The Toomey/Manchin Gun Registry Bill--What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Plenty. As evidenced by the revelation that the state of Missouri Highway Patrol has TWICE turned over Concealed Carry Permit Holder information over to the Federal government. Why? Well because they could:

www.columbiatribune.com...

This transfer of information came to be known during a Driver's License renewal formatting hearing. Now couple THAT knowledge with Senators Pat Toomey/Joe Manchin "promising" that NO Federal
Registry will never, ever come from their "first step" background check proposal.

Here is the link to ABC News story on the ironically named "Public Safety and Second Amendment Protection Act"

abcnews.go.com...

You can almost hear Joe Biden's black helicopters off in the distance.
edit on 11-4-2013 by Glinda because: To correct bad link




posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Yet, the sheeple keep trusting the government. What will it take to wake them up? I really want to know.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


A hyper emotional "for the children," dumbed down populace. Not to say that with NIC checks the information is t already "out there." Each additional "modification" is one more round about move to chip away at Constitutional rights. The very Constitution these Senators (and ALL Federal officials) SWEAR to uphold.

For what it is worth, I live in PA (Toomey is one of my Senators) and my attempts to call his local office have been met with a constant busy signal. Some apparently ARE paying attention!



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
"The road to hell (enslavement) is paved with good intentions."



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I think it's very acceptable that local law enforcement turn over these documents to the federal government. So that when "law abiding gun owners
" decide to start slaughtering their fellow countrymen by the gross, those of us who actually have a sense of unity with our fellow citizens know who these traitors are.


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.


*Bold and Underline added to remind people of the first part of this important sentence.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
I think it's very acceptable that local law enforcement turn over these documents to the federal government. So that when "law abiding gun owners
" decide to start slaughtering their fellow countrymen by the gross, those of us who actually have a sense of unity with our fellow citizens know who these traitors are.


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.


*Bold and Underline added to remind people of the first part of this important sentence.



To clarify your comment. in the 18th century, "well regulated" translates to the 20th century equivalent of "well trained according to a formal drill and order". And "security of a free state" means that citizens of that state, are expected to have the right to possess firearms for the purpose of being well trained in their use, purpose, and coordinated (i.e militia drill) to fight for the state to maintain the freedoms of the citizenry. This does NOT equate the the National Guard, as that is a state entity, run by the state, and not by the citizenry. Yet, when individuals try to form local militias for the sake of being prepared (as the Constitution itself states) to defend themselves (as being part of the citizenry) they are demonized as home-grown terrorists?

Just wanted to clarify, since in the 20th century, "regulated" means under regulations to control. That is not the definition of the term at time of the writing of that document.

Below you will find a link to an actual 18th century dictionary of the English language, published in 1780, so you can look up these for yourself.

A General Dictionary of the English Language (pub. 1780)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 



Yet, when individuals try to form local militias for the sake of being prepared (as the Constitution itself states) to defend themselves (as being part of the citizenry) they are demonized as home-grown terrorists?


That is because the Constitution dictates:


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


The citizens aren't constitutionally allowed to create their own Militias, if they would prescribe to the will of Congress and have an officer appointed by the states, it would be a different story.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Krakatoa
 



Yet, when individuals try to form local militias for the sake of being prepared (as the Constitution itself states) to defend themselves (as being part of the citizenry) they are demonized as home-grown terrorists?


That is because the Constitution dictates:


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


The citizens aren't constitutionally allowed to create their own Militias, if they would prescribe to the will of Congress and have an officer appointed by the states, it would be a different story.


And if it actually would be provided yes. But it never even gets to that point before being branded a "terrorist organization" and all the negative connotations associated with it too. And if the state refuses to appoint an officer, then they would be in breach of the Constitution then right?



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Another thought is that if this can be attributed to the National Guard, then those guardsmen must have the right to keep and bear those arms. Meaning, they get to take home the firearms they are trained to use in the defense of the state. Do you see that happening too? I thought not....



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 



And if it actually would be provided yes. But it never even gets to that point before being branded a "terrorist organization" and all the negative connotations associated with it too.


That's because the sole purpose of these "militias" is to train to slaughter their fellow countrymen. That's the only thing these people are working towards. Their ideals equate to the taliban on so many levels the only real difference is what they call their primary deity.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Krakatoa
 



And if it actually would be provided yes. But it never even gets to that point before being branded a "terrorist organization" and all the negative connotations associated with it too.


That's because the sole purpose of these "militias" is to train to slaughter their fellow countrymen. That's the only thing these people are working towards. Their ideals equate to the taliban on so many levels the only real difference is what they call their primary deity.


Well, now that is an erroneous and blanket statement. How can you state unequivocally that ll militias are for that purpose? I am open to your explanation here.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 





I think it's very acceptable that local law enforcement turn over these documents to the federal government.


Zeig Heil papers please.




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.


A properly trained, and armed militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Security of a FREE state.




The citizens aren't constitutionally allowed to create their own Militias, if they would prescribe to the will of Congress and have an officer appointed by the states, it would be a different story.


That national guard is a "militia" citizen soldiers.





That's because the sole purpose of these "militias" is to train to slaughter their fellow countrymen. That's the only thing these people are working towards. Their ideals equate to the taliban on so many levels the only real difference is what they call their primary deity.


Rather a disgusting comment there comparing militia's to the taliban. Last time I checked the people with the least blood on their hands is a "militia".

Between those people who want to "regulate" militias', and the second amendment is the worlds largest arms seller, and likes to go invade other countries, and likes to arm dictator, and freedom fighter alike.

In fact If us pro gun people lived in the middle east or Mexico they would be giving us some really scary guns.

edit on 11-4-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 



Well, now that is an erroneous and blanket statement. How can you state unequivocally that ll militias are for that purpose? I am open to your explanation here.


You know what? I'm sorry, not all militias are just taliban esque thugs hell bent on shooting their fellow countrymen. Some are xenophobic relics hell bent on blowing away anyone who speaks spanish.

Sorry for my mistake



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Krakatoa
 



Well, now that is an erroneous and blanket statement. How can you state unequivocally that ll militias are for that purpose? I am open to your explanation here.


You know what? I'm sorry, not all militias are just taliban esque thugs hell bent on shooting their fellow countrymen. Some are xenophobic relics hell bent on blowing away anyone who speaks spanish.

Sorry for my mistake


Yet another derogatory statement. Can we focus here? Are there bad intentions to a subset of so-called "militias" in the United States, yes, I will agree. But not all of them are, and should not be painted as such. That only spreads FUD and advances the destruction of our core Constitutional Rights.

I would rather discuss this on an intellectual level and not an emotional one here.

Thanks.





top topics
 
5

log in

join