It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:17 AM
Who is the great writer here? We need to get a letter that we can send to our reps(?) so that they know that we mean business about not having to have gun licenses....

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:18 AM
reply to post by imd12c4funn

Only problem is that this bill doesn't attempt to outlaw guns.

Only control them.

Now some people believe it's important for them to be able to personally own a .50 caliber machine gun.

I don't.

However I don't have any problems with handguns or or rifles.

I don't however want my neighbor stockpiling hand grenades.

No one here is talking about outlawing guns.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Beaux
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.

You scare me. You really do. I live in mortal fear of my life because of that line of thought. Ok, maybe not my life, but my freedom, at any rate.

Let's just license the entire bill of rights, ok?

First amendment: anyone in possession of a mouth, must either turn it in or be background-checked and licensed. Failure to do so will constitute a felony, punishable by law. Anyone who says something stupid can have their license revoked, and their mouth confiscated.

Second amendment: currently under discussion.

Third amendment: any soldier, at any time, may take up residence in your house, whether you like it or not, unless you are the proud owner of a "soldiers keep out" license.

Fourth amendment: A license may be obtained, at nominal cost, to prevent police from entering and ransacking your house at will. Failure to obtain said license constitutes your agreement to allow random searches of your house, day or night, home or not. Said license may be revoked for egregious violations of law, such as parking ticket (second offense or higher) or failure to comply with licensing requirements of the first amendment, and then posting on a message board. Revocation of any other amendment licenses will automatically trigger revocation of this license, since the offender obviously bears watching.

Fifth amendment: Persons without this license would be subject to summary pickup and harassment by the authorities. Perhaps issuance of this license should trigger the revocation of a 4th amendment license, since anyone seeking protection from the law obviously plans on doing something unlawful, and bears watching.

Sixth amendment: Persons without this valuable license waive all right to trial by jury. It may only be revoked for unlawful conduct. Anyone demanding a trial by jury without this license is guilty of a felony, conviction to be issued by a judge (of our choice, of course). Anyone applying for this license is probably up to no good, and bears further watching. Hence, any 4th amendment license in possession of said applicant shall be surrendered to the state upon application for a 6th amendment license.

yeah, I think this is a great idea. Looking at the licenses for these other amendments, perhaps one can see the ridiculousness of a 2nd amendment licensing scheme.

nenothtu out

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:49 AM

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Only problem is that this bill doesn't attempt to outlaw guns.

Only control them.

Let us get some nomenclature working here.


The bill calls for a "Gun & Ammo license and is compulsory, thusly an INFRINGEMENT of the 2nd Amendment!

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:56 AM
Same is happening here in México.

Years ago, they would give $100 dollars for turning in a gun, no questions asked.

Now nobody has one and we are ready for the government to implement their waited North-American Union on us.

I should have bought tons of ammo and a few guns and riffles.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:02 AM
reply to post by Alpha_Magnum

ummmmmmm, what was the purpose of this post? that sure is a neat-o bit of legislation, but the point of this thread escapes me..... do you have a question? do you have a comment? do you have a concern or some issue with this particular piece of bureaucracy? this is a conspiracy website, so is the conspiracy that this bill, or whatever, is a cover for something else? if that's what you're getting at it looks legit to me, if you're just posting this to let us know there's another POS gun bill being pushed through congress, it would help to accompany your posts with some additional information or opinion, or back-story to add some context, otherwise it comes off as just a copied part of a website with a posting of a bill......

I'll go ahead and offer my two cents about this or any attempted restriction of our 2nd amendment rights, yes perhaps one could make the argument that no one "NEEDS" to own an assault rifle, or a rocket launcher, or a Gatling-gun loaded with incendiary rounds, but when you make these things illegal only the criminals will be the ones who have them, and use them. I get that people think guns are dangerous, and under the wrong set of circumstances, improper handling or storage guns can be dangerous and possibly hurt or even kill.......

But the old saying remains, guns aren't dangerous; low-income minorities are dangerous.....joking joking....guns aren't dangerous people are dangerous....

I am a liberal,most would say extremely so. I'm young, college educated, I am not religious and I consider myself kind of a hippy, or tree-hugger, but I however firmly believe in the right to bare arms. We should be allowed to own, collect, and use guns as stated in the constitution. Not just for hunting but for recreation, target shoot sport shooting, and the like. And the government, I feel, does not have the authority to infringe on that right as protected in the constitution.

making guns illegal insures only the criminals will have guns.

plus history has taught us that gun laws are horribly ineffective.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:03 AM
I just felt I needed to post this again for all those who don't take the time to read entire posts, especially long ones:

guns aren't dangerous; low-income minorities are dangerous.....joking joking....guns aren't dangerous people are dangerous....

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:10 AM

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by WSPfan
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

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

Which one?!

Well I will take the guess that I am the guy referred here.

1) I think you really need to read as opposed to believe what you want to read.

2) A great number of my posts deal in the realm of comedy. Comedy isn't always pretty. Personally I feel that I do well in avoiding blue humor, both in subject matter and language. I rather respect Sinbad and Bill Cosby for their lack of language in their routines (although Cosby did in his early years. Hard to find those bits now).

3) Opposition to an idea or even a person is acceptable, so long as it is addressed in a manner that is respectful and constructive. My political leaning are closest to that of the Constitutional Party than either the Republican or Democratic parties. While true that I do not support this legislation as it places too much control in the hands of the federal government; I also oppose DUI checkpoints, free speech zones and immanent domain laws as well as local and state government enacting smoking bans even if determined by general election. It has to do with Article 4, Section 2, first sentence.

4) For the record, I own a level-action .22. It makes a surprising loud bang when fired. It is kept unloaded, in a bag in the top shelf of the closet. I live alone so it poses no danger to children or those irresponsible with firearms. Even unloaded, the action of cocking it and bringing to bare is plenty of a deterrent in of itself, second only to a 12 gauge pump, because playing the guessing game of what caliber and is it loaded or not takes a back seat to all those cowboy movies with whinchesters as a main thought.

5) Unlike many, I have been in a situation where I have had to make a snap decision on whether or not to kill a fellow human being. It was a home invasion and I found the guy in my own bed. Wasn't there when I went to sleep that night either. Turns out he was a drunk college student that had a bump key (or had one keyed alike to mine). I did not have close access to any weapon other than my bare hands. At the very last instant, I asked how he got in here in a strong authoritative voice. he almost wet my bed getting woke up that way. And I was haunted by how close I had come for weeks afterwards with the image of his brains and deep gore on my pillow because I had determined my course of action was to crack his skull open like a coconut on the corner of the dresser beside him.

So, no. I do not take killing lightly at all. But I do advocate responsible gun ownership for those that wish to do so. As to the question of if I could kill, the answer is yes, so long as I can justify it to myself. Now my friends asked me when I told them that story if I called the cops and had him arrested. Nope. " know me," I replied when they questioned why I did not. "I shook his hand and introduced myself, sitting right there in the bed." All of them agree that if I ever do a movie, that has to be done verbatim as a scene because just hearing me tell it was the funniest thing they ever heard and they wished they could have seen it happen.

So I hope that gives you an idea of just how laid back of a guy I really am. That another guy could break into my apartment, crawl into bed with me, fall asleep and come a whisker away from being brutally killed and that after seeing that it was a drunken mistake on his part that I could calmly introduce myself sitting right there in the bed with the both of us wearing nothing but our least I hope he was. (see, comedy. right there on that last line)

[edit on 26-1-2009 by Ahabstar]

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:17 AM
People think that when things like gay rights are taken away that such issues are silly, that they don't matter and won't affect others. Guess what, as much as you'd like to think this is any different it is not. If you don't stand up for all of liberty then there is no liberty. I say the same thing to my gay friends who are against the right to bear arms. The lack of respect for our rights can not be tolerated, no matter what the issue is, period. Otherwise we set ourselves up for failure.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:34 AM
reply to post by WSPfan

Kinda like they'd never ever take guns away from the British, huh?

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:05 AM
IMO it needn't be a bad thing if the US was to split with some states seceding from the union.

See - this would create more both liberal and more right leaning states each with their own rules and laws.

People could then choose whether they want to live in a state with gun control - or not. Abortion - or not. Creationism taught in schools - or not.

IMO this makes sense and is the future for America. Everyone would be a winner.

Why would it leave to civil war when this solution would work better. If the south was to split from the union - then why pursue it? What would be the gain in doing this?

Maybe sexy Sarah Palin could be the president of the right leaning states.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:55 AM
I think we all need to calm down a bit. The bill's only sponsor is Bobby Rush out of Chicago. It will die in a House committee, and will never actually see a vote. it will pick up McCarthy out of New York and a couple others, but it would take a helluva lot more stroke then that, considering they just filled Hillary's seat with a pro-gun Democrat.

He always proposes the same anti-gun bills, and always loses. He's no friend of Obama, considering Obama challenged him in his first primary and lost...and as payback, helped Roland Burris take Obama's seat.

This is a still born act that would need to pass with a majority in the house, and somehow receive over 60 votes in the senate. It will never happen, so everybody needs to unwad their panties and calm down, because at some point, you have to start accepting that nobody's coming for your guns.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:18 AM
reply to post by brimstone735

I think you're probably correct about this one, but I'd be shocked if the Dems don't push some type of assault weapons ban very shortly. They managed to line up 67 co-sponsors for HR 1022 a couple of years ago, for instance, and that bill was significantly more restrictive than the original in '94.

The best chance to defeat it will be in the House. There, the Dems have many new members from the '06 and '08 elections who ran conservative campaigns in equally conservative districts. They really can't afford to support a gun control measure, unless of course they want to find themselves out of a job in 2010. Pelosi might be able to dig up a few liberal GOPers who would support it, but probably not enough to counter the defections in her own party.

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.

So yes, I think gun owners do have reason to be concerned. Although its likely not going to be this bill, they're going to try to pass some type of ban within the next year or two. You can pretty much count on that.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:22 AM
hi all, just a small question, i am neither for or against as i am english, do you think that when the constitution was written, regarding rights to bear arms, that they intended people to be running around with the sort of weaponry that is available today?, machine guns?, a lot of what is available today is vastly different to when the constitution was written, possibly out of there comprehension. twas just a thought.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:31 AM
reply to post by THELONIO

Its illegal to own a machine gun in the United States without proper licensing and that licensing is a pain in the a** to get. Not only that, but an automatic weapon usually costs many thousands of dollars and the legal buyers of these weapons are extremely unlikely to be committing crimes with them. There are certainly automatic weapons in the hands of criminals illegally, mind you, but passing a law won't stop that. It clearly hasn't yet.

Otherwise, yes, I think they would've intended for us to have small arms capability similar to what the military had. The reason the 2nd Amendment was put in place to begin with was as a safeguard to protect the people from a tyrranical government and give them a means to fight back.

Another way to look at it? Do you think the founding fathers intended for us to exercise our freedom of speech rights through the means of communications we have to day, with TV, radio, computers and the internet, cell phones, etc? Could they have envisioned this? Certainly not. At the same time, no one argues that we should be limited only to the printing press and word of mouth to exercise our first amendment rights and the second amendment should be no different.

I also believe that your argument is dangerous to the Bill of Rights in general. The same reasoning you are applying to the 2nd could be applied to any other. Many, many things have changed since the late 1800s. That's not a precedent that we need to set, because once they strip off the gun rights, they'll target your freedom of speech, religion, privacy, etc, under the same premise.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by vor78]

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by THELONIO

Yes they absolutely did. The point was that the average citizen not be out-gunned by the average military rifleman. If this means that 100 years from now the average military rifleman is carrying some brain melting super-sonic dark-matter repeater complete with chrome rims and cup holder than this means the average citizen better go out and get brain-melter of their own.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:51 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:58 AM
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.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:02 AM
To all the people that think this legislation is necessary.

Our country is falling apart right now financially, they are taking and spending money we don't have.

Signing into law abortion aid for the rest of the world, financed by the USA and more ridiculous costly bills and agendas.

A logical person would say things are completely disorganized and not prioritized, but it appears congress and our government don't see it this way they continue to ignore financial responsibilty.

The first step to solving financial problems is to stop spending money on worthless bills.

Really what does it actually take?

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:07 AM
reply to post by Realtruth

Yes I can agree that there are more pressing matters that must be considered. Yes spending money on foreign governments at this point in my opinion is ridiculous.

Throwing up a massive debt, robbing Peter to pay Paul as it were, is not a solution, it's a problem but really doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand except that this bill will cost already stretched thin State Law Enforcement Budgets more in the long run.

It doesn't make fiscal sense to put this as a priority when there are much bigger fish to fry.

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in