It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

H.R.45

page: 7
67
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


It seems to me that the better solution is to allow the states more authority to tailor their gun laws to their local populations. Obama was quite right when he said that what works in Wyoming doesn't work in Chicago. The opposite is also true, although, unfortunately, I doubt he cares much what Wyoming thinks.

Keep the federal government out of it. The 'one-size-fits-all' approach ultimately serves no one, nor does treating every gun owner in the country as if they are a criminal.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by vor78]




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Completely agree, this is one area that should better be left to the individual states, what I am however saying is that if you are able to obtain a firearm legally anyway what is the problem of getting a licence to have that firearm?

Legal gun owners aren't the problem, what is the problem are those that obtain guns illegally. No matter what legislation our government passes it won't do a damn against those that will obtain a gun illegally anyway. All one would have to do is cross the boarder into Mexico and get any number of firearms without any control whatsoever, smuggle those guns in through the broken boarder and do whatever they wish with them.

What this does do is provide law enforcement with a tool to get dangerous people off of the streets before crime occurs. This isn't going to punnish law abiding citizens, it isn't taking anyones gun away it is however giving our judicial branch a means to curtail gun violence before it happens.

A person who obtains a firearm illegally if this resolution passes can be arrested before they commit a crime. Thereby making our streets safer. The person that goes to a licenced gun dealer and buys a firearm legally won't be affected in the least.

But I agree that it should be a state issue not our federal government.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


In theory, I don't have a problem with gun licensing or registration. It IS reasonable, although I do not think it will do much to deter firearm related violence. Violent criminals are not getting their guns legally, anyway.

That said, I don't trust the SOBs in Congress and I think it would be used and abused in an attempt to deny otherwise deserving firearms owners of their right to own and buy a gun. All they would need to do is make the requirements so high that no one could qualify. Additionally, it would create a national database of owners and their weapons. If (more like when; I'd give it less than 20 years) they instituted a total ban, they'd then have a record of every owner and every firearm in the country.

In the end, I just don't think it works in practice. The possibility of governmental abuse of power is too great and I think it would quickly be used to destroy the rights of legal, law-abiding gun owners while doing little to curb the real problem.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Not that I disagree but in the event that 'they' decided to take away our guns, who would be the ones to actually do the taking? The police that I know, the military people that I work with wouldn't.
Just a thought that the actual implementation of such an act might provoke an adverse reaction that those in office never intended.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Indeed, it would. In fact, I think there are many areas where even local law enforcement would actively oppose confiscation.

At a federal level, I think it makes more sense to attack the problem from the 'punishment' standpoint than prevention. As it is now, we turn repeat offenders back out onto the streets after 5-10 years (and sometimes less) because the prisons are overcrowded with 18 year old pot heads and petty thieves that aren't doing much damage in the grand scheme of things. Those violent criminals, meanwhile, just go right back to what got them in trouble before. And prison life often turns those pot heads and petty criminals into violent thugs themselves. So the whole system is a self-perpetuating disaster.

The solution? Stop locking up petty crooks and dope heads and start throwing the violent offenders under the jail. I think anyone caught committing a violent felony with a weapon should serve at least 25 years with no possibility of parole.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by vor78]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
If this is true, I suspect this will be the beginning. I personally do not believe they will attempt to confiscate citizens' guns. Though, we are taking about the govt, not know for their wise decisions.

We need to follow this and report the final results.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Harsher penalties requires a deeper commitment from those in office. Something, I think, would never happen. The same way that you can't get blood frqom a turnip is getting common sense from a politician. Arrogance on their part creates the 'idea' that they could actually follow through with their ideas of a gunless society.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by WSPfan
Funny how all of you right-wing gun nuts overlook the WELL REGULATED portion of the amendment.


For all of you GUNOPHOBES that might agree with the misguided thoughts of this poster ...

I filled out (lots of) forms.

I took classes.

I paid (lots of) fees.

I obey the (many) state laws.

Therefore, I already feel very "WELL REGULATED".



[edit on 1/26/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I disagree that it should be a state issue either. Ultimately it an individual issue as to if to own a gun or not. It is the job of the federal government to make sure it remains an individual issue.

History has shown us full well how states can decide issues. Prime example being the various Jim Crow laws. The federal government can also be as detrimental: Trail of Tears, Federal Reserve Banking System, Open Air Nuclear Testing, DU rounds in warfare, The Bailout Program...

Suppose a "responsible" gun owner has to be fully employed over the past 60 months and maintain a credit rating above 740? Would that preclude those that are self-employed small business owners? because it sure does prevent unemployment benefits should you have to close down. And it does not help out on the old resume when looking for work either.

Are you really willing to let the same people that masterminded and implemented the Bailout to choose the criteria of who can and who can not legally own a gun for personal protection and defense against a tyrannical government?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
i think maybe you all should wait till the bill is actually passed before loading up the pick up trucks and getting the posse together.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Ok i live is the midwest and our state allows us to get the Carry n Conceal license for $350... So will this effect me any way? I am a new gun owner but i have yet to get my C&C license. So im going this weekend to take my class. So am i ok here then?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
i think maybe you all should wait till the bill is actually passed before loading up the pick up trucks and getting the posse together.


I think most of us believe that it would be too late to do anything if we wait until a bill like this passes. Have to try and stop it now!

[edit on 1/26/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
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)

A gang member is not going to register his MAC-10 but a law abiding citizen is going to register his Desert Eagle 9 MM.

As far as the fear of someday down the road law enforcement going around and taking away peoples guns, well, one would have to think obviously cops have to realise they are going to go to someone who is armed and tell them to hand over their legally obtained gun. While grandma may comply easily, Joe NRA member is going to tell those cops to go find a hole to jump in.

What are they gonna have then? A million mini Waco massacres? I'm not so sure that law enforcement is going to ever have the manpower or brass ones enough to do that any time in the future. One must remember that LEOs are in fact still human. If they know that Bob over on the ranch has 10 registered firearms they may think twice about tellin ol Bob he has to turn in his arsenal.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


It certainly isn't a perfect solution. That said, I'd much, much rather have my state legislators deciding what gun laws apply to me than some idiots in DC that have spent their entire lives in San Francisco or Boston and don't have the first clue which end of a gun the bullet exits from.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by mrfire9
 


Its merely a bill in the House at this point. It has not passed and it is unlikely that this particular one ever will.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Think about this because it is very simple and logical.


Our government, police, courts can not even enforce the laws they have today, so why more laws?

And even when enforced criminals spend only a fraction of their full sentence behind bars.

Politics should only be part time and they all should get real jobs, so they know what is going on in the world, in fact we should be able to vote on what jobs they will work, so it's not some lobbyist crushy perk. And rotate the jobs so they understand what is going on in our world.

Think about it they have to work in construction, hospitals, waiters, garbageman, so rotate them, then they can do their 20 hours a week in session and know WTF is going on in the country.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Hey I got a great idea. Maybe after this bill is passed we can just print out our own license on our computers and name it something like certificate of live firearms and when petitioned for our proof, we can just ignore the request and continue to say that we provided it already, ignore questions and convince a judge to not hear the case against us because we already provided a certificate of live firearms. Sounds pretty fair to me.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
My opinion- I personally don't want any felons or illegal immigrants to have guns, for my own safety. I mean, it does make sense, we don't want the crazy murders to be able to have them. If you want a gun for the right reasons, then this shouldn't affect you.

We want a militia, not more mass murders, right?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Lol, personally i don't live in the U.S.A, do you really think having a gun will protect you from such things as "N.W.O" they're not taking away your 'rights' it's a priviledge to have a gun in the first place..... Here in oceania you get put in prision/fined if you're found with a gun without license, deal with it.... their are hardly any shootings too!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by allsop
 


Actually it is a Right not a privilege, it is a constitutionally protected right. Framed in the Bill of Rights.


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.


The problem is when the government steps on this constitutionally protected right of the people and takes away the freedoms guaranteed by this most sacred of our documents. Then only the criminals will have arms.

However, nothing in this small sentence says that the government can't make sure that people that are violent, criminal, deadly shouldn't be punished.

This is what this law is all about. Punishing criminals. If you make it a harsh crime for a criminal to have in his possession a firearm then it will allow law enforcement to do more to protect the people who have a right to own and carry a firearm.

This legislation isn't saying the government is going to take away guns from those that should have them (law abiding citizens) it is saying however that if someone has a gun, that isn't registered. (people that mean to do bad things break the law) they can punish and make sure that person isn't going to cause harm to someone else.

If you are a law abiding citizen with every right to own a firearm, then you will have no problem with this bill. Yes your name will appear on a massive government database. So what? Do you honestly think that some bureaucrat in Washington is going to go "hey this guy has a gun and is a member of ATS, let's get him" no, what they are going to do is put your name down on a list that no one will look at, no one will care about and unless you commit a crime with a gun no one will ever bring up.


[edit on 1/26/2009 by whatukno]



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join