready to defend the nation from any enemy, including an unlawful government, with all the advances that weaponry may have developed.

All our personal military weapons that have served our country well have been invented, developed, and were accessed by the civilians of our nation.

Even the Barrett .50 was built for the civilian market. It just so happened that when the military really needed them, he had the different models sufficiently developed as to meet their needs.

Americans need access to the most developed weapons. Military weapons.

A handgun - pistol or automatic - is designed for up-close personal protection. Right now, run outside and see if there's a cop outside your door.

We the people, meaning all able-bodied adults - are responsible for our own security. Not the police. We are.

The militia? All able-bodied adult male (before equal rights) citizens. That's almost everyone.

A heavily armed society is not going to put up with a lot of unconstitutional efforts by a large, centralized government.

Recall that it was civilian arms that defeated our British cousins, along with some stolen and gifted cannon.

Rifles, pistols, autos, shotguns, assault weapons. All legitimate weapons, necessary for a well-regulated militia.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I can see a civil war soon

On this site I read about the NWO, one reason the NWO isnt in power is the US hasent disarmed its citizens. The NWO was planning on clinton to do it but he didnt. They cant take over until we cant fight back.

The reason the US was never invaded is because every american would plug every nazi, russian, jap, whoever was invading. Citizens owning guns has nothing to do with people wanting to shoot each other, its the best military in the world, pretty much a unstopable one.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Beaux
 



Well then if someone really wants to create fear and chaos or hurt a number of people they can do it buy many things besides guns.

Think about it.

Poisons.

Drugs.

Gases.

Fires.

So maybe we should pass more bills on all of these as well.

They can not even enforce the laws that exist already so why pass more, only the people that obey the laws will follow bills that pass.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or recreational shooting. It is there should our government turn to tyranny. It is there to grant self defense. It defends the 1st Amendment since your free speech is backed by the force of lead. Naturally, any of the armed citizens represent the first line of defense no matter what the problem is.

I watched a video that had the new President stating, "I believe that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, that right can be limited by sensible, reasonable gun laws!" That is interesting since he completely discounted the best part of the 2nd Amendment that says, "Shall not be infringed!" Since these are unalienable rights of the people the government may in fact not regulate this at all. The 2nd Amendment like the first does not give me any rights but in fact nullifies any attempt by the government to regulate the rights. Natural rights are ours for all time.

Naturally if I can shoot a rifle I may want to shoot a machine gun or if so inclined build my own fully automatic weapon. If I become a cold blooded killer it is MURDER that would be the charge I face. If I stab, beat, strangle, poison, drive over, choke or shoot someone or several they are still dead. The original idea is that everyone would be armed and there is no better deterrent to crime.



[edit on 26-1-2009 by Alpha_Magnum]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beaux

Rifles are used for hunting game, pistols are used for killing humans. To me, no rifle with a legitimate hunting use should need be registered, licensed or banned. On the other hand, don't tell me that weapons that exceed the firepower needed to drop a deer or a bear should be OK either. That weapon is only good for killing people quickly.


My stepdad was a hardcore handgun hunter. He never picked up a rifle as long as I knew him. He said it was boring being able to take game from 200-300 yards away, and he had the Pronghorn mounts to prove that he could do just that. Notwithstanding the fact that the 2nd makes no mention of hunting. You can hunt without any firearm whatsoever. I do it frequently. The 2nd is about protection from tyranny. No more, no less. It is very easy to interpret that to mean that whatever the standing army has, we the people should have, too. (smart bombs, anyone?)




Handguns should be registered and/or licensed. If you own one legally, great. If your handgun or rifle is stolen and used in a crime, you go to jail for negligence and never allowed to own another.


So if a meth-freak steals my car and runs it through a school, killling 50 kids, I should go to jail for negligence? I guess that's different, being that a car allows me to earn money to pay tax dollars to line PTB pockets. Maybe I should start paying my taxes with fresh wild game, to make it fair for the gun.



If you are worried about security, go buy another rifle.


A rifle is well suited for engaging known enemy targets at medium to long ranges. The risk of accidental injury to friendlies (or family) is too great to use in a defense situation. If a nutball came into my house, and I had to choose between a rifle or baseball bat, I would probably go for the bat unless I was 100% certain that said nutball was armed. ( I have 4 children in the house).

For close quarters combat and personal defense, the shotgun or handgun is much more ideally suited for the situation. Most combat infantry units carry at least 1 shotgun per unit, if they know the possibilty exists for CQB.
The handgun honestly rate last, due to more penetration than the shotgun, as well as being harder to handle under extreme stress. But if convenience is the rule of the day, then most will choose the handgun. If they train to use it as intended and effectively, so much the better.

But after all this, what is the best gun to defend life, liberty, and property?

The gun you have.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alpha_Magnum

The intent of this bill is that in order to posses any firearm and or ammo in the USA a citizen must apply for a license. If you have any firearm currently in your possession you will be forced to obtain a license or turn it in otherwise you have committed a felony.

The 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.



How does this infringe on that right to keep and bear arms as long as they are licensed? I mean it's not like the Marijuana Tax Act where they only printed like 25 tax stamps or something.

They are simply saying that given the numbers in which we live today, the only way to enable the populace to keep and bear arms while at the same time not requiring it of others is to make people responsible for the use of those arms, through licensing.

As long as anyone can obtain a license, I'm all good with it.

I know that lots of people here believe we need guns to protect ourselves from the government en masse. But what I saw in Katrina didn't make me afraid of the Government as much as realized how weak they really were.

It made me concerned about the unscrupulous man with children to feed.

That's who my guns protect me from.



[edit on 25-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
There is always the assumption that every "non criminal" is alike in regards to weapons and that is simply not true. Just because you would not use a weapon to murder another, that does not mean that others will not do so. Having limitless weapons available for everyone would turn most places into the wild west again. We could have disagreements taken to a whole new (old) level with duels and gunfights.

Most murders in this country are committed by those that know their victims. Not having a gun at the time won't stop that since many are committed without firearms (beating, strangulation, knifing, etc.). But too many think that if everyone would just strap on a sidearm that everyone would be safer. Yet, the next time some guy gets angry or drunk, the fist being thrown could easily just be a bullet being fired. We have seen it in road rage incidents and drunken disagreements. We have seen it with guys shooting kids for walking across their lawns. We have seen it with the "normal guy" down the street that shoots his whole family. We have seen it with the "regular joe" that goes back to his workplace after being fired only to kill.

With power comes responsibility. And that is where the problem lays. There are far too many people that are NOT responsible with guns and as long as that problem exists, then we all must be a bit more willing to understand that it is not a black and white solution regardless of what our Founding Fathers intended.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
How does this infringe on that right to keep and bear arms as long as they are licensed? I mean it's not like the Marijuana Tax Act where they only printed like 25 tax stamps or something.

They are simply saying that given the numbers in which we live today, the only way to enable the populace to keep and bear arms while at the same time not requiring it of others is to make people responsible for the use of those arms, through licensing.

As long as anyone can obtain a license, I'm all good with it.

I know that lots of people here believe we need guns to protect ourselves from the government en masse. But what I saw in Katrina didn't make me afraid of the Government as much as realized how weak they really were.

It made me concerned about the unscrupulous man with children to feed.

That's who my guns protect me from.



[edit on 25-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]


Respectfully are you for real, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? The rights in the constitution are unalienable so any restrictions are put on the government. Like, "Congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed" or "shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Free men need not take double jeopardy as you would. We already have the civil liberty to keep and bear arms so how is it that you don't understand that paying for a license is an infringement? To have my personal information judged by some bureaucrat or police officer that has magical powers to determine if I should be allowed to do something that the Constitution has already guaranteed. George Washington risked his life for us all to have a Constitution.



[edit on 26-1-2009 by Alpha_Magnum]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
scary... and the only arm i own is a .22.


With all aside however - your best weapons when it comes down to it is your hands..



a survival type upgrade for that would be an: axe, knife, etc.





we're nearing the endgame - who will prosper?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Alpha_Magnum
 


yeah I'm for real...

But in accordance with the SO's request recently, I suggest we leave ourselves out of it and stick to the discussion.


So people have a right to keep and bear arms. This right shall not be infringed.

Ok, well, I can go and buy an arm, and keep it, and in accordance with local laws, bear it.

Therefore my right has not been infringed. My right has only been infringed if I am not allowed to keep and bear an arm.

My right has NOT been infringed if I have to license that arm.

Websters definition of infringe is



to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another


And as I mentioned, as long as I can still go buy, keep and bear that arm, my rights have not been violated.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotrodturbo7

My stepdad was a hardcore handgun hunter. He never picked up a rifle as long as I knew him. He said it was boring being able to take game from 200-300 yards away, and he had the Pronghorn mounts to prove that he could do just that. Notwithstanding the fact that the 2nd makes no mention of hunting. You can hunt without any firearm whatsoever. I do it frequently. The 2nd is about protection from tyranny. No more, no less. It is very easy to interpret that to mean that whatever the standing army has, we the people should have, too. (smart bombs, anyone?)


I might have suggested a bow if he was bored. I agree that the 2nd Amendment is about tyranny. Do you agree that the "well armed militia" the amendment addresses only had swords, muskets and flintlocks?

Some mentioned that the Constitution does not say anything about cars (because they did not exist). It also says nothing about automatic weapons, tanks, submarines or nuclear weapons. Considering that they are also considered 'arms', should we be allowed to own them too? I would feel a lot safer if I had an M1A1 Abrams at the house that I could drive to work.



So if a meth-freak steals my car and runs it through a school, killling 50 kids, I should go to jail for negligence? I guess that's different, being that a car allows me to earn money to pay tax dollars to line PTB pockets. Maybe I should start paying my taxes with fresh wild game, to make it fair for the gun.


That is a strawman argument. A car is a mode of transport, a gun is a weapon. Are you saying that if I leave a loaded gun on my table and a 5 year old from next door finds it and blows his head off, that it was OK?



If a nutball came into my house, and I had to choose between a rifle or baseball bat, I would probably go for the bat unless I was 100% certain that said nutball was armed. ( I have 4 children in the house).

For close quarters combat and personal defense, the shotgun or handgun is much more ideally suited for the situation.


If...has it happened? Most police officers have never fired their weapon off the firing range and face more criminals in a month than most of us will see in a lifetime. I know you want to protect your own but realistically, that bat will probably be the only thing you will ever need. And if not, use the shotgun.


But after all this, what is the best gun to defend life, liberty, and property?

The gun you have.


If I have to use a gun to protect my life, liberty or property, then I am afraid because I am living in the wrong neighborhood or the wrong country.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Beaux
 


Or during the wrong cataclysmic collapse of society.


Great neighborhoods go bad real fast when Hurricanes hit.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I guess I AM ignorant of the laws, and that is why I try to participate in these threads here. I get to read a lot of different views, and get educated. I am going to be buying my first gun soon, and honestly, if there were laws passed that said I had to give up my weapons that can defend me, including guns, I would not do it, so I guess I don't see having to license a gun as a big deal. At least until I read some of the replies here. Lots of food for thought. I may end up sending a few emails to my representatives here, although with our lax laws

Anyway I live in KY. Brady Campaign gives my state a 2 out 100 for gun safety laws.

www.bradycampaign.org...

Sounds like currently, it will be easy for me to procure a gun with no one but me and the buyer knowing I have it. And once I have it, well. No one takes my stuff from me.


Anyway, I intend on moseying up to the flea market over in Bullitt co and pick me up a nice gun. Of course, I am going to bring a couple of guys with me who know their guns, since I dont. If left up to me I would purchase on color alone(do they make pink guns?)!

I also feel it is best to be diverse in your defense, proactive in preventing problems, and not rely on only guns. Even if GOD FORBID the govt tries to take our guns, there ARE other ways to get your message across.

Thanks for not flaming on me yall, I appreciate it.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Alpha_MagnumThere 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 INALIENABLE. If the People are deprived of a way to defend themselves from crime or tyranny than our Constitutional Republic will die!
 




This is very well said, Alpha_Magnum! I like this so much, I'm putting it on my signature line!

I couldnt agree with you more Alpha, I was talking to my brother today, who's Special Forces, and we had a long conversation about this. There is nothing foggy, or unclear about what the 2nd Ammendment says. Its very clearly stating that individual law abiding American citizens have the unalienable right to possess and use firearms. There should be no restrictions on their use, for law abiding citizens. Yet we see our gun liberties infringed upon every year, little by little. A little at a time, so as for your average citizen not to notice that the ultimate goal of the government is the total disarmament of the people.

They cant send soldiers to your house right now, the way things are, to take away your guns. They know they'd have a hell of a fight on their hands. So they slowly erode your gun rights, so at some point, people turn around and say, "What the heck happened??? All those little laws that were supposedly created to make me safer, have now left my personal security up to the police and the federal government!"

To all the people who think we are right wing gun nuts, let me say this. If you value your freedom and rights in this country, that were given to you by the Founding Fathers, don't hestitate to defend those rights if you have even the slightest hint of those rights being taken away. Those rights and freedoms were a whisper on the lips of American Patriots who fought and died on American soil to try to make them real. A very high price has been paid for them, don't let the fat cats in Washington make you believe that you shouldnt worry about them, or fight to protect them.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by treemanx]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Alpha_Magnum
 

My right has NOT been infringed if I have to license that arm.


We already have a license, Its called the Constitution. There is no higher law and any law that goes against the Constitution is well unlawfull.

Edit: This reply was for HunkaHunka not Alpha_magnum... Sorry


[edit on 26-1-2009 by Reaper106]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


I don't know if you are for real or not since you are the one who went off topic with...



I mean it's not like the Marijuana Tax Act where they only printed like 25 tax stamps or something.


That has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights but you brought it up none the less. That causes me to ask if you are for real since I feel as though discourse with you is likely to be a waste of time. You can see that my question is as worthy as the one you asked. You also stated...



As long as anyone can obtain a license, I'm all good with it.


Use your own logic now and consider that phrase "As long as anyone can obtain a license" What would be the point of this license that "anyone can obtain" except to infringe on a Constitutional unalienable RIGHT?? If this license would cost me $$$ or time or violate my 4th & 5th Amendment Rights by providing evidence against myself or causing me to be searched that is infringement. Naturally a license that "anyone can obtain" is the same as not having a license at all. A completely meaningless exercise in futility.

Odds are that obtaining a license will be conditional and that again is infringement since it would be a FELONY to not have a license. If you read HR45 you would see that you will have to provide information to the government and that violates...


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


I included an example of an applicant who at one point was prescribed antidepressants. If you supplied an honest answer in my state to get a Firearms Purchasers Card that you had taken or are taking antidepressants your card (thus right) will be denied. If you have ever had a restraining order you will loose your guns altogether and will not get a card. It does not matter if the case never went to court or was thrown out or discharged. If you deny that you took antidepressants the government will look through your medical records (another violation) and you will face perjury charges.

All of this is infringement! If you were in jail you would not be allowed to be armed but after you served your sentence your property would be returned. You would then again be FREE.


[edit on 26-1-2009 by Alpha_Magnum]





new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join