H.R.45

reply to post by Alpha_Magnum


I think I have a great understanding about the rights granted to us in the Bill of Rights.

I think that the misunderstanding here is the difference between infringement and inconvenience.

A person that is able to obtain this licence (because they are a legal citizen, in good standing and they aren't a criminal) will have no problem with this. In fact this will go far to protect the rights that citizen has.

How is it an infringement when this law protects that right? My ICBM argument is an extreme look at the problems that people who think that any sort of regulation equates to infringement have. Reality is that some weapons have no real purpose in the hands of citizens except to kill other citizens.

A law that protects your right to gun ownership and protects you from law enforcement that may want to take away your gun shouldn't be looked on as infringement but rather as a protection. Someone who has this licence is better protected under the law than that person who willfully refuses to get the licence. A police officer won't be able to take away your gun if found in your vicinity if you have this licence. You will be protected.

But no, ignorantly it seems that some will feel that this infringes on their rights. It simply won't it just gives law enforcement the ability to take away guns from those that would do harm to other people with those guns.

reply to post by Alpha_Magnum


Its an infringement for no other reason than the fact that its an invasion of the privacy of law-abiding citizens...for the greater good, of course. So is the Patriot Act, but again, that's for the greater good of society. Isn't it interesting how easily people are willing to overlook violations of the rights and privacy of other Americans as long as it doesn't apply to something they care about?

The question isn't so much whether its an infringement of one's rights or not (it quite obviously is, IMO), but whether its justifiable. Much like the Patriot Act, I can see benefits to it, but ultimately, I can't help but think that government will abuse whatever power you give them. That's why I can't support licensing and registration.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by vor78]

Originally posted by Beaux


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

They were addressing all bearable arms. From a nail in a board to the unimaginable brain-melting death ray.

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).

I guess you havent actually read the 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.

Because to remain free we need a militia the right of everyone to have and hold their guns shall not be F*ed with. It doesnt say anythig at all about "regulating" the people or their guns.

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.

Not true. Dont present your opinions/misconceptions or biases as fact.
www.buzzle.com...

At best the "Wild West" B.S. is all over the place and not very different from today's pointless back and forth full of opinions and cheap "facts." Definitely not worthy of being labeled as "Fact #3" but I guess if you claim it's fact long enough people will just accept it as such.

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.

Maybe this is "fact" when considering gang warfare but in day to day life of normal people being armed definitely prevents crime. Try reading Operation Self-Defence on a daily basis or check out the Self-Defence clock from time to time.

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.

If this is indeed a "fact" then so what? It's wrong for grandma to blow away some scumbag climbing into her window at 3AM? It's wrong for some wheelchair bound woman to put a hole into an unarmed crook grabbing at her purse? If the moron risking his life for a TV or wallet is unarmed that's great. Less risk for the person minding their own business and being violated has to be taken when putting the animal down.

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.

I'll say the same thing I say to everyone who pulls the "utopia" card: Get your head out of your ass.

Originally posted by allsop
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!

Au contraire, mon chere! The US Constitution, which of course does not apply in "Oceania", states that our posession of arms is a RIGHT, not a priviledge over here. Sorry 'bout that.

nenothtu out

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Alpha_Magnum

 

How is it an infringement when this law protects that right? My ICBM argument is an extreme look at the problems that people who think that any sort of regulation equates to infringement have. Reality is that some weapons have no real purpose in the hands of citizens except to kill other citizens.

A law that protects your right to gun ownership and protects you from law enforcement that may want to take away your gun shouldn't be looked on as infringement but rather as a protection. Someone who has this licence is better protected under the law than that person who willfully refuses to get the licence. A police officer won't be able to take away your gun if found in your vicinity if you have this licence. You will be protected.

But no, ignorantly it seems that some will feel that this infringes on their rights. It simply won't it just gives law enforcement the ability to take away guns from those that would do harm to other people with those guns.

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
Date: 1513
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
2obsolete : defeat , frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon

Now I must say your position stems less from simple ignorance and more form that of the stance of an agent provocateur.

The government's conduct is limited by the bill of rights not mine! The non infringement clause directly prevents the government from involvement with me and my guns. You don't like freedom, you don't want freedom you reject freedom so you should move to another country that is not a Constitutional Republic.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by Alpha_Magnum]

I'd like to point out that an ICBM falls under explosive ordinance/destructive devices in which are classified as Title 2 of the 1968 Gun Control Act which is the National Firearms Act (26 USC sec. 5801 et seq.).

Basically your ICBM argument is null and void as they are already regulated.

Edit: Spelling edit



[edit on 26-1-2009 by n1zzzn]

Gun laws that are excessively strict are, I believe, very bad, and can be easily extrapolated into generic "anti-weapon" laws like those seen in Australia. In most parts of the country it is illegal to carry just about anything that can be a weapon (it even describes this in a similar way in the legislation of one state) on your person without a very good reason (the few reasons are set out in the laws too, and protection is not one of them). You can't even have pepper spray.

Its good to see Americans vigorously fighting this.

This really is all very simple as I have said before, We The People already have a license, It is called the Constitution! The Constitution is the highest law of the land, any law that goes against the Constitution is unlawfull and not valid. The Constitution reigns supreme.

Originally posted by Reaper106
This really is all very simple as I have said before, We The People already have a license, It is called the Constitution! The Constitution is the highest law of the land, any law that goes against the Constitution is unlawfull and not valid. The Constitution reigns supreme.

Simply put it is the government has added layers of complication over the preexisting rights Americans fought and died for. This is how we get to "crimes committed with guns" requiring different legislation than the name of the actual crime like murder, attempted murder, assault, etc. You can't get much deader than dead. Lawyers have invaded the government and actively bastardize anything remotely connected to natural law.

Here they create a more powerful, dominant position that is more insulated from the citizens. Highly regulated citizens who conduct a revolt have a higher probability of failure than free citizens. The Romans faced bitter water due to endless regulation.

reply to post by Beaux


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

This "fact", applied to the First Amendment, means that they were addressing printing presses and word-of-mouth. By your argument, telephones, internet, radio, and television are not protected.

"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)."

The initial part of the amendment, "a well regulated militia..." is what is known as a "preamble". It offers one justification for individual posession of firearms, not the end all, be all. The other part, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is what is known as an "operative clause", it is the meat of the matter. Don't take my word for it, research the SCOTUS opinions yourself. Going back to your previous point, of how thing were in the founder's days, each militia member was required to show up for duty when called ALREADY IN POSESSION OF HIS WEAPON AND EQUIPMENT. So which are we to apply, in your opinion? Conditions as they existed then, or as they exist now? Bear in mind that whichever you choose, it applies in both cases.

"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"

This was a blanket law passed by the Federal government? I think I missed that memo.

"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."

Wrong on both counts. They have, and they did. The ambush thing didn't work out as well as they'd hoped it would.

"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."

"Gun violence?" It never fails to amaze me how folks categorize violence, as if it is somehow preferrable to have one's skull crushed with a claw hammer rather than being shot. From where I stand, violence is violence, and I could care less about the vehicle. If the crook is "unarmed", presumably meaning "gunless" it's ok for him to plunder you, is that the gist of it? How about we stop worrying so much about guns, and handle folks who do violence? Wouldn't that produce a safer society as well as creating an entire criminal class over night?

"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."

I couldn't agree with you more. When we get rid of those "people who kill people" the gun issue would be moot, no? Until that utopian day comes, I think I'll hang on to my guns, thanks. And my claw hammer too, just in case.

nenothtu out

While I don't view the proposal of this bill as an immediate removal of firearm rights it's a step in that direction and that worries me.

The biggest problem is what comes after? If it's anything like great Britain the first member of congress, the senate or the President will be committing treason if they say to us that the government or the police can protect us. (and we dont need guns.)

And yes, I said treason

trea⋅son
   /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tree-zuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Quoted from Dictionary.com


[edit on 26-1-2009 by n1zzzn]

Originally posted by n1zzzn
While I don't view the proposal of this bill as an immediate removal of firearm rights it's a step in that direction and that worries me.

The biggest problem is what comes after? If it's anything like great Britain the first member of congress, the senate or the President will be committing treason if they say to us that the government or the police can protect us. (and we dont need guns.)

And yes, I said treason

trea⋅son
   /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tree-zuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Quoted from Dictionary.com

Under the Const. there is only one punishment for Treason.

Can someone name it?

reply to post by Alpha_Magnum

I agree 100% Alpha, sadly I think it is going to take something huge like the government trying to disarm us before the masses act. I hope that I am wrong and that more people wake up to what is happening without something major having to happen.
Can you imagine if this type of BS was going on say 50 or 60 years ago?
This nation would have been up in arms overnight.

reply to post by j2000


I'm not saying we need to execute our government officials here. I am saying that ALL Americans, regardless of pro-control or pro-rights NEED to see what is actually happening here.
It might be only on the table with firearms now.. but eventually it WILL effect something that you believe in the right for.

reply to post by nenothtu


This Beaux person is simply another agent provocateur here to misdirect and baffle posters with BS. The time is nearer than we know to implement an actual Constitutional Republic. These lawyers, land barons, corporations, career politicians and unsavory individuals that comprise our congress have to be weeded out or we simply need to clean house and start fresh. Several members here hate freedom and it is easy to see that they loath the unalienable rights afforded to Americans and want socialism rather than freedom.

Originally posted by n1zzzn
The biggest problem is what comes after? If it's anything like great Britain the first member of congress, the senate or the President will be committing treason if they say to us that the government or the police can protect us. (and we dont need guns.)

And yes, I said treason

trea⋅son
   /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tree-zuhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Quoted from Dictionary.com


[edit on 26-1-2009 by n1zzzn]

You hit the nail on the head right there. This is just a step towards disarming the American public. Once that happens goodbuy Constitution and Freedom.

Originally posted by nenothtu

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

While this bill probably wouldn't make it any farther than my kid sister could throw it uphill into the wind, those of us who cherish our rights will no doubt be keeping a wary eye on anything this administration tries to sneak through the house under our noses.

Anything we do, no matter how small, that helps remind us that we still have those rights, should not be passed upon, or looked over.

If a man feels alone against an army, at what point does it no longer seem worth the fight?

I, for one, will speak out loudly against any legislation that seeks to limit or infringe on that right.

Again, it is not a privilege.

Make no mistake, the first step to rounding up our guns would be to have a list of those guns and who was in possession of them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the sake of tradition, lets explore a worst case scenario for those who can't get through a thread without a conspiracy.

Remember the ATS favorite?

Any tyrannical government would certainly be capable of creating such a diabolical storyline.

Let's see...

Problem...
Mass shootings, possibly masked gunman shooting into a crowd...sound familiar?

Reaction...
Oh my, mass people are getting shot, we need a solution! Please government, help us!

Solution...
We're the government, were here to save you! We'll enact tougher gun laws!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously, I don't want to sound like a nut-case so I'll just add the short disclaimer that the hypothetical tale I just created was merely an expression of my artistic imagination, and in no way confirms by belief that such a thing could happen.

Simply posting on this forum pretty much makes that a moot point though, just thought I'd chime in for support, and the lack of anything better to do at the moment.


Peace

Originally posted by n1zzzn
I'd like to point out that an ICBM falls under explosive ordinance/destructive devices in which are classified as Title 2 of the 1968 Gun Control Act which is the National Firearms Act (26 USC sec. 5801 et seq.).

Basically your ICBM argument is null and void as they are already regulated.

Edit: Spelling edit



[edit on 26-1-2009 by n1zzzn]

Does that mean that if I pay the $200.00 "transfer" tax I can buy one?

Sweeet!

nenothtu out

reply to post by C0le


Actually, to generate money for the state. NK, I mean, NJ, already has a requirement of a Firearms ID card to purchase a shotgun or rifle. To purchase a handgun, you must have a Firearms ID card, then apply for a handgun permit. This permit is good for one handgun, and the permit expires within 6 months if not used. You must be 21 for a handgun, so I've never applied for that (not 21). But I have my Firearms ID card, and that bad boy costed me like 60-70 dollars in fees.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Does that mean that if I pay the $200.00 "transfer" tax I can buy one?

Sweeet!

nenothtu out

I'd like to reference the "Deny Ignorance" motto from ATS and emplore you to do some research before making a comment such as the above