H.R.45

reply to post by grimreaper797


If I remember correctly there was a lot of research put into NewYork's permits regarding CCDW and Handguns. We can use this as a prime example of how this Bill's "licensing" may indeed go. (and that NY handgun permits are extremely hard to get for multiple reasons)

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

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

So, no limits on arms. May I have a tank to drive to work? Maybe build a nuclear device in my basement? How about a machine gun nest in my front yard?

Is this OK?

Grenade launchers, machine guns, C-4, weapons cache stuns agents
seattletimes.nwsource.com...

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.

Wrong guess. I have read all 27 of them.

The sentence is awkward but the commas are inserted for clarification. It could easily have read "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed." They explained the meaning of it: "being necessary to the security of a free State" and further emphasized that the people in this militia have the "right to keep and bear arms."

Note that it speaks of one that is "well regulated" or bound by law and organization. The term "to bear arms" was found almost exclusively in military parlance. I might suggest more constitutional study to understand its meaning.

www.bsos.umd.edu...

First, although the 2nd Amendment did create a personal right to “keep and bear arms,” it did so only insofar as private arms were needed to maintain a citizen militia. The basis for the right is the collective, republican concept of the citizen militia, and the primary objective of enshrining the militia in the Bill of Rights was to guard against the dangers of a standing professional army. Moreover, the phrase “keep and bear arms” had distinctly military connotations leading up to and including the founding era, and there is remarkably little evidence of an individualist right to possess guns, even in the anti-federalist literature. However, the authors do not entirely eschew the individualist interpretation of the Amendment; the “right of the people” was, they believe, intended to vest the ownership and possession of arms in the potential militia members—(white male) citizens.

Second, because the citizen militia withered away as an institution long ago and has no contemporary successor, the conditions for the right to keep and bear arms, even as an individualist right, no longer exists. The local militia was already giving way to the vastly superior – in terms of training, preparedness and fighting ability – professional army at the time of the Revolution. State militia were replaced by volunteer state guard and, eventually, National Guard units, that were gradually co-opted by the national military. Today, the National Guard is equipped by the government and in virtually all respects serves as an adjunct to the professional army. Nor are there any other plausible substitutes for the extinct citizen militia that would serve to animate the 2nd Amendment.

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

I know it is sometimes challenging to state disagreement in eloquent terms but it is often worth the effort. Otherwise one runs the risk of simply looking foolish in any attempt to belittle others. Regardless, I am not sure what the "utopia card" is but I do know the saying "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem".

I would personally prefer the world be a better place. Is that Utopian?

reply to post by Alpha_Magnum


That does seem to be the unfortunate case. I see it out in the "real" world all around me constantly as well.

It'll probably get sort of ugly before it gets much better. It's ok, though, since I don't reckon I'll be living in it when the dust settles anyhow.

nenothtu out

Punish the criminals who get guns and use them to commit crimes regardless of the gun laws. Create a mandatory death sentence for someone using a gun in a crime and leave those not using guns for a crime alone.

Adding licensing means we are creating more government, cost, corruption and mistakes.

Edit: fix last statement

[edit on 1/26/2009 by roadgravel]

reply to post by Beaux


I've already addressed some of those weapons and classifications

I do want to say out of all the posts here that seem to be pro-control your's was the best written (and I disagree with you completely still ). Star for you sir.

reply to post by lernmore


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

If the above-quoted King Leonidas may be taken as a standard, I'd have to say when one is no longer breathing.

nenothtu out

Originally posted by n1zzzn
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.

I was just adding a fact. I didn't think you where suggesting anything....

That would have been for the one's in 1913. See, even back then, they can pull the wool over your eyes. I guess most of the doubt people here are going to tell us that all our income tax given as interest to 12 families in the world is a good thing.

Oh, and we see how well they have kept us safe from fiancial problems since 1913 as well....................same apply to any rights given up.

Sorry n1zzzn, I just had to add a little to wake up the ignorant.

reply to post by j2000


Exactly. The fact that I personally oppose gross encroachments upon our freedom to bear arms is irrelevant to what I'm not trying to say.

Regardless of which side of the line you're on.. understanding that the government doing it here and succeeding will open them to doing it to other sectors of freedom that may affect you much more than this.



[edit on 26-1-2009 by n1zzzn]

Originally posted by n1zzzn

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

That was "irony". It's a literary device. Sometimes I can say things that aren't always that clear to folks. I stand corrected.

For the record, I don't actually want to be the first on my block to own a nuclear device. I don't have a geiger counter or dosimeter anyhow.

nenothtu out

Originally posted by Beaux


So, no limits on arms. May I have a tank to drive to work? Maybe build a nuclear device in my basement? How about a machine gun nest in my front yard?

Is this OK?

Actually, there are plenty of people who own tanks, machine guns, and all are legally owned. Even though individuals and not armies own these and shoot them, the world doesn't fall apart. There are even very large annual gatherings of these people and the world still turns. No laws broken.

Most machine gun people are the nicest people you will ever meet. They are pretty wealthy too. (some have .50 cal machines guns that shoot rounds that cost $3 each. And that is the cheap ammo.)

As far as nukes go, I would never want to own one because:
1. They are too expensive and
2. You could never find a safe place to shoot it. If there was such a place, I bet the range fees would be astronomical.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
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.

It expires in 90 days.

NJ ASSEMBLY DELAYS PASSAGE OF GUN BAN!

In response to your calls, faxes, and emails, the New Jersey Assembly on November 17 delayed passage of A2116 (banning most firearms of .50 caliber or larger) and instead amended the legislation in an attempt to respond to gun owner concerns. The amended bill could be considered by the full Assembly as soon as December.

Update on Pending "One-Gun-A-Month" Bill in New Jersey!

In a surprise move last night, the New Jersey State Senate declined to take up scheduled action on S1774, so-called "one-gun-a-month" legislation.

After months of high profile lobbying by anti-gun organizations and bill proponents, and on the heels of last Monday's victory by anti-gunners in the Senate Committee on Law and Public Safety, S1774 was abruptly pulled.

While this legislation will remain in a position to be posted for a vote by the full Senate for the rest of the 13 months remaining in the term, this development can only indicate a softening of support for this dangerous bill. Overwhelming effort on the part of the grassroots networks of a variety of gun rights groups in New Jersey must be credited with this apparent reversal of fortune for the anti-gun crowd.

This bill will remain alive for all of 2009 and must remain at the top of the agenda for all New Jersey gun owners. Please continue to stay in touch with your legislators about the dangers of this legislation and watch closely for any developments. Please continue checking your email and www.NRAILA.org for any updates. You can find contact information for your State Legislators by clicking here.

An interesting view point on the probable confiscation and revoking of our rights! It is a blog but its just for opinions sake I post it!


waronguns.blogspot.com...

Zindo

Originally posted by Alpha_Magnum
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.

I have been called many things but "agent provocateur" is a first. I thought I was here to give my opinion and I certainly recognize that there are differing ones. It would be a boring place if that were not so. I have no social agenda to "misdirect and baffle" only to state my perception of the truth. I apologize if it frightens you; that is not my intent.

As one that prizes my liberty, I too recognize the challenges posed by those seeking to remove it. And I certainly do not loath "unalienable rights" (natural or moral rights) as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

Unalienable rights are freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of assembly, and the right to equal protection before the law. There are probably a few more but gun ownership is not one of them. If you can remove my "life, liberty or pursuit of happiness" at the end of a gun, then you have infringed on my God given or moral rights.

Which brings us full circle: we need guns to protect us from others that have guns. So lets just make more guns and that will fix it. Lets not worry about limiting their use, lets make sure everyone has one. Then and only then will nobody use them again. Sounds logical to me.

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?

Can I ask you a question? Do you think that felons are buying guns legally? I am sure you understand that any firearm purchased legally can be traced back to the individual who bought it. Do you really think a felon is going to use a weapon that can be traced back to them? I suppose there is a small percentage that are actually dumb enough to do that; however, I would guess that well over 90% of felons are not using firearms that are legitimately purchased.

That being said, who then would this or any firearm legislation be aimed at? Certainly not the felons, and if our leaders believe that firearm legislation will reduce crime, then they are even more stupid than I already thought they were. This has been tried in other countries and has not worked AT ALL. Briton has had a 40+% increase in crime since they outlawed firearms. Are we so arrogant to think that the same thing won't happen here? Or maybe there are people here who want a camera watching their every move, who knows. If that's the case, why not just allow the government to install closed circuit tv in your home?

If the government does not wish to honor and respect our constitution, perhaps they should go to another country and govern them. We already have a rule book.

I personally do not own a firearm because I am not willing to take the chance that one of my grandchildren will figure out how to open whatever kind of storage compartment I would use for such and either harm or kill themselves; however, I do completely support a citizen's right to own and bear arms. If I had no small children in my home I would certainly own at least 2 or 3 firearms myself. I fully understand they can be locked up, but if it can be locked, it can also be unlocked, broken into, or opened in some other manner and I simply am not willing to take that risk. I do have other non-lethal means of self defense in my home and would not hesitate to use them to protect my family. My desire is never to take another person's life; but, it they make the choice to endanger my family's lives, then they choose death or serious mutilation. Personally I have absolutely no tolerance for anyone whom wishes to do harm to another for personal gain, in my opinion, the world is better off without that individual.

When you make the choice to enter into another man's home without welcome or permission and try to steal from or do harm to him or his family, you should do so with the knowledge that he has every right to defend his property by ANY means he deems suitable, up to and including mortality.

As for the felons, that is totally dependent in my view for what the felony was. Just because you had a felony for multiple traffic offenses (habitual offender laws) should not exclude you from owning a firearm. Now violent felons are a different story entirely. But then again, if our judicial system did their job and stopped bargaining with these people, reducing their sentence, granting immunity for information, and giving negligible sentences for serious offenses, we wouldn't even have to worry about that anyway. If you commit a violent crime, you should be in prison until you die or executed, period. Of course we could start a whole new thread with the death sentence as technically it is a violation of the the declaration of Independence, "...unalienable right to "LIFE", liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Unalienable means absolute, absolute means it cannot be taken away no matter what, so technically the death sentence (although I support it) is a violation of the declaration of Independence.

[edit on 1/26/2009 by DarrylGalasso]

reply to post by ZindoDoone


Thanks for the link, looks like a good site to read. The Law of Unintended Consequences he speaks of is sure to bite anti gun supporters in the future when other freedoms start to dwindle.

reply to post by Beaux

The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. - George Washington

Go on and deny the intent Beaux. The Bill of Rights grants nothing since the rights are preexisting. Rights cannot be separated from us, they are ours. Rights are like earlobes, they come with the package. Sell your socialist propaganda at the nearest Communist party headquarters.

Originally posted by Beaux

I might have suggested a bow if he was bored. I agree that the 2nd Amendment is about tyranny. Do you agree that the "well armed militia" the amendment addresses only had swords, muskets and flintlocks?

They did then, but now they don't.

Some mentioned that the Constitution does not say anything about cars (because they did not exist). It also says nothing about automatic weapons, tanks, submarines or nuclear weapons. Considering that they are also considered 'arms', should we be allowed to own them too? I would feel a lot safer if I had an M1A1 Abrams at the house that I could drive to work.

Driving it to work might be a stretch, probably hell on the road surface, but put away for a rainy day might noy be a bad idea.

That is a strawman argument. A car is a mode of transport, a gun is a weapon. Are you saying that if I leave a loaded gun on my table and a 5 year old from next door finds it and blows his head off, that it was OK?

If you let a 5 year old in your house with a loaded gun on the table, you should be locked up. That is nowhere near the premise that you originally stated.

If...has it happened? Most police officers have never fired their weapon off the firing range and face more criminals in a month than most of us will see in a lifetime. I know you want to protect your own but realistically, that bat will probably be the only thing you will ever need. And if not, use the shotgun.

Yes, I have been home invaded before. All I had to do was rack the slide on the shotgun and the perp was gone in a hurry.

If I have to use a gun to protect my life, liberty or property, then I am afraid because I am living in the wrong neighborhood or the wrong country.

Not everyone can afford to live in the suburbs with a high cop/citizen ratio and lightning fast response times. But almost anyone can afford a $150 used shotgun. Might have saved some lives in this case.

wife and daughters of doctor robbed, raped and burned

Guess that wealthy doctor should have chosen a better neighborhood.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

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?

Well that being said, if it does not infringe upon anything or limit one's ability to get a gun, why even bother with the law? I see only two reasons, 1) to make more money for the associated fees, or 2) so that they know where all the guns are so they can go door to door and retrieve them when the crap hits the fan (marshal law, police state, or whatever you want to call it).

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.

A few minutes? The license only serves (in my opinion) to let the government know where the guns are so they know who to go after first in the event of marshal law.

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.

How exactly are the police going to use this information to get guns out of the hands of criminals? Would you buy a registered or licensed weapon to use in a crime if you knew it would be traced back to you? You should have really thought some before posting that paragraph, it makes no sense what so ever. Criminals do not use registered weapons, if they did, there would be no need for any more laws than what we already have inside the states, because most of them would already have been prosecuted.

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.

Where in the Constitution did you read that you had a right to own and bear inter-continental ballistic missiles? This is so far fetched it makes me wonder if you were eating some mushrooms just prior to posting that.

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.

Is this some sort of stupid contest? How could you even say that, there are no guarantees in the constitution for nuclear weapons, or weapons of mass destruction of any sorts. Where did you get that from, (please refer back to the mushroom comment in the last paragraph).

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

Is that all it is? Filling out a form, geez, I thought we were talking about licensing. A license is a permit to do something. Permit is derived from the word permission. You do not need permission to own a gun, it is a right. Therefore, it is not only an infringement, it is also an act of denying a right. If you have to have permission it is not in fact a right, it is a privilege.

[edit on 1/26/2009 by DarrylGalasso]

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
Do you think that felons are buying guns legally?

I agree, Darryl. But where are they getting them? Aren't most of them stolen from legitimate gun owners? Logic would dictate that if there were fewer owned, fewer would be stolen.

Briton has had a 40+% increase in crime since they outlawed firearms.

I don't know about their crime statistics but crimes involving the use of guns in the U.K. has fallen over recent years.

Overall firearms offences, including air guns, fell 14% in 2006-07 from 21,527 incidents to 18,489.

news.bbc.co.uk...

In the U.K. there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 or a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000. According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07.

In the US there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 or a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000. Of these, 10,654 were carried out with guns (FBI, 2006b).

Of course we could start a whole new thread with the death sentence as technically it is a violation of the the declaration of Independence, "...unalienable right to "LIFE", liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Unalienable means absolute, absolute means it cannot be taken away no matter what, so technically the death sentence (although I support it) is a violation of the declaration of Independence

I never thought of it that way but I agree. That would make for an interesting discussion.

Originally posted by hotrodturbo7

Not everyone can afford to live in the suburbs with a high cop/citizen ratio and lightning fast response times. But almost anyone can afford a $150 used shotgun. Might have saved some lives in this case.

wife and daughters of doctor robbed, raped and burned

Guess that wealthy doctor should have chosen a better neighborhood.

The base fact that even thinking you are safe on a personal level because of the neighborhood you live in incites a false sense of protection. IF ANYTHING I would think a serious theif would target these types of neighborhoods over "poor ones so to speak."

First: It's the above mentality a lot of people posess that leaves them defenseless. "I live in a small neighborhood, crime doesn't happen here". Hello at inviting problems.

Two: They stand more to gain.

It doesn't matter where you live, don't be ignorant to the fact that are people in this world that want to profit from you directly or indirectly. It doesn't matter if you're black or white, rich or poor.. it's all the same to them.

edit: spelling

[edit on 26-1-2009 by n1zzzn]