H.R.45

Originally posted by VicSage
The weapon romance is a rather disgusting thing.

I don't think this is really about guns. It is about your right to protect yourself. Making this about guns only muddies the water of the real meaning. A firearm is merely the tool used to defend one's self.

As soon as you remove an individual's right to protect him/herself, you have turned them into a victim. A chance for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is gone.

Using your sociological background, what happens to a group when they are powerless to oppose the will of others?

reply to post by xman_in_blackx


Don't ask him a question like that! He'll get a head ache trying to figure out what pidgeon hole to put that classification in!


Zindo

reply to post by WSPfan


The militia IS well regulated, and the Constitution outlines that regulation.

The only 'gun nuts' are those that oppose the ownership of arms, and the means to defend ones self.

A firearm is only dangerous in the hands of incompetent fools. I am truly beginning to believe that those that oppose firearm ownership are themselves incompetent fools that refuse to believe that others are not incompetent fools.

reply to post by hotbakedtater



You have a FEDERAL license to drive your car?

reply to post by HunkaHunka


It may be time for you to reread some world history. The first step of ANY confiscation is "registration". Note how easily the police may confiscate your vehicle if you are arrested for DUI? Think about Russia, N. Korea, etc. Tyranny flourishes because populations are unarmed and afraid of their governments. Registration is only the first step.

You know, I bought a .17 calilber rifle for my brother awhile back. He couldn't buy it because he didn't have picture ID. (Don't ask.) I filled out the form, and never hesitated when I got to the question about mental illness, and hospitalization for mental illness. I lied, like a rug.
I've been in the hospital a couple of times for depression and anxiety that was work related.
We walked out of the store, and no one has come to arrest me yet.
I will do the same when I apply for a concealed carry license. It is harder for the authorities to get information than you might think.
I happen to believe that I should be allowed to carry a handgun with me at all times, with the exception of work. I don't believe I should have to register my guns, nor do I believe I should have to have a license. But unless and until we can get the laws changed, that's just the way it is.


[edit on 12-2-2009 by kettlebellysmith]

reply to post by kettlebellysmith


Be aware that you've just admitted to the entire world, on a public forum, that you've committed two major felonies.

Not that I agree with the law... but, yeah, there it is.

I normally follow the law to the letter. But penalizing someone for getting treatment for a disease that affects almost everyone is wrong. The fact that I sought treatment should indicate that I am in control, and not a danger to myself or anyone else.
It is also wrong to take away my right to defend myself and my family in a public place, should such and incident occur.
How many on this board take xanax? How many will admit to taking an antidepressant, even though you have to fill out the same papers and answer the same questions?
My second amendment rights are being violated by and antiquated view of mental health disorders. Admittedly, there are some out there that should not have weapon. But the majority of the people who suffer from depression or anxiety and have sought treatment are more than competent to carry a weapon.

H.R. 45, an interesting history... Proposed by a presumably ex-Black Panther who managed to get elected; he dishonors Blair Holt's sacrifice of his life saving a young lady in Chicago Ill. Now the rest of the story: 1. the young lady mentioned was not the primary target, as verified by news services, 2. the shooter was 16 year old, who 3. announced his intentions to a collection of students prior to the incident, but they did not contact the police even though there was ample time (Q. why aren't they being prosecuted for Involuntary manslaughter? There was prior knowledge of the stated intentions), 4. the firearm was purchased from a 15 year old! Again this transpired in Chicago, Ill., a city with one of the most onerous gun laws in the U.S.! These individuals are minors who cannot possess or own firearms! Rather than introducing an unnecessary gun control bill why aren't the people with prior knowledge being prosecuted, or did this happen in an area that the Chicago P.D. is afraid to go into? The S. Ct. Heller(2008) decision (holding that the Second Amendment is an Individual Right to allow for he protection of one's self) they did not address firearm registration schemes since that question was not posed, but they did allow the fed and states 'reasonable' methods' of control. Note however permanent firearm registration in data bank is prohibited by U.S. laws. I respectfully request that the Congressman be removed from his office until such time that he can demonstrate a working knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. You can't defend what you don't understand.

reply to post by SpacePunk


We are the militia. see Heller (S.Ct. 2008), Roberts majority opinion.

No one is talking about this BUT one of the rationales for the new Civilian Defense Force being talked about by the administration could be (once some more supportive SC Justices are in office) to declare that body the "Militia" and then reinterpret the Constitution on another legal challenge to say that it does NOT convey an individual right to "keep and bear arms"....that being the perogative of the "Militia" (by then in place).

reply to post by kettlebellysmith


Don't get me wrong, I wasn't criticizing. I don't think you've done anything wrong. "Mental Illness" is a poorly defined reason to take somebody's rights away. Not everyone who takes medicine is a psychopath.

I was just advising some caution about what you say in public. I think you're safe saying it on here, but I wouldn't go telling everyone you know (Not that I'm saying you have.) I'm just saying... When you have the right not to incriminate yourself, it's best to use it.

Sorry, I'm just a little touchy about this, because I feel a great many people are being forced to lie in order to obtain guns, whether for hunting or for protection. A few people know about my hospitalization, I would be more than happy to be a test case for this discrimination if it came down to it. (If I wanted to kill myself, or someone else, I have more than adequate access to REALLY dangerous drugs and chemicals. And it would be harder to trace back to me.)

reply to post by Beaux
Well thought out and well presented. But you are still absolutely wrong. The purpose and intent was stated by James Madison in a letter he wrote to a friend, now in public domain, as being to protect us FROM the 'law'. He stated that governments, however well conceived and intentioned, ALWAYS have historically become corrupt, and the only thing keeping it's citizens from replacing and reforming it, is their own personal weapons to overthrow that oppressive government. The ONLY difference now is that the majority are deceived into believeing that our government is a republic, with us having real representation. Apparently, that is where you stand; among the deceived. Otherwise, you would be fighting mad and pushing for private ownership, even with a tow hitch.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
So what if you have to buy a license? Big deal I gotta buy one to drive my car.

And how is this the beginning of the end for gun rights? There is another Bill, as the poster above shows, that is making it EASIER for Americans to carry their concealed weapon(that the carry concealed after buying their permit) across state lines.

Driving a car isn't a right. Owning (bearing) arms is a right as stated in the Constitution.

This is why they placed a democrat in office, this was going to happen no matter who was in office, dont you guys know that?