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: 8
67
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
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?


If you don't trust felons (who have served their time), why don't you put them back in prison? The idea that convicted felons are not "free men" once they are released is absolute hogwash, as if we didn't want them to be free, we would put them in jail for life.

People get convicted for felonies for unreasonable reasons all the time. Yes, there are dangerous felons who have been released, but THOSE felons will get guns regardless of any law. Get off your high horse and realize we ALL have a right to defend ourselves, and that a convicted felon is no different than you or I, other than the fact he or she made a mistake (not necessarily true, individuals who have a felony record for issues like cannabis use are not truly "felons.") somewhere down the line. If you don't want to trust them, then put them back in their cage. Otherwise, they should enjoy the same freedoms we enjoy (note: not many).



[edit on 26-1-2009 by Double Eights]




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


That seems to be the issue, however. It does affect legal gun owners, because they're the only ones who will be jumping through these hoops.

The local gangbangers and career criminals are just going to buy their weapons from some other gangbanger who either stole it or bought it from yet another crook who is importing them illegally across the border. They don't care about the thousands of other gun laws on the books. They're not going to care about this one, either.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


That is another strawman argument that tumbles away from the point and into the ridiculous. You create your own talking points and then shoot them down rather than addressing what is actually being discussed.

I can appreciate gun owners concerns but the fact of the matter is that there are too many people in America that will use guns to remove another's freedom and not just protect their own. Too many people make up paranoid fantasy scenarios that they have never faced (gunman enters your home), create scenarios that have never existed in the U.S. (government kicking down your door to take your guns), or act like anyone for gun control wants to ban firearms. They espouse the Second Amendment as if it is the sacrament while ignoring the fact that our Founding Fathers did not, and could not, envision the weapons of today.

Fact #1: They were addressing swords, muskets and flintlocks.

Fact #2: A "well regulated militia" means just that. Regulated. Organized. Overseen. Managed. We have one here locally. It is called the National Guard made up by normal citizen soldiers of all ages and our communities ability and right to protect itself should not be infringed. Average Joe next door that owns a dozen guns is hardly regulated, does not want to register to do so and thinks a license is a way to track them and tax him (he's right on the latter point).

Fact #3: When it was legal to wear a gun in the West, many towns forbade it due to the violence and lawlessness that it brought. Nobody cried about their 2nd Amendment rights because they knew that people with guns could decide to kill or terrorize for any number of reasons.

Fact #4: If somebody wants to kill you, they will and your guns won't protect you. They will ambush you or bring more guns then you. See Organized Crime in the U.S.

Fact #5: Most gun violence in the U.S. is either crime related (gangs, drug deals gone bad) or personal (killing a family member or someone they know). Even school shootings fall into the latter category. Most home invasions are done by thieves (burglars) that are unarmed. The armed guys go for banks, stores or people on the street. The majority of crime stopped by an armed citizen is against an unarmed crook.

In an ideal world, we would not need handguns. Shouldn't we be working toward that ideal instead of continually justifying their existence? Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns just make it easier. We should be making it harder to hurt people, not easier.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 



That seems to be the issue, however. It does affect legal gun owners, because they're the only ones who will be jumping through these hoops.


Yes this does affect legal gun owners, it provides them with more protection legally, when Johnny law stops Joe gun owner in his car, finds a registered firearm in the glove compartment, what is Johnny law gonna do? Nothing, why? cause Joe gun owner is within his rights to have that gun in his car. If Johnny law decides to arrest Joe gun owner for possession of a firearm, Joe gun owner's lawyer will have a field day in court suing the state for wrongful imprisonment of his client.

However when Johnny law pulls over Jimmy gangbanger and finds an unregistered unlicensed firearm under his seat what does Johnny law get to do? He gets to arrest Jimmy gangbanger and perhaps save someones life, as Jimmy gangbanger might be on his way to pop a cap in someone.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


As long as you are aware of your state laws and abide by them, you should not run afoul of the police in your first scenario, anyway. If you aren't committing a crime and are still arrested, your defense will be based upon the illegality of the arrest itself.

As for that gangbanger, I suppose it might help in that circumstance, but...chances are decent that he's not going to go without a fight if he knows he's about to do 5-10 for illegal possession of a firearm, license requirement or not.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Ignorance is bliss as they say. You do not choose to shroud yourself in the safety of the Constitution but instead you attempt justify the governments infringing actions. I can see two possibilities as to what your actual position is; The first is ignorance of both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and how these documents specify and limit governmental power. This is what I believe your situation to be since the other possibility is that you are a agent provocateur here to lead everyone away from the truth that our rights are unalienable.

You state that as a matter of fact a bill like HR45 turned law will have no affect on legal gun owners but that is a fabrication on your part. Gun owners must in their states obey numerous restrictions that are already in place. Limits on type, capacity, grips, size and loading type along with both Purchasers Cards and pistole permits. Those that purchase guns are penalized by high taxation like The Pittman-Robertson Excise Taxes. Here the government has added something that is a Constitutionally Guaranteed Right the status of a SIN TAX.

Did you ever consider the our government created yet another special police force known as the BATF&E?


The ATF was formerly part of the United States Department of the Treasury, having been formed in 1886 as the "Revenue Laboratory" within the Treasury Department's Bureau of Internal Revenue. The history of ATF can be subsequently traced to the time of the revenuers or "revenoors"[4] and the Bureau of Prohibition, which was formed as a unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in 1920, was made an independent agency within the Treasury Department in 1927, was transferred to the Justice Department in 1930, and became, briefly, a subordinate division of the FBI in 1933.


Our taxes pay for this additional layer of TAX COLLECTION and lump our FIREARMS in the same list as ALCOHOL, TOBACCO & EXPLOSIVES and collect a SIN TAX. The 2nd Amendment clearly indicates that the government "SHALL NOT INFRINGE" or REGULATE or pee down my back and tell me. "It's raining!" The government created an entire police force to REGULATE to CONTROL to INFRINGE.

Beyond the cost of the gun itself, the sin and sales taxes pinned to it and the liability of it's possession this bill now decrees, limits, tasks, expenses and bullies citizens to testify under the penalty of perjury that they for instance have never been prescribed anti-depressants. If they tell the truth their application is DENIED and if they tell a lie and are found out they would again be denied and charged with 2 felony counts but you don't see how that infringes?

The government is limited by the Constitution to proving you committed a crime and you need never be a witness against yourself. It is not only the 2nd Amendment being squeezed here but the 5th as well. You are forced to provide a SIGNATURE on presumably several documents to be GRANTED an UNALIENABLE RIGHT.

People are routinely denied access to their own property. During nasty divorces it is now typical to see restraining orders passed and part of the "process" is for the police to ask, "Do you have any weapons in the house?" If you lie that is perjury and if you tell the truth your property is confiscated. You can look over the 100's of 1000's of these 2nd, 4th & 5th Amendment violations in a Google search. No crime is committed, just a heated divorce or separation and after the matter is resolved the property is seldom returned.

You want to put your UNALIENABLE RIGHTS in the hands of the lawyers, business owners, land barons, career politicians and the like even though they are beholden to anyone other than the individual? In the words of Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does!"



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Reaper106
 


you will still have to acquire said license.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


You're right, that's not fair. But maybe the government will issue credit for a new gun or ammunition or something once people complete the application process and are issued licenses. I thought that everyone needed gun licenses, anyway.

If we all had to go through a ton to get licenses to drive and vote and whatever, I think we should all have to go through a process to get guns, too.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


License requirements vary by state, but its not necessary in many. My state doesn't require licensing or registration of any firearm, excluding automatics, which require full registration and licensing in every state and at the federal level.

Truth be told, I do not have a problem with the idea of firearms licensing and registration, although I do not believe it will have any significant effect on crime. I just do not trust our lawmakers to put a fair system into practice and I believe it would ultimately be used as a means to deny deserving gun owners of their rights to own a firearm.


[edit on 26-1-2009 by vor78]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
There is a reason that "We The People" are a free Nation.
There is a reason that Japan did not go any farther than Pearl harbor.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)
The Foresight of our Founding Fathers, the courage and life given by our
fellow countrymen so that we could live free without tyranny, should be respected and upheld.
These many brave men gave their lives so that we could be a free people. Do we now honor them and demand that our freedoms are not infringed upon? Or do we sit back in our chairs and let the government erode away our rights one at a time?

I know where I stand and where my duty lies, as does Aplha_Magnum, COle, Treemanx and many others here on ATS and around the country.

I take comfort in reading many of your posts and it makes me proud to have you guys as fellow countymen.


I hope more wake up to what is going on before it's to late.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by vor78
 


You're right, that's not fair. But maybe the government will issue credit for a new gun or ammunition or something once people complete the application process and are issued licenses. I thought that everyone needed gun licenses, anyway.

If we all had to go through a ton to get licenses to drive and vote and whatever, I think we should all have to go through a process to get guns, too.


Cars are highly regulated and a license is required to operate one. Guns are highly regulated and now the government wants to require a federal license. Now in reality the USA each year there are about 43,354 auto related deaths while there are 28,663 deaths by gun (NOTE: Firearms Statistics Include Gang Warfare, Self Defense Shootings and Criminals Killed by Police) so since there are over 43,000 deaths by car and licensing clearly does not work and driving is a privilege we have no choice but to BAN ALL MOTOR VEHICLES from being driven on the road! Why not I say!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Dont get your panties in a bundle.....If Pakistani's can hand craft weapons in caves i dont see any reason why an american fabricator couldnt craft something up in his garage. Try taking away my bow n' arrow..........thats a silent machine right there



www.youtube.com...

[edit on 12/18/84 by Alferd Packer]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


The second Amendment gives us the right. And I am a constitutional lawyer who votes for liberals quite a bit.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Alpha_Magnum
 


So a piece of paper is infringement? Yes there are a lot of laws restricting gun ownership, but only for those that should not get a gun to begin with. The constitution protects your right to own a gun. Some people want guns so de regulated that law enforcement has no authority to punnish those that would use those guns to commit crime.

But no, don't give law enforcement any tools to combat crime but whine and bitch and moan when someone does something bad cause of it.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Alpha_Magnum
 


So a piece of paper is infringement?


Yes, it is an infringement, clearly!

The Constitution protects NOTHING! The Constitution limits the government and in the case of the 2nd Amendment it includes a non-infringement clause. That clause prohibits the government from regulating an UNALIENABLE RIGHT. You have it all in reverse.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by Alpha_Magnum]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by daddyroo45
 
I agree, but unfortunately, we are going to have to comprimise on this. I would rather be able to carry my 9 mm open or concealed at my discretion, but it don't work that way.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Alpha_Magnum
 


How exactly does it infringe on your rights? If you are a law abiding citizen and have every right to own a gun how does it infringe on your right at all. Does it stop you from getting a gun or does it inconvenience you?

Inconvenience is not infringement. If you already have the right to own a gun a piece of paper does not infringe on that right, it might slow you down a few minutes but it does not infringe on your right to own a firearm.

Nothing in this bill says anything limiting your right to own a gun, all it does is make it possible for law enforcement to try and get guns out of the hands of criminals. If you aren't a criminal and go through the paperwork to buy your gun then you have nothing to worry about and in fact are more protected.

I mean some people think that any legislation on gun ownership is an infringement. One cannot buy a ICBM for instance. Is that constitutional? If we were to go by the strict letter of the constitution then no it isn't constitutional. I as a law abiding American should have the right to buy and keep a ICBM because the constitution protects it.

However does that make any sense? Should I the average American law abiding citizen be allowed to have a nuclear weapon? The same goes with assault rifles. The use of which is not necessary against anything but humans. Some reasonable limits have to be arranged.

Filling out a form is mearly a formality for the law abiding citizen not an infringement.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted 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?


The problem is that it suddenly transforms one of our guaranteed "rights" into a "priveledge", subject to revocation at a whim.

"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."

I'm not real clear on the concept of how licensing will prevent folks from obtaining firearms, when clearly they have no problems committng murder in the face of numerous laws which already prohibit such activity.

"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."

Again, I'm not real clear on the concept of how this will stop "dangerous people". See above comment. Dangerous people are just plain dangerous, whether they've got a gun, a knife, a rock, or just teeth.

"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."

No one can be arrested "before they commit a crime", at present. Looks like we might be headed that way, though. Furthermore, most folks that obtain a gun illegally are not going to flash it to a cop before they commit a crime. How do we propose to enforce this? Random, warrantless searches perhaps?

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

According to the US Constitution, as it stands at present, it's neither a state nor a federal issue at present. It's not a proper topic for governmental discussion at all.

nenothtu out



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Alpha_Magnum
 


How exactly does it infringe on your rights? If you are a law abiding citizen and have every right to own a gun how does it infringe on your right at all. Does it stop you from getting a gun or does it inconvenience you?

Inconvenience is not infringement. If you already have the right to own a gun a piece of paper does not infringe on that right, it might slow you down a few minutes but it does not infringe on your right to own a firearm.

Nothing in this bill says anything limiting your right to own a gun, all it does is make it possible for law enforcement to try and get guns out of the hands of criminals. If you aren't a criminal and go through the paperwork to buy your gun then you have nothing to worry about and in fact are more protected.

I mean some people think that any legislation on gun ownership is an infringement. One cannot buy a ICBM for instance. Is that constitutional? If we were to go by the strict letter of the constitution then no it isn't constitutional. I as a law abiding American should have the right to buy and keep a ICBM because the constitution protects it.

However does that make any sense? Should I the average American law abiding citizen be allowed to have a nuclear weapon? The same goes with assault rifles. The use of which is not necessary against anything but humans. Some reasonable limits have to be arranged.

Filling out a form is mearly a formality for the law abiding citizen not an infringement.


Are you asking a question here if so then you attempted to address it as well. Like a "preemptive war" you go on to answer your own question. Then you bring up nuclear weapons and expect me to debate you seriously. Paying for a "LICENSE" is in and of itself a direct INFRINGEMENT of the 2nd Amendment. It is that simple but you like a lawyer attempt to wrap your own meaning around "SHALL NOT INFRINGE". INFRINGE = VIOLATE = REGULATE = GRANT

You simply have ZERO understanding about Natural Preexisting Unalienable Rights.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:52 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.


Wait until the bill already passes? Wouldn't it be a little bit too late then?

nenothtu out




top topics



 
67
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join