H.R. 45 Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing

[rapparee]

I know that there are a few gun owners around here so I thought I would post this up. No sir I don't like it.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show

[Foolds]

Hitler Said "1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration!"

Ya this seams like a great idea to me, next they can strip away our other rights. The second amendment protects all the others. Uncle Sam has no right to know what I do and don't have in guns.

[puckstr]

I am not suprised.

[rapparee]

Found this after following some links, it is a proposed list of firearms that they would like to ban.

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, AR-10, Thompson 1927, Thompson M1;
AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR; AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA, TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi.

Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12, Streetsweeper.

Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below), (iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rimfire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has (i) a second pistol grip, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a barrel shroud or (iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and (v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a pistol grip (see definition below), (iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and (iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

[dirkterrell]

Here we go. You had to know that they were going for the disarming of the people asap. This is the first step. The shit is about to hit the fan big time in this country so we can't have people running around able to protect themselves. Honestly, I hope the Democrats go as far as possible with this stupidity. With the Republicans having screwed things up over the last 8 years, the Dems now get their chance and I hope they go all the way so that people will wake up and realize that 90% of the current bunch of idiots in Washington don't give a damn about the people they represent. Then we might get back to having a government of, for and by the people.

Dirk

[~Barn~]

Um... I read the bill (granted a quick read), and unless I was linked to the wrong one, it was just basically an introduction to have particular licensing requirements, and ownership and safety requirements, as part of the defined process for being a legal owner.

Of course there were some other items that talked about prohibitions for improperly reporting losses or thefts, or failing to maintain accurate residence records, etc.. Nothing to me seemed out of line for any law abiding citizen to adhear to, I don't think. :think:

Where is all this talk of "ban" start coming from. Seriously... read the "Full Text of Bill". We are talking about H.R.45, as proposed on 1/6/09, right? Sponsored by Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1], right?

Where in the world did the tangent come from, where rights are being stripped away?

Anyhow... that's just what I read. If I missed something about what ya'll are talking about, in the verbiage of the bill, please point me to the right subsection, and I'll ask that my crow be prepared blackened. I just am not seeing what you're talking about. Unless it's some blogger's diatribe. The bill speaks for itself.

[dirkterrell]

Where in the world did the tangent come from, where rights are being stripped away?


"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If this bill passes, it will be illegal to possess a handgun or any rifle but a single-shot, bolt-action one without the US government's permission. That, my naive friend, is the beginning of the disarming of the US population. It has happened several times in other countries. And it is precisely what the Founding Fathers meant for us to avoid when they said "shall not be infringed."

Dirk

[~Barn~]

Like I said Dirk. Point out the text in the bill that says that. Otherwise, I'm not buying it.

If anything, the document is in complete dispute of what you have written, as it specifically lays out the guidelines of what one will need to do, to properly register and license... and I quote...


‘(36) The term ‘qualifying firearm’--

‘(A) means--

‘(i) any handgun; or
‘(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and
‘(B) does not include any antique.’.
Last time I checked brother, a semiautomatic firearm (moreover) one that can accept a detachable ammo feed, is not a single shot weapon.

Hell, just for shits and giggles, I did a "Ctrl-F" search for the word "ban" and got no hits in the document. Normally you're more on the ball than this, Dirk. :no:

Anyway... if anybody is interested in actually reading the text of the bill. Clickith. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text)

And for the delusional sky-is-falling set. Um.... Yeah.

[puckstr]

They like to ban the "SCARY" looking firearms..
Dumbasses

UnAmerican assholes want to ban an American ICON
http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/t1sbrr.jpg

[~Barn~]

For the lazy and the C-students amongst us, here is the CliffsNotes version, explaining the purpose of this bill.




(c) Purposes- The purposes of this Act and the amendments made by this Act are--

(1) to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of qualifying firearms to criminals and youth;

(2) to ensure that owners of qualifying firearms are knowledgeable in the safe use, handling, and storage of those firearms;

(3) to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youth, and other persons prohibited by Federal law from receiving firearms; and

(4) to facilitate the tracing of qualifying firearms used in crime by Federal and State law enforcement agencies.
Anybody who is falsly bastardizing this bill to say that it is somehow a step, measure, or otherwise policy, to ban particular firearms, or to prevent firearm ownership from law abiding citizens, should be ashamed of themself for spreading inaccuracies to the already idiotic masses, who can't think, read, and absorb information for themself.
:banghead:

[dirkterrell]

Like I said Dirk. Point out the text in the bill that says that. Otherwise, I'm not buying it.

If anything, the document is in complete dispute of what you have written, as it specifically lays out the guidelines of what one will need to do, to properly register and license... and I quote...


‘(36) The term ‘qualifying firearm’--

‘(A) means--

‘(i) any handgun; or
‘(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and

‘(B) does not include any antique.’.

Last time I checked brother, a semiautomatic firearm (moreover) one that can accept a detachable ammo feed, is not a single shot weapon.


Read what I said again. Look for the word "but".



Hell, just for shits and giggles, I did a "Ctrl-F" search for the word "ban" and got no hits in the document. Normally you're more on the ball than this, Dirk. :no:


Funny. I didn't use the word ban either. This is how it starts. First registration. Then they know where all the guns are. Then they'll decide that no one "needs" any of these weapons and they'll confiscate them. Do some reading on the history of gun control in Britain and Australia, among others, or Nazi Germany as mentioned earlier. Read what happened to people when the government decided that it knew what was better for the people. It all starts with good intentions but ends with things like the Holocaust. Gun owners tend to be resourceful, independent-minded people, anathema to control-freak governments.

Dirk

[Raptor]

Shrouds and grips? WTF?? Because I couldn't possibly do as much damage without a barrell shroud, I guess. :banghead:

More H.R. 45 fun:

http://readitnews.com/read-it-views-prescott-opinion/page-9/1624-gun-law-update-gun-rights-testing-planned

[~Barn~]

Read what I said again. Look for the word "but".

Dirk

Okay... re-read what you wrote, and am still seeing the same thing. Point taken and digested, but it still is what it is.

Law abiding citizens are still entitled to their rights. Rights, by definition (if not common sense), come with their privillege, by virtue of the fact that you follow the rules. Sometimes "permission" as you word it, requires some pre-requisites, and I see nothing wrong with that.

You're not seriously suggesting that you believe that any and everybody, including youth, criminals, and those that would otherwise not be generally considered suitable for ownership, should be allowed to freely and legally purchase a pistol, or semiautomatic weapon, without having to first go through some sort of compulsory licensing procedure??

That's ridiculous.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I'd have to agree with Dirk.

This tidbit: "Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds" makes my old 9mm Marlin Model 9 plinking rifle illegal. So, therefore, f#ck that.

[Sortarican]

You're not seriously suggesting that you believe that any and everybody, including youth, criminals, and those that would otherwise not be generally considered suitable for ownership, should be allowed to freely and legally purchase a pistol, or semiautomatic weapon, without having to first go through some sort of compulsory licensing procedure??.

They're already subject to a background check.
Minor, criminals, and those deemed mentally unstable are already prohibited from purchasing firearms.

And to make a (arguable) point:
Firearm ownership is listed as a right.
Rights are inherently possessed untill lost for a recognizable reason.

Things like driving a car etc. are priviledges.
These can be conditionally granted by the state.

[Sortarican]

This tidbit: "Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds" makes my old 9mm Marlin Model 9 plinking rifle illegal. So, therefore, f#ck that.

Well not "illegal" but yes it would require you to register it and have a license under this bill.

[~Barn~]

And to make a (arguable) point:
Firearm ownership is listed as a right.
Rights are inherently possessed untill lost for a recognizable reason.

Exactly. And that recognizable reason, vis-a-vis a convicted felony, a history of mental instability, a rapsheet, (or even just not being age appropriate), is precisely what this bill addresses. Not to mention it's other facets that hold owners up to a standard of ownership.

Are we not held up to likewise standards of ownership, for the other liberties we have in life?

[dirkterrell]

Law abiding citizens are still entitled to their rights. Rights, by definition (if not common sense), come with their privillege, by virtue of the fact that you follow the rules. Sometimes "permission" as you word it, requires some pre-requisites, and I see nothing wrong with that.


The right to self-protection is a basic human right that cannot be taken away by the government. That was the main purpose of the 2nd amendment. This legislation enables the government to take my weapons away and jail me if I do not submit to their authority to track my gun ownership and location. That is a violation of my basic rights, guaranteed by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers warned us about this kind of totalitarian action. I hope enough of us have listened.



You're not seriously suggesting that you believe that any and everybody, including youth, criminals, and those that would otherwise not be generally considered suitable for ownership, should be allowed to freely and legally purchase a pistol, or semiautomatic weapon, without having to first go through some sort of compulsory licensing procedure??

That's ridiculous.

There are already appropriate laws about gun possession by children and criminals. We don't need more. We need the government less involved in telling us what to do. But the natural progression of government is more and more control over the people. The Founding Fathers realized this and tried to minimize it as much as possible but they also recognized the need to have an armed populace to keep the politicians at bay. Ever read about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943?

I have read a LOT about the history of governments and these issues. I am not some "the sky is falling" idiot and I don't like being belittled as such. I am not prone to just opening my mouth and spouting off. This is a very carefully considered position for me and many others. This is important, Brandon, so let's discuss it as such and not resort to demeaning language about people who happen to disagree with you. The politicians do enough of that.

Dirk

[Foolds]

Lets enforce the gun laws we have on the books rather then making up new ones. Get the illegal guns off the street, because criminals already don't care about breaking the law.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Exactly. And that recognizable reason, vis-a-vis a convicted felony, a history of mental instability, a rapsheet, (or even just not being ageappropriate), is precisely what this bill addresses.
Well, not that I'm into violent felons having firearms, but where in the 2nd amendment that says "shall NOT be infringed" does it allow The People's right to bear arms to be infringed in ANY case? Correct me if I'm wrong, but "shall not" means just that, for any reason. Because if it CAN be infringed, who sets the reason, and at what level?

[Sortarican]

Exactly. And that recognizable reason, vis-a-vis a convicted felony, a history of mental instability, a rapsheet, (or even just not being ageappropriate), is precisely what this bill addresses.

I disagree, the current background check addresses those cases.
This bill would require people (who have already passed those checks) to pay for a license to have the priviledge of owning a firearm.

The only good parts in this bill are already covered under the current laws.
The rest is a direct restriction on firearms ownership.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

The right to self-protection is a basic human right that cannot be taken away by the government.......et ceteraDirk
I agree with the post in it's entirety 1000%.

[dirkterrell]

Are we not held up to likewise standards of ownership, for the other liberties we have in life?

Would you support having to register with the US Government to exercise your 1st Amendment rights? Shouldn't you have to pass a test and register with the gov, notify them when you move so that you can speak publicly?

No, of course not. If you misuse your right to free speech and violate the rights of others, you are held accountable. The same thing is true for 2nd Amendment rights. We don't need to give the politicians a master list of the inventory and locations of all gun owners. That is a direct path to tyranny.

Dirk

[Sortarican]

Well, not that I'm into violent felons having firearms, but where in the 2nd amendment that says "shall NOT be infringed"..

The arguement accepted for baring convicted felons from owning firearms is
that by merit of their crime they have given up their rights otherwise guaranteed under the Constitution.

That's why they can be refused the right to vote also.

[TFOGGuys]

For the lazy and the C-students amongst us, here is the CliffsNotes version, explaining the purpose of this bill.




(c) Purposes- The purposes of this Act and the amendments made by this Act are--

(1) to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of qualifying firearms to criminals and youth;

(2) to ensure that owners of qualifying firearms are knowledgeable in the safe use, handling, and storage of those firearms;

(3) to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youth, and other persons prohibited by Federal law from receiving firearms; and

(4) to facilitate the tracing of qualifying firearms used in crime by Federal and State law enforcement agencies.

Anybody who is falsly bastardizing this bill to say that it is somehow a step, measure, or otherwise policy, to ban particular firearms, or to prevent firearm ownership from law abiding citizens, should be ashamed of themself for spreading inaccuracies to the already idiotic masses, who can't think, read, and absorb information for themself.
:banghead:

So, no private sales, no unregistered firearms. Are you saying this has any reasonable purpose, other than to allow the .gov to conveniently confiscate any and/or all firearms at some point in the future? Historically, registration has ALWAYS lead to confiscation. Germany, Russia, England, Australia....the list goes on. Equally universally, the only effect has been to disarm the honest citizens, and leave them vulnerable to the predations of those that are better armed, whether that be the government currently in power, or common criminals.

[~Barn~]

Egh... I guess I just never thought of gun ownership as my only means of protecting myself. A.)

And B.) Which says nothing to the fact that I actually own them, and obtained them legally. But still...

I don't mind jumping through a few extra or tighter hoops, if people and business who maybe fringe on skirting the law are forced to adhear to maybe a bit more specific protocol.

But whatever... In general frontal-lobe-thought I still see myself supporting this bill, as I've read it. If I saw any "basic human right" being endangered, I assure you, the Lib. in me would have woken right up! But hey... the sky always seems to be falling on the people whose umbrellas are least equipped to handle it. I'm good.


Would you support having to register with the US Government to exercise your 1st Amendment rights?

You have a SSN Dirk? A birth certificate, perhaps? Yeah.... if you were born in this country, under "typical" circumstances, go ahead and consider yourself registered. :lol:

And yes. I support that effort.

[rapparee]

Barn I used the word "ban", not in relation to HR 45 but to show what the new Brady Bill proposes, which is why I used the word "they" to describe anti-gun people, if that was not clear then my apologies, what do you expect from a c student.

I am not some "the sky is falling" idiot and I don't like being belittled as such.
+1

[~Barn~]

Barn I used the word "ban", not in relation to HR 45 but to show what the new Brady Bill proposes, which is why I used the word "they" to describe anti-gun people, if that was not clear then my apologies, what do you expect from a c student.

Never would have pegged you as a C student. :dunno:


I am not some "the sky is falling" idiot and I don't like being belittled as such.

+1

Well hey... I'm not one to shy away from naming names, and I typed what I did with a larger audience in mind, than just who I'm interacting with, knowing full-well that (the idiots) are infact quietly reading this.

If you guys felt the slight was directed at you, it was not. Pardon my non-specific prose, and please accept my apology. I've always held you both in high regard, but my aim was the people who (again as I stated earlier) can't read, absord, and ingest knowledge for themself. They take a lot of stock in what people like you guys and I have to say, and I think you guys (Dirk, Gary), are sending the wrong message with your take on this bill, and how I feel you are extrapolating it to be more than what is rightly is.

EDIT: And sorry to leave you out of the list Frank. I'm always just tickeled and appreciative of the levity you bring to the political table with things like your 1000% agreeance and such. :lol:

[dirkterrell]

Egh... I guess I just never thought of gun ownership as my only means of protecting myself. A.)


Neither do I. I am well trained in the martial arts and in the use of a variety of weapons including guns, edged and blunt weapons. But none of that has anything to do with the discussion at hand. :)



But whatever... In general frontal-lobe-thought I still see myself supporting this bill, as I've read it. If I saw any "basic human right" being endangered, I assure you, the Lib. in me would have woken right up!


Some of us are light sleepers. :)



But hey... the sky always seems to be falling on the people whose umbrellas are least equipped to handle it. I'm good.


:roll: This is why threads on a legitimate topic always seem to spiral out of control. People don't think like you do, so you have to demean them. That's pretty lame, man.



You have a SSN Dirk? A birth certificate, perhaps? Yeah.... if you were born in this country, under "typical" circumstances, go ahead and consider yourself registered. :lol:


:think: I didn't have to pass a test to be "allowed" to speak freely.



And yes. I support that effort.

What effort?

Dirk

[rapparee]

This section is just one of many problems I have with this bill.
Any handgun or Any semi-automatic firearm that has a detachable ammunition feeding device
That covers just about every rifle out there. Any non-single shot rifle and all handguns would now be subject to government registration and restriction.
Under this law, common regular own hunting rifles would be required to be registered with the Federal government. Check that, you'd have to apply for permission to have one. If you were so lucky as to buy approval for your 2nd Amendment right, it could mean the Feds could come to your house and search it.
It also allows such broad leeway that Attorney General Holder could bar the sale or possession of any gun he doesn't like. We know he hates handguns. I can bet he hates the 'evil' black rifles. But he could go after regular old hunting rifles, target pistols, and yes, even starter pistols for track and field.
The bill also appears to bar gun ownership from any one who has children, or could upon interpretation. It gives the Attorney General absolute authority over who can own a gun and what types. With ideas like this, who needs elections?
Of course this bill excludes all aspects of, the Government.
Talk about the anti-2nd Amendment zealots dream bill.

[~Barn~]

Neither do I. I am well trained in the martial arts and in the use of a variety of weapons including guns, edged and blunt weapons. But none of that has anything to do with the discussion at hand. :)

...And everything else you point-counterpointed.

I know, I know... I lose my cool. Again, I'm sorry for alluding to you and Gary as being the subjects of my name calling, and demeaning metaphores. They were intentional, but they were not aimed at you two guys directly.

That being said, I still don't take back my belief that there are people out there, like what I'm describing. Maybe reading this, maybe not. And if they are dumb enough to listen to you or me, without doing their own digging, then yes. They are in fact idiots, and that sky-is-falling sensation they are feeling, is deserved. Whether I'm contributing to it, or you are!

I just simply can't back down from that. We may have all been created equal, but we all certainly, have not progressed equally.

[rapparee]

I'm sorry for alluding to you and Gary as being the subjects of my name calling
No worries, I would just rather debate the points and gain different perspectives.

We may have all been created equal, but we all certainly, have not progressed equally.
Very true.

[dirkterrell]

This section is just one of many problems I have with this bill.
Any handgun or Any semi-automatic firearm that has a detachable ammunition feeding device
That covers just about every rifle out there. Any non-single shot rifle and all handguns would now be subject to government registration and restriction.


Yes, that's exactly the point I was making above that Barn didn't seem to grok.

Dirk

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

The arguement accepted for baring convicted felons from owning firearms is
that by merit of their crime they have given up their rights otherwise guaranteed under the Constitution.

That's why they can be refused the right to vote also.
My point is what gives the courts the ability to infringe that right? That is not spelled out in the 2nd amendment. And, at that point, then why don't we just shoot felons out of hand since they're not protected by the Constitution?

[~Barn~]

Yes, that's exactly the point I was making above that Barn didn't seem to grok.

Dirk

Well it's not that I didn't get it, it's just more that I'm okay with it.

I guess it probably lends itself to the simple fact that gun ownership isn't my most passionate hobby. But yeah... I understand, I just don't take issue with it; I don't compare current day America, with some of the historical references you made earlier. Perhaps at a fault? Perhaps not?

Who knows what direction our young country will travel in the decades to come. I give us credit for reasonable self goverance though. :dunno:

[dirkterrell]

I know, I know... I lose my cool. Again, I'm sorry for alluding to you and Gary as being the subjects of my name calling, and demeaning metaphores. They were intentional, but they were not aimed at you two guys directly.


Fair enough.



That being said, I still don't take back my belief that there are people out there, like what I'm describing. Maybe reading this, maybe not. And if they are dumb enough to listen to you or me, without doing their own digging, then yes. They are in fact idiots, and that sky-is-falling sensation they are feeling, is deserved. Whether I'm contributing to it, or you are!


Well, you aren't going to convince them by calling them names. :) As I said, let's discuss the issue, the facts, the history of legislation like this and not let it devolve into name calling. The politicians have done a good job of getting people to do this on important issues. They need that kind of divisiveness. But things like this are too important to follow their lead. None of us gun owners wants to have criminals running around committing crimes with guns. None of us wants kids getting a hold of guns and hurting themselves or others. But useless and potentially dangerous legislation like this isn't the answer. Locking criminals up and letting people defend themselves against criminals are useful and proven means of reducing crime.


"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."

--Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426.



There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home. The Nazi invasion plans themselves state that, because of the Swiss gun ownership and shooting skills, that country would be difficult to conquer and occupy. The European countries occupied by the Nazis usually had strict gun controls before the war, and their registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and, in many cases, execution of their owners. (source (http://www.unsaccodicanapa.com/htmlpages/guns.html))

This is why we should always be concerned about gun registration...

Dirk

[InlineSIX24]

So, no private sales, no unregistered firearms. Are you saying this has any reasonable purpose, other than to allow the .gov to conveniently confiscate any and/or all firearms at some point in the future? Historically, registration has ALWAYS lead to confiscation. Germany, Russia, England, Australia....the list goes on. Equally universally, the only effect has been to disarm the honest citizens, and leave them vulnerable to the predations of those that are better armed, whether that be the government currently in power, or common criminals.

Bingo. Let us confiscate your earnings, your gold coins, and your liberties and rest assured that your government will 'take care of you'. Don't you worry your insignificant peasant mind with what plans we make for you.

[dirkterrell]

I guess it probably lends itself to the simple fact that gun ownership isn't my most passionate hobby. But yeah... I understand, I just don't take issue with it; I don't compare current day America, with some of the historical references you made earlier. Perhaps at a fault? Perhaps not?


Some of us just think we should be ever vigilant against abuse of government powers. As Jefferson said:


Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.



Who knows what direction our young country will travel in the decades to come. I give us credit for reasonable self goverance though. :dunno:

Yep, and after the last election I am more concerned than ever about personal freedoms. We the citizens are the only ones who can safeguard them. That is why this issue is so important.

Dirk

[puckstr]

Ha fuck'em they can NEVER have my
ZORG industries ZF-1
http://www.fightingforliberty.com/pix/zorg.jpg

[puckstr]

And I think it is funny they are going after the Hi-point carbine.
Is it because it was used at columbine? More than likely so. Plus it only has a 10 round magazine. The aftermarket 15 round ones do not feed correctly without mods.


OOOOOO ban it!!!! it is sooooooo scary!!!


After they are all baned... ask yourself... Do you feel Safer? If you do you are foolish.

[Raptor]

My issues with this or any similar bill, which only adds sections to the track that disciplined, responsible gun owners must already run, are cliche' at this point, but the principle is no less important to me.

It has already been stated in this thread that laws addressing minors, felons, or the mentally unstable and the impact their position has on their Second Amendment rights, already exist. In respect, or at least submission of these laws, all legal gun buyers must do the dance (F.B.G. checks, etc.) already. These laws alone, or in tandem with any additional laws, have served little if any purpose in persuading criminals to follow them.
Why should the legal citizen's rights be further restricted while those who we choose to arm against, in a personal protection, or Constitutional sense, are unrestricted completely?

I also keep decent tabs on the current state of foreign nations that have been affected by government mandated disarmament. These things did not happen overnight to these people. Their governments realized that they can take much more away by taking a little at a time. By the time the people are the wiser, they can't believe how much they have lost, or that they never stood up to protect it.

<edit> There was a great video of a massive rally in the UK. The people were protesting their loss of rights (specifically gun rights), and the people's individual commentary was nearly enough to bring one to tears. Of course, Youtube now says it was pulled for copyright infringement against the NRA...otherwise, I'd cite.

Hopefully my view doesn't put me on the knee-jerk, follower, idiot list. Nonetheless, it's the best way I can explain why I have issues with this bill.

[Raptor]

And I think it is funny they are going after the Hi-point carbine.
Is it because it was used at columbine? More than likely so. Plus it only has a 10 round magazine. The aftermarket 15 round ones do not feed correctly without mods.


OOOOOO ban it!!!! it is sooooooo scary!!!


After they are all baned... ask yourself... Do you feel Safer? If you do you are foolish.

Haha! I thought the same when I read that. I have to say, if the criminals were going to have "assault" weapons, I'd rather they all have Hi-point carbines than AR's, or even Mini-14's for that matter.

[AirAssault]

I'm a gun owner and have my ccw.... I think every fire arm in the US should be tracked. I think it should be harder to get any type of fire arm. I think if you are a law abiding citizen, you should have no reason to need to pick up a fire arm of any type "right now". I think crimes committed with fire arms should have very stiff mandatory penalties.

[Big-J]

I concur 100000000%, with who I don't know!:oops:

[Raptor]

I'm a gun owner and have my ccw.... I think every fire arm in the US should be tracked.

If this were even remotely possible, it would be ...quite something. Of course, if it were mandated, the only guns being tracked would be the ones owned by legal enthusiasts. Criminals would not, or by their nature to commit crimes without getting caught, could not respect such a measure.


I think it should be harder to get any type of fire arm.

I respect your view, but was just wondering, how exactly? As per what is proposed with H.R. 45?
Also, how will making guns harder to get, make them harder for criminals to get? That is really the goal of all these laws, right? To keep them out of the hands of criminals?


I think if you are a law abiding citizen, you should have no reason to need to pick up a fire arm of any type "right now".

I'm not sure I follow here but are you saying that if I respect the law, that zero chance exists that I might need to defend my life at any given time?


I think crimes committed with fire arms should have very stiff mandatory penalties.

They don't already?
Regardless, the bill in question makes no mention of stiffer penalties against criminal acts committed with firearms, only more tedious steps for the legal purchaser.

[rforsythe]

I'm a gun owner and have my ccw.... I think every fire arm in the US should be tracked. I think it should be harder to get any type of fire arm. I think if you are a law abiding citizen, you should have no reason to need to pick up a fire arm of any type "right now". I think crimes committed with fire arms should have very stiff mandatory penalties.

- I disagree with tracking firearms. It serves no actual, real, useful purpose except to create a database of where they exist in the hands of law-abiding citizens. It will not prevent a criminal from getting one, and they certainly are not going to register it any more than they do already.

- It's already hard enough for law abiding citizens to get one IMO. The background checks are in place, dealers follow the rules, etc. Again, if a criminal wants one, the legal process is completely irrelevant.

- I am a law abiding citizen. My "reason" or "need" to pick up a firearm "right now" has no bearing on my fundamental right as a U.S. Citizen to bear arms for any reason I choose, without having to justify it to "the man".

- Crimes committed with firearms already DO have stiff penalties. Shoot someone with a gun and watch what happens.

To add, I noticed something interesting when I went to S. Korea. See, they absolutely, positively forbid possession of handguns unless you are military, and if you do own a long gun (the only kind allowed) it must not only be registered with and approved by the police, but it's stored at their station. When you want to use it to go hunting (the only approved activity), you go check it out and return it when you're done. The point of this? Gun crimes like robberies are nonexistent in the streets. Of course, knife-related violent crimes have seen a nice upswing depending on where you go, and you're more likely to get jumped for your cash since they know you aren't going to shoot back. They're also prone to invasions since the populace of 40 million people is only defended by their military and a US detachment there. Oh, the criminal elements still have guns in SK... They just know how to hide them, and are afraid of the consequences of living in a pseudo police state if they're found. Without that level of control, the mandates and registration would be otherwise meaningless. Think about it.

I agree with Dirk and others -- mandated registration of weapons locations only serves one real purpose in the end, which is to give the government a way to find out where they are in the event that "they" desire them to go away. It does NOT reduce violent crime, nor their ability to acquire weapons.

Here's the thing though... Who's to say what I even have? It isn't like we have any registration process at all in CO anyway. That is unless the government wishes to retract that pesky little rule regarding unlawful search and seizure and knock my door in to peek.... See where this goes and how it ends? This isn't just paranoia. It's historical precedence set over and over and over, and that reason alone is enough to burn this bill in the streets.

[= Buckeye Jess =]

I'm a gun owner also. I don't have children, nor do I have any friends that would bring children into my home. I keep my gun accessible to me when I'm home for the same reason that I bought the damn thing - to protect myself should someone step all over my rights and break into my home. It is my constitutional right to have my gun and it is my constitutional right to protect myself and my own. I don't think anybody is arguing those points. BUT...I get the sense that this bill is an effort to start to modify those rights.

I can certainly see and appreciate Barn's point of view, but I do not agree entirely with it. While you may call me one of those "C students", I will openly admit that I cannot point out what precisely it is in this bill that unnerves me. We already have laws in place aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them, but they don't work. What makes us think that more of the same will work? I don't see it being possible to track every single firearm in the country as others have said - it only keeps the honest jumping through more hoops. I take no issue with increasing the penalty on those found guilty of breaking firearm laws, but I do take issue with having to pay the government to exercise my constitutional rights as well as having to take a test to be given the opportunity to do so.

I dunno...the whole thing leaves me with a rather uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach.

Jessie

[Sortarican]

Well, you aren't going to convince them by calling them names...

I've been waiting for a chance to post this:
11002



Ha fuck'em they can NEVER have my
ZORG industries ZF-1

But what's the little red button on the bottom of the gun do?:think:

[TFOGGuys]

If this were even remotely possible, it would be considerable. Of course, if it were mandated, the only guns being tracked would be the ones owned by legal enthusiasts. Criminals would not, or by their nature to commit crimes without getting caught, could not respect such a measure.



I respect your view, but was just wondering, how exactly? As per what is proposed with H.R. 45?
Also, how will making guns harder to get, make them harder for criminals to get? That is really the goal of all these laws, right? To keep them out of the hands of criminals?



I'm not sure I follow here but are you saying that if I respect the law, that zero chance exists that I might need to defend my life at any given time?



They don't already?
Regardless, the bill in question makes no mention of stiffer penalties against criminal acts committed with firearms, only more tedious steps for the legal purchaser.
+1

Laws governing firearms by their nature restrict only the law abiding. To put it in the most basic terms, unless the .gov is willing to go door to door and ransack every house, apartment, and office in the country, and confiscate EVERY firearm, they have ZERO chance of getting guns out of the hands of criminals. Even then, criminals are ingenious at improvising guns from an amazing variety of items. We have a two hundred+ year history of private firearms ownership in this country, and criminals are about as likely to comply with some registration scheme as they are to donate their ill gotten gains to a police charity. Why penalize the law abiding in the name of "reducing availability of these evil guns to criminals"? Simple: it makes the feel good politicians appear as if they are doing something meaningful, thus justifying their miserable existence. If the parasites in DC had to actually DO something for their salaries, most of 'em would keel over on the spot.

[= Buckeye Jess =]

+1

Laws governing firearms by their nature restrict only the law abiding. To put it in the most basic terms, unless the .gov is willing to go door to door and ransack every house, apartment, and office in the country, and confiscate EVERY firearm, they have ZERO chance of getting guns out of the hands of criminals. Even then, criminals are ingenious at improvising guns from an amazing variety of items. We have a two hundred+ year history of private firearms ownership in this country, and criminals are about as likely to comply with some registration scheme as they are to donate their ill gotten gains to a police charity. Why penalize the law abiding in the name of "reducing availability of these evil guns to criminals"? Simple: it makes the feel good politicians appear as if they are doing something meaningful, thus justifying their miserable existence. If the parasites in DC had to actually DO something for their salaries, most of 'em would keel over on the spot.

Amen man!!

[~Barn~]

All of us being motorcyclists to some degree, and many of us being wholly and all-too-intimately familiar with the dangers of interacting with other motorists, I'm curious to see how the discussion would spread if say this topic had to do with (for example) making the processes for obtaining and maintaining a drivers license more strict, and refining those existing rules. What philosophical "adjustments" some of us may make. And yes, I realize that there is no constitutional mention of a right to operate a car.

Don't get me wrong, I see slippery slopes for what they are, but I also know that focusing on potentially false horizons can distort what's clearly in front of you.

Again, I have zero qualms with the bill as I read it. That being said, I would surely re-read it prior to say... Having to vote on it.

[Kim-n-Dean]

Man, I tried to read all three pages but, only made it through two and a half.

To me, the key is history. If this passes, a few years later, you'll probably see guns being collected by the government.

Also, the pistols with removable mags won't be banned unless they have a second pistol grip. The word "and" is in there before all the different versions of pistol types listed. "And" can be pretty powerful...

[Raptor]

Don't get me wrong, I see slippery slopes for what they are, but I also know that focusing on potentially false horizons can distort what's clearly in front of you.

That's exactly the point though. Should such a discussion take place, would it not be easy enough to discern whose points derive from emotional or logical positions?

Same here I think. My feelings with gun or vehicular tragedy are parallel. The initial moment that "stupid" strikes, sure, I have an emotional reaction. But, the ability to separate emotion from logic as applied to the outcome is what credits one's stance.

To liken some of the reactions to this bill as projection or paranoia does not seem fair. Your feelings about the bill are as subjective to anyone else's criticism, but the walk in your shoes is what determines it, correct? Is the walk in Dirk's, Gary's or anyone else's shoes any less relevant to their own stance? If it does not parallel your views, is it invalid?

Respectfully.

[Kim-n-Dean]

...I'm curious to see how the discussion would spread if say this topic had to do with (for example) making the processes for obtaining and maintaining a drivers license more strict, and refining those existing rules.Germany does this. They school the shit out of ya and a drivers license is around $3,000. Statistics show it to be affective.

This is apples and oranges, though. If the U.S. cranked up the drivers licensing process, I don't think it would lead to cars being collected by the government.

[Raptor]

Man, I tried to read all three pages but, only made it through two and a half.

To me, the key is history. If this passes, a few years later, you'll probably see guns being collected by the government.

Also, the pistols with removable mags won't be banned unless they have a second pistol grip. The word "and" is in there before all the different versions of pistol types listed. "And" can be pretty powerful...


+1

The roots and cause of our Constitution, as well as the history of other societies can teach a lot. Or, as Ralph put it, precedence.

If precedence is the foundation of the evolution of law, even in the SCOTUS, than why is it not acceptable that citizens at least take historic precedence into some account?

[Kim-n-Dean]

But what's the little red button on the bottom of the gun do?:think:Any self respecting killer would have asked...

[= Buckeye Jess =]

All of us being motorcyclists to some degree, and many of us being wholly and all-too-intimately familiar with the dangers of interacting with other motorists, I'm curious to see how the discussion would spread if say this topic had to do with (for example) making the processes for obtaining and maintaining a drivers license more strict, and refining those existing rules. What philosophical "adjustments" some of us may make. And yes, I realize that there is no constitutional mention of a right to operate a car.

Like I said before, I can certainly see and understand your stance...but your above statement is the essence of my issue with this bill. Driving a car/riding a bike is a privilege - so I can't really gripe TOO much with restrictions on such. However... the right to bear arms is a constitutional right and I look at this bill as putting strings on that right to be potentially yanked and manipulated down the road.

Jessie

[TFOGGuys]

Again, I have zero qualms with the bill as I read it. That being said, I would surely re-read it prior to say... Having to vote on it.

Unfortunately, you'll never have the opportunity to vote on it. Our "representatives" will pass whatever legislation they feel like passing, regardless of legality, constitutionality, or common sense. Our President will sign said legislation into law, without regard for any of the above. At that point, if it is indeed a bad law, someone is going to have to spend millions to challenge it's constitutionality through the court systems, probably all the way to the US Supreme court.

[Sortarican]

I have that quote from the movie The American President running through my head:
"Congratulations! You just passed a crime bill that has absolutely no chance of stopping crime."

[dirkterrell]

And yes, I realize that there is no constitutional mention of a right to operate a car.


But that is the very heart of what some of us are talking about. Your ability to drive a car isn't a constitutionally protected right. Your right to self-defense, be it from other citizens or the government, is.



Don't get me wrong, I see slippery slopes for what they are, but I also know that focusing on potentially false horizons can distort what's clearly in front of you.


But in this case we have abundant historical precedence on the dangers of this sort of legislation. This is not paranoia or misguided rambling. This is being aware of history and learning its lessons. Ask the Canadians how well gun registration went.

Dirk

[Sortarican]

Seriously Dirk, stack your sig line pics.
Not all of us are running on dual 32" screens.

[TFOGGuys]

To me, the key is history. If this passes, a few years later, you'll probably see guns being collected by the government.



Already happening in the People's Republik of Kalifornia....

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=83839&highlight=calguns+history

[dirkterrell]

Seriously Dirk, stack your sig line pics.
Not all of us are running on dual 32" screens.

They are stacking just fine on my 14" laptop screen.

Dirk

[DavidofColorado]

Is this the thread about fixing the economy? Am I in the right room here?

[The Black Knight]

<edit> There was a great video of a massive rally in the UK. The people were protesting their loss of rights (specifically gun rights), and the people's individual commentary was nearly enough to bring one to tears. Of course, Youtube now says it was pulled for copyright infringement against the NRA...otherwise, I'd cite.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQoQTdVlxkA

there you go man...

[DavidofColorado]

While the definition of insane is to try and do something over and over again the same way and expecting different results. It also insane to think that gun control will be any different.

I would like add that the erosion of a constitutional right might seem good at first it takes someone that will be affected by it to know that it won't work. A gun owner knows that registering all of their firearms is a bad idea.

Bobby Rush should know better than anyone that it didn't work in Chicago in the 70's. Sure a law abiding person could register a gun and keep it for sport but once that registry is closed to new additions its hard to register and new gun you might want to buy. That might be a problem if you live in Chicago and wasn't even born in the 70's if when you grow up and want to buy a gun for lawful reasons.

The registry idea has always lead to confiscation in the past in other countries. But closing the registry always leads to a total ban via no new purchases.

If you don't think its a bad idea look at some of those tighter hoops you would have to jump threw just to purchase a gun. How about releasing your medical records to help their decision of granting you a license to own the guns you all ready have? How about releasing your mental records too?

On an interesting side note. Bobby Rush was a founding member of the Black Panthers in IL. He is also the sponsor of this bill and played his part in forcing the 1968 gun control law that bans felons from possessing firearms, because of his involvement with the Black Panthers.

In 1968 Bobby Rush went AWOL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AWOL) from the US Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Army), co-founded the state's Black Panther Party and later was honorably discharged. [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Rush#cite_note-12) In 1969, Bobby Rush served six months in prison for illegal possession of firearms.

Wiki Page for what thats worth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Rush)

Black Panthers Party (http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/)


H.R. 45 is Draconian Gun Control

What H.R. 45 Does

The legislation has three main components.

Increasing requirements for firearms purchases.
Creating a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.
Stiffen penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database formed in section 2.

To purchase a firearm a person would be required to pass a written firearms examination, release all health records -- including mental heath records -- to the Attorney General's office, and submit to a two-day waiting period, as well as pay an "appropriate" fee of $25 per firearm.

Additionally, every firearm sale would be recorded in a database, which would track the serial number, make, model and identity of the owner. The legislation would also make all private sales of firearms illegal, and a felony offense.

In addition to these regulations, the legislation includes excessive regulations and penalties for bureaucratic missteps from simple failures to report address changes to failure to report stolen weapons.

Provisions of H.R. 45 include:

Requires passing a written examination to purchase a firearm.
Releases medical records -- including confidential mental health records -- to the Attorney General for Government review.
Requires a two-day waiting period on all firearms purchases.
Institutes a fee of $25 or more on all firearm purchases.
Creates a national database with all firearms and firearms owners registered by serial number with the Federal Government.
A Federal ban on all private firearms sales.
Increases in penalties for clerical errors related to this national firearms registry.

You can read the full text of the bill here (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102443677133&e=001aZKF6CRbuYRbuqUvJc76DEdjqAx2Vzh-kV4sdCc63V9k7hxq2JL_UY03hIl2CmUE-YH6I4T_f1WWE5jGO_ZyFLVajKTICmysVfT3J8I9eN9UfUFyl4c GMA==). Click here to sign the petition against H.R. 45! (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102443677133&e=001aZKF6CRbuYRHojdm6XWJUeqARsEyp7JSTi9k77KGh2ijt li9hLYuHRHoM9SbNQnEaFr5fz7kr3AAtHR0qzs0VmmK-QKdoK4xEy6SbAHXqIXRnGqCT3d3MKxUI_K-U3V4)
Who's sponsoring H.R. 45

H.R. 45 -- President Obama's National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act -- was written by Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102443677133&e=001aZKF6CRbuYRS9aS_O6oe5cp8trx-Sk7AyZfOqfBFD58tJaa8gxzZAPdl9QdgTHAcr45wwGpIiMemUo 2Eia7ZmDUrUXccbfMlV6LULTFxPL_P5el-GR8AxQ==) (D). It currently has no cosponsors. But will it pass Congress?
Congressman Rush's bill an outrageous destruction of Constitutional Rights, but it's the compromises that are truly dangerous

Though far-left gun-haters routinely sponsor pie-in-the-sky legislation (anyone remember the days of Sen. Moynihan's annual 1000% tax on ammo?), H.R. 45 has set new lows for the depths to which hoplophobes will sink.

Is H.R. 45 dangerous? Yes. But is it likely to pass? No, not in its current form.... it's too far-reaching.

What is likely to pass, though, is a compromise, a deal cut with the gun-grabbers and the group that ostensibly represents gun owners, the NRA.

Think that can't happen? Rewind to the summer of 2007, when arch gun-hater Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102443677133&e=001aZKF6CRbuYTGZTM7hC-ZQfalSuWWF-LI3hDXx5LkQDiCQmqZAH7cMhX-LSnErVYAxgaOSLJiIgufXXSlL50g3cHbHrsJkqQCEofCFjCC-aNW-WpPmuGUz3Xuv3RQSEgE) sat down with NRA board member Congressman John Dingell (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102443677133&e=001aZKF6CRbuYRS9aS_O6oe5cp8trx-Sk7AyZfOqfBFD58tJaa8gxzZAPdl9QdgTHAcr45wwGpIiMemUo 2Eia7ZmDUrUXccbfMlV6LULTFxPL_P5el-GR8AxQ==) to craft a deal to expand Brady Checks into new realms of mental health records. A few months later, H.R. 2640 (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102443677133&e=001aZKF6CRbuYT5hWSyKPVpOFgF3UjraQGsrPwT29zYKvO7m zzFUXAGJIjIbAvz_hB_TivXItjd6WvVvO2iPNMC-ZDe4HY9_1eju8lLfR9wUJxLxGBYsKcHPd2GGSB0X2iyxHeqGuc arVw=) passed...with the approval of the NRA and McCarthy.

Congressman Rush's gun control ideas are much, much more dangerous as amendments to legislation that is already advancing.

Remember the Brady Bill? It didn't pass as a stand-alone bill. It passed as an amendment.

Even more frightening was that it passed with the approval of the NRA (click here for that full story (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102443677133&e=001aZKF6CRbuYSOPfcOs5qsov0hvsQ7MKXEzUOH01liMVt3n XKUja9HvE5xb1S7xe5Q5Y361j5zJijdeor2oxBMy8hgitomfbF uxVlJ5uRJ9yIcCsW0Q_GvYnjxl15PW_C4))

The same is true of the Lautenberg Domestic Abuse ban, the Assault Weapons ban, 1986 McClure-Volkmer (which bans the manufacture of transferable machine guns), the 1968 Gun Control Act, and numerous other examples (especially if you look at state legislation).
Yes, we're watching H.R. 45. , and we want everyone to sign our petition against it. But also beware the slight of hand -- it's often more dangerous.
Click here to sign the petition against H.R. 45! (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102443677133&e=001aZKF6CRbuYRHojdm6XWJUeqARsEyp7JSTi9k77KGh2ijt li9hLYuHRHoM9SbNQnEaFr5fz7kr3AAtHR0qzs0VmmK-QKdoK4xEy6SbAHXqIXRnGqCT3d3MKxUI_K-U3V4)



I just signed the petition and donated $5 to RMGO.

[The Black Knight]

I'm a gun owner and have my ccw.... I think every fire arm in the US should be tracked. I think it should be harder to get any type of fire arm. I think if you are a law abiding citizen, you should have no reason to need to pick up a fire arm of any type "right now". I think crimes committed with fire arms should have very stiff mandatory penalties.

Well if you really are a CCW and gun owner I find it hard that you believe the way you do about firearms. And you basically believe in everything I am totally against with the exception to mandatory penalties.

You think every firearm should be tracked?? Why? and by what right do you have to track everyone's firearm??

You think it should be harder to get a firearm? Why? and by what right do you have to make it harder for "Law Abiding citizens to obtain their firearm"??

You think that since a law abiding person wants to buy a firearm that they should not be allowed to buy it "Right Now". What right do you have mandating, regulating and telling me or any other gun owner what we can and cannot own and how fast we can purchase it???

On a quick side now, for the record, and I'm sure this will make you uneasy. I purchased my newest pistol in 8 minutes. Yep after I filled out my paperwork, they ran my application into C.B.I. and in 8 minutes I was on my merry way with my new firearm. If you want me to be honest, I think 8 minutes is too long to have waited to buy something that I have every right to own. So for everyone that thinks longer wait times are in order, suck on that 8 minutes :)

But to pick up on where I left off. Why should I be told that I can't purchase a AK47 or a AR15 or a BMG .50 right now?? Who gets to make the sound judgement as to what I can and can't own.

You don't tell people they can't go by a car or truck when and where. And buying a vehicle is a "privalege" and not a "RIGHT". Most people can walk in and within a hour to a few hours have the car or truck of their dreams. Yet that's a privalege and now you want to go around telling me and others like me that we can't own a firearm that is our Constitutional "RIGHT"??? That's wrong. I could do way more damage with a F350 by slamming it into a group of people standing in line or gathered out somewhere, then I could ever do with a AR15. Sure you can take out a few un-knowing bystanders with the AR15 but after the first few shots ring out people are running. By now it will take skill and aim in order to hit more people. Plus you'll have to change magazines when you run out. In a big 10000lb F350, I just put my foot on the gas and go and keep running all over the place.

I agree with your last point. We do need harsher penalties. We do have them on the books but bleeding hearts won't let us enforce them. I can't believe Colorado is actually considering(again) to abolish our Death Penalty. What's more harsher then death penalty? Hey take a life, lose your life pure and simple. But we've got politicians trying to change this. So in essence they are standing in the way of our harsher penalties that you so yurn for.

[= Buckeye Jess =]

now wait a damn minute.... i either mis-read or skipped over that part... but this bill calls for us to sign over ALL of our medical records?? not just mental????? absof**kinglutely not!!! that to me is the ULTIMATE invasion of privacy and has no bearing whatsoever on my gun owning status. i'd rather invite "big brother" over to monitor me in the shower every day than willingly sign over my medical records to the government!!!

[jbnwc]

Per Ben Franklin:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."


I think Ben was talking about this exact sort of legislation:



(c) Purposes- The purposes of this Act and the amendments made by this Act are--

(1) to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of qualifying firearms to criminals and youth;

(2) to ensure that owners of qualifying firearms are knowledgeable in the safe use, handling, and storage of those firearms;

(3) to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youth, and other persons prohibited by Federal law from receiving firearms; and

(4) to facilitate the tracing of qualifying firearms used in crime by Federal and State law enforcement agencies.

[jbnwc]

If they pass this law, then I will be a "criminal" and I won't feel the slightest bit bad about disobeying the "law". I've always been a law-abiding citizen(other than speeding!), but registration is the beginning of the end. The anti-gun people know the exact steps they need to take to get this ball rolling and registration is one step along that path. It has happened in several other countries.

Does anyone know what we can do to encourage 'our' politicians to fight these types of legislature?

[= Buckeye Jess =]

My best suggestion is to speak with the NRA about who to write to/call and what specifically to say.

[Rhino]

How about this? Instead of tracking the guns, "license" buyers. While it still sucks to have to pay to exercise the 2nd ($152.50 for CCW), you could probably make that back in transfer fees alone.

Hmmm...here in CO no less:


Friday, January 30, 2009 On Monday January 26, House Bill 1180 (http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/directory.nsf/814de729d556c00207256634004d6750/50e1cbff074b4ecb87256f430079fab7?OpenDocument) was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee where it will be taken up in near future.
HB 1180, sponsored by State Representative Steve King (R-54) will exempt Colorado concealed handgun permit holders from the background check requirement for the transfers of a firearm.
While HB 1180 has not yet been scheduled to be heard in the House Judiciary Committee, please contact the members of the committee and urge them to support this important piece of legislation.

State Representative Claire Levy (D-13) (Chairman)
303-866-2578
claire.levy.house@state.co.us (claire.levy.house@state.co.us) State Representative McCann (D-8) (Vice-Chairman)
303-866-2959
ehmccann@comcast.net
State Representative Dennis Apuan (D-17)
303-866-3069
repdennisapuan@gmail.com (repdennisapuan@gmail.com)
State Representative Lois Court (D-6)
303-866-2967
loiscourt@msn.com (loiscourt@msn.com)
State Representative Bob Gardner (R-21)
303-866-2191
bob.gardner.house@state.co.us (bob.gardner.house@state.co.us)
State Representative Steve King (R-54)
303-866-3068
steve.king.house@state.co.us (steve.king.house@state.co.us)
State Representative Joe Miklosi (D-9)
303-866-2910
joe@joemiklosi.com (joe@joemiklosi.com)
State Representative Sal Pace (D-46)
303-866-2968
sal_pace@hotmail.com (sal_pace@hotmail.com)
State Representative Ellen Roberts (R-59)
303-866-2914
ellen.roberts.house@state.co.us (ellen.roberts.house@state.co.us)
State Representative Su Ryden (D-36)
303-866-2942
su@suryden.com (su@suryden.com)
State Representative Mark Waller (R-15)
303-866-5525
mark.waller.house@state.co.us (mark.waller.house@state.co.us)



(The link isn't working, but the idea is there):boobies:

[TFOGGuys]

My best suggestion is to speak with the NRA about who to write to/call and what specifically to say.

The NRA has a horrible track record of trading away our rights a little bit at a time. My suggestion would be to support Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Association (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/www.rmgo.org) or the Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/).

[~Barn~]

<snipSame here I think. My feelings with gun or vehicular tragedy are parallel. The initial moment that "stupid" strikes, sure, I have an emotional reaction. But, the ability to separate emotion from logic as applied to the outcome is what credits one's stance.

I don't disagree. And still I think that it is far too accessible for most of American society to do certain things. Certain things that maybe even have this perception around them of being an inalienable right.

Now I'm not talking about a wholesale reinvention of The Constitution, far from it. But listen... The simple fact is that a document written 200+ years ago, simply couldn't account for what society is today. It's evidenced by the fact that it *is* in fact a living document and has been amended numerous times. And obviously this issue isn't anything close to resembling a constitutional amendment, but we've clearly cited the document a few times.

And in a country where we take such pride in claiming to be the best and the brightest and the pinnacle of what is, we are far from able to back it up. Honestly... Compare us to other developed, Democratic countries from around the world, and see how we stack up. Education, Health Care, Crime, Transportation, Poverty, World Affairs, etc...

It's simply too easy for people in this country to do things like:
- Get a drivers license
- Own a gun
- Quote/Unquote "finish" school
- Get in tremendous debt
- Fuck it... I'll even venture to say "have a child".

And this little bill about tracking gun transit more tightly, insuring more responsible gun ownership, and yes, even implementing a more complete and thorough licensing protocol, has this Dooms Day aura around it; causing people to liken back to The Holocaust?? Really?

But hey... This is why I love this country. And despite some of the points-of-contention I have with the way we often live, I still think we have a tremendous ability to offer ourselves appropriate self governance. In the end, we get the government we deserve, by way of who we choose to represent us, and legislation they support/defend/introduce.

Suffice to say, I'm far less worried about how a bill like this will affect my day-to-day life and liberties, and those of my loved ones, than some of the other problems that our country has glaring upon it. Maybe that's really the point that I've been struggling to convey.

[dirkterrell]

I don't disagree. And still I think that it is far too accessible for most of American society to do certain things. Certain things that maybe even have this perception around them of being an inalienable right.


But the great thing about freedom is that you get to decide what you do and I get to decide what I do. As long as you or I don't infringe on the rights of others, all is well. The government's role is to protect you from my violating your rights and vice versa. Its role is not to say that so and so thinks something is too accessible so we need to keep them from doing it. Its role is to protect others if you violate their rights doing that something. Hell, I'll bet there is a majority of people who think that we ought to ban motorcycles over 50hp. No one needs that much power.



Now I'm not talking about a wholesale reinvention of The Constitution, far from it. But listen... The simple fact is that a document written 200+ years ago, simply couldn't account for what society is today. It's evidenced by the fact that it *is* in fact a living document and has been amended numerous times. And obviously this issue isn't anything close to resembling a constitutional amendment, but we've clearly cited the document a few times.


The Constitution was absolutely written to account for changes in society. It describes how laws are created and enforced to deal with issues they couldn't imagine as they come along. It describes inalienable rights that must be respected by the government. And if there are any changes needed in the document itself, it allows for amendments to be made. The system was very carefully thought ought by some of the brightest people ever to grace the face of the Earth. People who studied history and saw how people, even those beginning with the purest of intentions, were perverted into history's most evil monsters when they achieved power at the expense of people's freedom. So, you'll pardon me if I call bullshit on the claim that we need to abandon the very document that gave rise to one of the greatest countries the world has ever seen.



And in a country where we take such pride in claiming to be the best and the brightest and the pinnacle of what is, we are far from able to back it up. Honestly... Compare us to other developed, Democratic countries from around the world, and see how we stack up. Education, Health Care, Crime, Transportation, Poverty, World Affairs, etc...


Yes, we could certainly stand to improve in many areas. But this country isn't exactly the wasteland that politicians (especially those on the left it seems) would have you believe. We could spend entire threads on each of those items you list but that would needlessly complicate this discussion.



It's simply too easy for people in this country to do things like:
- Get a drivers license
- Own a gun
- Quote/Unquote "finish" school
- Get in tremendous debt
- Fuck it... I'll even venture to say "have a child".


The big reason why many of these things are problems is because we don't hold anyone accountable for their actions. Kids can't be punished in school because it hurts their little feelings. We can't let them fail. And then they grow into adults with a sense of entitlement. We can't let them fail. Huge corporations throw lavish gifts upon upper management and follow stupid business practices, only to be given a bailout at the expense of the honest and hard working people of this country because they are in with the jackass politicians. We can't let them fail. Hell yes we can let them fail! Failure is a natural part of freedom. And it is precisely this aversion to failure that is going to cause our downfall if we don't get smart about it real soon.



And this little bill about tracking gun transit more tightly, insuring more responsible gun ownership, and yes, even implementing a more complete and thorough licensing protocol, has this Dooms Day aura around it; causing people to liken back to The Holocaust?? Really?


Again, read some history and it may open your eyes. Have you traveled in eastern Europe much? I have. And I've talked quite a bit with people who lived behind the Iron Curtain and I have yet to have any of them do anything but praise the love of freedom that drives our country. The guy in the office next to me grew up in Czechoslovakia under the ruthless rule of Ceauşescu. He was almost in tears once describing to me what it was like to live in freedom here in the US. He'd have a thing or two to tell you about gun registration.



But hey... This is why I love this country. And despite some of the points-of-contention I have with the way we often live, I still think we have a tremendous ability to offer ourselves appropriate self governance. In the end, we get the government we deserve, by way of who we choose to represent us, and legislation they support/defend/introduce.


Yep.



Suffice to say, I'm far less worried about how a bill like this will affect my day-to-day life and liberties, and those of my loved ones, than some of the other problems that our country has glaring upon it. Maybe that's really the point that I've been struggling to convey.

Let's solve those problems for real, not by giving up freedoms to the politicians so that they can ratchet their grip down on us. The system was designed to limit their powers and they don't like that. It is up to each of us to be ever vigilant against their encroachments and remain citizens, not subjects.

Dirk

[= Buckeye Jess =]

The NRA has a horrible track record of trading away our rights a little bit at a time. My suggestion would be to support Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Association (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/www.rmgo.org) or the Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/).

Ah, I was previously unaware of this - thanks! I'm not one that has ever really followed any of those associations and thus am quite (unfortunately) unfamiliar with their track records.

[FSTCO]

Dirk I appreciate the way you are attempting to educate a complete moron who believes he is educated, in everything but history. I couldn't do it.
Thank You

[dirkterrell]

Dirk I appreciate the way you are attempting to educate a complete moron who believes he is educated, in everything but history. I couldn't do it.
Thank You

Well, let's not turn to personal attacks but I'm glad to hear that someone agrees with me. :) The facts of history speak well enough, if we are aware of and learn from them. We are not the enemy of each other as the politicians like to make us think. It is important that we all recognize what the politicians are after and guard our freedoms with our very lives if needed.

We should be able to disagree intelligently about various ways of improving our country and not feel like those we disagree with are our enemies. Brandon and I can without a doubt do that. I will call him down on the facts and he'd better damn well do the same to me if I'm full of shit on something, but in the end I don't feel any animosity towards him when we disagree. That ability to argue and disagree is one thing that I love being able to do. It's what makes us better, and the Founding Fathers understood that very well.

Dirk

[~Barn~]

Dirk I appreciate the way you are attempting to educate a complete moron who believes he is educated, in everything but history. I couldn't do it.
Thank You

:lol: Well lookie here... The peanut gallery found a spokesperson.

[= Buckeye Jess =]

LMAO

[DavidofColorado]

:lol: Well lookie here... The peanut gallery found a spokesperson.

I don't agree with your reasons either and I am not comfortable with how easy you are willing to take it. Maybe there is something that you are telling us. But I don't understand why you are willing to sell out a true freedom so quickly. You don't speak for everyone, only yourself, just like me. And I am not willing to let something bad happen to America for no reason what so ever. If a boy got shot in the ghetto and this politician wants to make a name for himself by standing in the blood of this victim I want to feed this guy to lions and wish that the boy got stabbed or thrown out a window instead. Just so they couldn't blame the gun.

You said earlier that the lib in you would have woke up for this one. Maybe its not what the lib in you cares about. What does the lib in you care about enough that you wouldn't want to see it regulated to death? I don't know and I am not going guess. I am going to keep an open mind and listen to what you cherish the most and think is fine the way it is.

[~Barn~]

I can appreciate that, David.

[#1Townie]

i think the whole gun thing is funny.. omg guns are killing people by the mass numbers everyday.. omg god we need to take the guns away from the people..

barn let me just ask you this.. how many people die every year from car wrecks?? how many die from bike wrecks??? i mean realy, i think cars kill or hurt more people every day then guns do in a month... yet you can still buy a car with no background check.. you can still ride off a lot with a bike and have no license.. still you are in control of these things and with no real regulation.. yeah sure your supposed to have a insurance and other things to drive but people still do it with nothing... banning any kind of gun will never fix anything.. the bad guys still have full autos and still kill each other.. that will not end just cuz we put threw a bill that says you have to let the government know what kind of gun you have.. take the pit bull ban in denver.. they killed all these dogs because it was a killer bread.. yet there are still dog fights going on... more laws are not always the answear for a problem..

[Wyck]

Here's another comment from the peanut gallery.

I am one of those who generally quietly reads these political threads or listens to political discussions without inserting my own comments. The reason I generally keep my opinions on these matters to myself is because these types of discussions usually fall apart quickly resorting to namecalling, ad hominem, tone response etc. I usually get about 2 pages or 5 minutes in and give up because I refuse to listen to people who engage in such behaviour. I understand that the reason this happens is because people are passionate in what they believe in. Just because I choose not to participate doesn't make me any less passionate or less informed. I read the text of the law and then the pros and cons from both sides and form my own opinion. I actually enjoy reading and listening to intelligent educated discussion on political subjects. The fact that I have actually read all 4 pages of this thread and feel like commenting is a testament to most of you participating. Thanks to everyone for keeping this discussion on topic and on point.

[TFOGGuys]

Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

/argument

[~Barn~]

Yes, but how do you ban Rosie O'Donnell?

[#1Townie]

Yes, but how do you ban Rosie O'Donnell?

out law all fast food?? then maybe she will go over seas..

[fullgrownbear]

You don't ban Rosie, you ban the spoon. Spoons are evil, indecent, foul creatures who will stop at nothing until you are DEAD DEAD DEAD.

Do you see how I have assigned a personality to an inanimate object? It's the old and simple art of personification.

I currently believe the true motivations behind these bogus, restrictive, devilish gunhating billis, is a product of personification. Guns are not people, people are people. Guns are not evil, people are evil. Gun owners are not evil, the people who try to restrict our RIGHTS are EVIL.

Do you really believe I will stand by and let you sway the masses into believing we will be better off as a society, with more restrictions on one of the oldest and most pronounced civil liberties we have ever known?

This country was FOUNDED on the second ammendment. Do you have any idea what wolves do to sheep without a sheep dog? The sheep get their jugular ripped out, that's what happens. I'm my own sheep dog. Nobody is responisible for being a sheepdog, except for me.

The reason sheep need a sheep dog is because they are mentally and physically incapable of defending themselves from the wolf. I, as a human being, possessing god given rights however, am not. Therefore, you will not restrict one of the tools (guns) I am rightfully and legally allowed to possess.

/rant - and yes, I'm pissed off - because I see the masses being cooed ever so slightly in the demonstrative direction of ALICE IN FKING WONDER LAND. Walk me off a cliff, will you.

[TFOGGuys]

Yes, but how do you ban Rosie O'Donnell?

You don't. You get people to realize that what spews out of that ugly gash under her nose is hypocritical nonsense, and eventually she's rendered irrelevant.

[InlineSIX24]

Are you trying to say that 9/11 wasn't a gov. plot like she commented? Come on now.

[TFOGGuys]

"And it never, ever was interpreted that the Second Amendment meant individual's right to bear arms" - Rosie O'Donnell, Million Mom March speaker and talk show host

"I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law--and I know this is extreme--that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns. It's ridiculous." - Rosie O'Donnell

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison." - Rosie O'Donnell


Oh yeah, police and her personal bodyguards.... :roll:

These quotes are a great illustration of the NEED for a 1st Amendment license.....irresponsible use of Free Speech MUST be curtailed.

/sarcasm

[~Barn~]

I'm going to go home and clean my USP .45.
















And then go shoot at sheep dogs. I may swing by BW3, but I'm not sure yet.

[= Buckeye Jess =]

We have our right to free speech as well.. and sadly, that includes letting hypocrits talk trash like that. But who knows? Mayhaps we should ban guns for a month and let Rosie forage about for her own meals in the meantime and see how her tune changes? lol

Honestly... do these celebs put ANY thought into what comes out of their pieholes before they open them???

[fullgrownbear]

We have our right to free speech as well.. and sadly, that includes letting hypocrits talk trash like that. But who knows? Mayhaps we should ban guns for a month and let Rosie forage about for her own meals in the meantime and see how her tune changes? lol

Honestly... do these celebs put ANY thought into what comes out of their pieholes before they open them???

These people you speak of did not grow up with the hardships and difficulties associated with the normal american life.

You must understand this. The lack of real life experience has made them so thirsty for controversy, this is all they know.

[= Buckeye Jess =]

I bow down - you raise a very valid point!

[MetaLord 9]

Not sure if the point's been made yet (didn't read the entire thread, so forgive/forget if it's redundant), isn't this the foundation for taxing gun owners per gun? I mean this lays the groundwork and builds the frame for Congress to simply pass a law saying that anyone who registers a gun will subject to a yearly (or however often) taxation to continue its registration, much as we do currently with vehicles. It's a HUGE step for the anti-gun lobby to tax firearms to death, much as they're current ly trying to do with cigarettes.

[~Barn~]

Okay, I take it all back.... I think the only people who should have guns are females.

Licensed, Responsible, Registered, and Braided, females.
http://www.itsbarn.com/images/data/media/4/gun_slingers.jpg

(Sorry, I would tag the subject line as NSFW, but no-can-do.)