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]
H.R.45, page 7
privacy
reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 08:20 AM by whatukno
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.
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.
reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 08:38 AM by vor78
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.
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.
reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 08:49 AM by vor78
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]
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]
reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 09:14 AM 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)
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.
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.
reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 09:19 AM by vor78
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.
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.
reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 09:22 AM by vor78
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.
Its merely a bill in the House at this point. It has not passed and it is unlikely that this particular one ever will.
reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 10:06 AM by whatukno
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.
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]
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]
Wild Elephants gather inexplicably, mourn death of “Elephant Whisperer”
Posted 13 days ago with 150 member flags
Posted 13 days ago with 150 member flags
Montreal Martial Law Bill 78 Passes - Backlash was Immediate; Massive Civil Disobedience
Posted 6 days ago with 118 member flags
Posted 6 days ago with 118 member flags
Remember The Sunday School Teacher Murderd Shot 6 Times By A Police Officer?
Posted 3 days ago with 55 member flags
Posted 3 days ago with 55 member flags
Insider tells why Anonymous ‘might well be the most powerful organization on Earth’
Posted 13 days ago with 52 member flags
Posted 13 days ago with 52 member flags
Girl, 16, Kills Herself After Researching 2012 Doomsday Threads...
Posted 9 days ago with 49 member flags
Posted 9 days ago with 49 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
BREAKING: Sphere Deflects Solar Eruption! May 25, 2012 - SunsFlare
Space Exploration: 12 hours ago, 43 flags
Space Exploration: 12 hours ago, 43 flags
TV Networks Say You're Breaking The Law When You Skip Commercials
Science & Technology: 14 hours ago, 20 flags
Science & Technology: 14 hours ago, 20 flags
Freedom watch: Not a single Democrat voted in favor of ending FDA raids on raw milk farmers
Breaking Alternative News: 15 hours ago, 12 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 15 hours ago, 12 flags
U.S. Army General: The Whole Northern Hemisphere is at Risk of Becoming Largely Uninhabitable
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 11 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 11 flags
Oakland City Council Cowers In The Face Of Brutal Truth
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 7 hours ago, 10 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 7 hours ago, 10 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
TV Networks Say You're Breaking The Law When You Skip Commercials
Science & Technology: 14 hours ago, 64 replies
Science & Technology: 14 hours ago, 64 replies
Kansas governor signs 'Shariah bill' to ban Islamic law
Breaking Political News: 15 hours ago, 62 replies
Breaking Political News: 15 hours ago, 62 replies
Bombshell: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits
US Political Madness: 15 hours ago, 49 replies
US Political Madness: 15 hours ago, 49 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.008 seconds
Page processed in: 0.157 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.008 seconds
Page processed in: 0.157 seconds
