Stock up on guns and ammo before it's too late.

[MN-E]

I fully support the 2nd amendment saying we the people have the right to keep and bear arms. I suggest the federal government should not have any more powerful arms than the residents of the country have unless it is voted on and passed by majority to be able to amend the constitution.

I also fully believe that was meant to provide a means of rebellion by the people against an overpowering federal government; as we have today.

I believe most if not all the gun control laws of today are unconstitutional and that the current federal government is doing their damnedest to do something to curtail that right.

I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from. Regarding my earlier comments about private citizens having the Constitutional right to own and bear chemical, nuclear and bio-weapons... do you agree with this or not?
And, are you saying that our current federal government is "overpowering" and should be rebelled against? I'm not sure I'm clear on that point.

...tougher gun registration and more types of guns being banned and very wide sweeping all encompassing definition language being used to define the allowable arms. And if you read it, there will be none allowed.

I'm sorry, I don't think I'm following you... what is the bill you're talking about?

[frenchie]

Unfortunately you are wrong...your statement is incorrect...A person does have the right to yell fire in a theater especially if there is a fire!!!...and if there isn't a fire you still can but you may suffer the consequences of doing something foolish if it causes a panic...Punishment is something someone gets when they break a law...law abiding people should not be punished nor should rights be taken from them if they don't break any laws...

Should the right of Freedom of Speech be taken from all people because a few abuse it with racial hatred speach or cause a panic by yelling fire in a theater...of course not...but that line of thinking is the same logic the anti gun lobby uses

Oops - good point - I left out the most important word of that paraphrase - you're not allowed to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

I agree that this does NOT mean the government can pre-emptively muzzle every theater-goer.

My point was simply, that your right to freedom of speech has practical limits. Never mind the crowded theater example - think about libel, defamation, false advertising, copyright infrigement...

Rights don't exist in a vaccuum - they're always balanced against someone else's rights.


Beyond that, like I said: it gets pretty partisan, pretty fast.

Me, personally? I've lived under ridiculously restrictive gun laws (Canada, NYC). I've also lived under some of the most lax gun laws in the country (Vermont). I think gun-control advocates are completely missing the boat.

[Gary Slusser]

I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from. Regarding my earlier comments about private citizens having the Constitutional right to own and bear chemical, nuclear and bio-weapons... do you agree with this or not?
And, are you saying that our current federal government is "overpowering" and should be rebelled against? I'm not sure I'm clear on that point.

I'm sorry, I don't think I'm following you... what is the bill you're talking about?

Is this a discussion or an interrogation"

I said: "I suggest the federal government should not have any more powerful arms than the residents of the country have unless it is voted on and passed by majority to be able to amend the constitution.". I think that is quite clear.

I don't keep a lot of the things that I receive in email, and I've looked and can't find what I was referring to but. It was a copy of the language in a bill that was being introduced or being sent to committee. A paraphrase is that a gun would banned if the US military has used it or IIRC, would use it and there were all types of other hurdles to clear to keep a specific gun from being banned, which was simply impossible due to the wording.

Other legislation, that has been introduced or in committee requires a $.05 tax per bullet and every bullet to be serialized along with the box and each casing, in two spots and all purchases were to be prior approved and recorded in a national database. It also calls for surrendering all present ammo by such'n such date under penalty of law and IIRC a $1000 fine if not complied with. That included reloading supplies and IIRC, the equipment. I just received that this morning and deleted, again.

[Cass]

Obviously, there's the whole argument as to whether "we the people" means the citizens individually, or collectively as a nation.

The only argument about this is with people who don't understand that "Rights" are only given to "The People" While powers are given to Government...

I'm not sure of your position on this...

[MN-E]

The only argument about this is with people who don't understand that "Rights" are only given to "The People" While powers are given to Government...

Well, not to muddy this up any further, but what I was referring to in the statement you quoted was the idea that the 2nd amendment grants the right to nuclear weapons and such to the Military, but only grants the right to firearms to individual Citizens. If we approach the question with a "strict Constitutionalist" mindset, then this notion would be false.

[MN-E]

Is this a discussion or an interrogation?

If I sounded disrespectful or insulting in anyway, then I apologize to you. I was only trying to clarify what your position is, and I'm sorry if I offended you in some way.

And I'm not looking to get into a petty fight with anybody here; hopefully just having a discussion among adults.

Regarding ammo taxes and gun bans, I wasn't able to find anything of substance on the issue. Plenty of folks talking about it on websites, but nothing that I could see that shows that these things are actually going through legislation on the Federal level.
If you happen to run across anything - - a bill number, reference, or what have you - - then I'd certainly like to take a look at it.

[Redwood]

Regarding ammo taxes and gun bans, I wasn't able to find anything of substance on the issue. Plenty of folks talking about it on websites, but nothing that I could see that shows that these things are actually going through legislation on the Federal level.
If you happen to run across anything - - a bill number, reference, or what have you - - then I'd certainly like to take a look at it.

This information was posted earlier by Catch Chick in this thread...
http://www.terrylove.com/forums/show...6&postcount=37

Try H.R.45 Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

The link below is an online petition against it you can sign.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/lets-stop-bill-hr-45

[theelviscerator]

Seen this before and thought it was interesting.

Shhh, the gungrabbers don't want anyone to know the facts.....

[MN-E]

This information was posted earlier by Catch Chick in this thread...
http://www.terrylove.com/forums/show...6&postcount=37

Thanks for the info, but the bill doesn't have any language regarding increased taxation of ammo, nor does it ban any guns.

And... you're going to hate me for this, but this doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. Comparing it to the registration I need for my truck, and the fact that I have to renew my driver's license every 5 years, I'm just not seeing why this is such a bad idea. (Also, checking Snopes & the language of the bill, the "mental & physical evaluation" bit is not truly a part of the bill).

Sorry, sir, but I'm guessing we're just not going to see eye-to-eye on this.

[Scuba_Dave]

And... you're going to hate me for this, but this doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. Comparing it to the registration I need for my truck, and the fact that I have to renew my driver's license every 5 years, I'm just not seeing why this is such a bad idea. (Also, checking Snopes & the language of the bill, the "mental & physical evaluation" bit is not truly a part of the bill).

Sorry, sir, but I'm guessing we're just not going to see eye-to-eye on this.

The only people who follow the law are law abiding citizens
Criminals will NOT follow these procedures
So the Law is pointless in gun "control"
What we need is "Criminal" control
This is an added expense & problematic
More Govt wasting $$

[Redwood]

Thanks for the info, but the bill doesn't have any language regarding increased taxation of ammo, nor does it ban any guns.

And... you're going to hate me for this, but this doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. Comparing it to the registration I need for my truck, and the fact that I have to renew my driver's license every 5 years, I'm just not seeing why this is such a bad idea. (Also, checking Snopes & the language of the bill, the "mental & physical evaluation" bit is not truly a part of the bill).

Sorry, sir, but I'm guessing we're just not going to see eye-to-eye on this.

I guess some of us are just destined to become sheep!
Sometimes it pays to read the full text rather than let somebody tell you what it says.

Here is the section of the bill regarding mental health.

(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;

Years ago I had a messy divorce, and ended up with custody of my children ages 5 and 6... I sought counseling... I supose that could be a good reason to revolk my permit huh?

SEC. 403. INSPECTIONS.

In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held.

Come on in... Just walk into my house any time you want no warrant required!

(b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(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.’.

A set up for a future bill involving confiscation if you ask me.

(c) Fees-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall charge and collect from each applicant for a license under this title a fee in an amount determined in accordance with paragraph (2).

(2) FEE AMOUNT- The amount of the fee collected under this subsection shall be not less than the amount determined by the Attorney General to be necessary to ensure that the total amount of all fees collected under this subsection during a fiscal year is sufficient to cover the costs of carrying out this title during that fiscal year, except that such amount shall not exceed $25.

Just another tax...

Yea there are a few issues and more when you read the full text.

I for one am not ready to surrender my constitutional rights based on the inability of the goverment to use existing laws to control a criminal population that is illegally using guns.

[speedbump]

When I first heard of this HR 45, I emailed the NRA. They informed me that they are well aware of it and that nothing at this time is being done about it because they feel that it's DOA. But they are watching things on the horizon.

I agree with Redwood, just another tax and an easier way to snatch our guns if they ever wanted to. Which by the way in my opinion, they would love to do if they had the support. Then we are all sheep. Oh; except the criminals who wouldn't surrender theirs.

bob...

[MN-E]

I guess some of us are just destined to become sheep!

"Sheep"?? Come on, Red... I've tried to be respectful here. Certainly we can have a discussion without resorting to namecalling.

Sometimes it pays to read the full text rather than let somebody tell you what it says.

The post you referenced for me (which is a chain e-mail) states "You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing". This is not true; you do have to authorize the release mental health records, but it doesn't state what conditions would make one inelligible for gun ownership. Consider somebody who suffers from schizophrenic delusions; they should be able to get guns without any restrictions?

Come on in... Just walk into my house any time you want no warrant required!

Read the text again, buddy... it pertains to any place in which firearms are manufactured, stored or held FOR DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE. Not private households.

A set up for a future bill involving confiscation if you ask me.

Unwarranted alarmism, if you ask me. Is your vehicle registered? Are they going to confiscate that from you?

As far as taxes & regulations... you know what has a lot of regulations? My state & city plumbing code. Costs me a lot of money, too, paying for inspections & what-not. Are they trying to make sure I'm not going to end up creating a safety hazard for my neighbors... or are they really just infringing on my individual rights?!?


Look, I know I keep beating this point into the ground, but the majority of folks just aren't biting on it:
Tell me the 2nd amendment states I have every right to keep nuclear & chemical weapons in my home (and carry them with me if I choose), and that any restrictions to that end are unconstitutional. I'll vehemently disagree with you, but at least I'll know that you're being intellectually honest & consistent.

If, however, you disagree with that statement...? Then I think you'd have to admit that not all laws & regulations regarding ARMS are a bad thing, and we don't always have to react to them with the notion that the sky is falling and we're all "sheep."

[Redwood]

Yup you're right...

I can think of worse animals to be called than a sheep... LOL
If the shoe fits wear it!

After 40 years of passing "New Gun Control Laws"
We still haven't gotten the criminals to stop using guns illegally...
Go figure...
Instead we keep on limiting the rights of law abiding citizens in hopes of cutailing the activities of the criminal element....
Sounds like a recipe for success to me!

Did you know that in America you can kill someone with a gun and be back out on the streets in less the 12 years?

I'm ready for criminal control myself!

[Scuba_Dave]

Be real, Nuclear & chemical weapons did not exist back then
That's an idiotic argument