Buy more guns

[CTobias]

Hope everyone has been stocking up.:smokelots:

http://www.newsday.com/long-islanders-why-we-re-getting-more-guns-1.1343126

On another note, this video was brought to my attention of some Young Americans for Liberty, protesting the new health care plan. Apparently SWAT needed to come out to stop them from their 1st Ammendment rights. Clearly the thugs in D.C. are not Oath Keepers, but Oath Breakers.

YouTube - Young Americans for Liberty v. D.C. Police & SWAT- with subtitles

 

[CTobias]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Ryan R]

I'm buying, I'm buying- what I can whenever I can.

If HR45 passes I'll offer any government inspector showing up at my door to inspect my storage area a close up view of my guns, they can stare right down the barrel as it's fired at them.

It's sad, ever since I got done iwth the military and returned to civilian life I've felt this country has quickly moved downhill into becoming an embarrassing shadow of its former greatness.

F*ck Obama and anybody that voted for him (and my freakin' naive mom campaigned for him. Such a big disappointment to me, it was hard for me to even talk to her.)

OBAMA stands for One Big Ass Mistake America

 

[Kilgour Farms]

Here is another thing we need to scream about when our representatives are home on break. This bill is flying under the radar.
Blair Holt Bill registration on firearms.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

 

[Ryan R]

Here is another thing we need to scream about when our representatives are home on break. This bill is flying under the radar.
Blair Holt Bill registration on firearms.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

Yeah, that's HR 45.

 

[tompg]

for crying out loud even the idiots at pita where smart enough to get a permit. you can't yell fire at the movies ya know. free speech is not absolute and the courts have recognized that for 2 centuries. whether they have a valid point or not the folks in the video are idiots.

 

[Future Fanatic]

for crying out loud even the idiots at pita where smart enough to get a permit. you can't yell fire at the movies ya know. free speech is not absolute and the courts have recognized that for 2 centuries. whether they have a valid point or not the folks in the video are idiots.

They need to bone up on the laws of the land it seems...

But, if I were to demonstrate on the sidewalk in front of your home Ctobias, yelling as these fine citizens were, how long before you picked up the phone to have the cops come stomp on my rights?

I'd say 2.5 minutes.

 

[Trout Nazi]

They need to bone up on the laws of the land it seems...

But, if I were to demonstrate on the sidewalk in front of your home Ctobias, yelling as these fine citizens were, how long before you picked up the phone to have the cops come stomp on my rights?

I'd say 2.5 minutes.

Man, that comparison isn't even close. Ctobias isn't the gov't, making a racket in front of his house infringes on his right to pursue happiness, probably violates local noise statuates depending on what time your there, and could even be considered assault in some places if its directed towards him.

 

[CTobias]

They need to bone up on the laws of the land it seems...

But, if I were to demonstrate on the sidewalk in front of your home Ctobias, yelling as these fine citizens were, how long before you picked up the phone to have the cops come stomp on my rights?

I'd say 2.5 minutes.

You could come demonstrate in front of my house, but I wouldn't be home. I would be fishing.

 

[Future Fanatic]

You could come demonstrate in front of my house, but I wouldn't be home. I would be fishing.

Give me your address and I'll come demonstrate about how there are too many drift boats on the Salmon River infringing upon my right to wade.

I'll yell "Hell no! All boats must go!" If I can bring myself to buy some Corona, maybe I'll bring AK. I think he'd be able to carry a picket sign and walk around in a little circle. (He probably wouldn't be able to walk a straight line).

 

[dcabarle]

This gun thing never interested me... I could care less either way. I've never owned a gun and don't feel I need to but also understand that decision is based on personal choice. If I want to purchase a gun, I should be able to do so.

Now I'm looking at the short of all of this and it specifically says, "The Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act would establish a nationwide system for prohibiting unlicensed gun-ownership"

What's the problem with that? I kinda feel that guns should be licensed. Guns are stolen and sold in the grey market all the time and used in ways they were not intended to originally be used.

Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe I'm just getting 1/10 of the overall picture? I don't know.

I have no issue with responsible people owning guns. It's the irresponsible people which puts a sour taste in my mouth.

 

[Ryan R]

This gun thing never interested me... I could care less either way. I've never owned a gun and don't feel I need to but also understand that decision is based on personal choice. If I want to purchase a gun, I should be able to do so.

Now I'm looking at the short of all of this and it specifically says, "The Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act would establish a nationwide system for prohibiting unlicensed gun-ownership"

What's the problem with that? I kinda feel that guns should be licensed. Guns are stolen and sold in the grey market all the time and used in ways they were not intended to originally be used.

Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe I'm just getting 1/10 of the overall picture? I don't know.

I have no issue with responsible people owning guns. It's the irresponsible people which puts a sour taste in my mouth.

The devil, as always, is in the details. To purchase a gun you already need to fill out a n application and have a background check. This is a blatant attempt attempt to infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizen's privacy for one and the right of those citizens to keep and bear arms (for starters the government has the right to inspect, at it's discretion, your gun storage area to ensure no one under 18 has access to them.) Another is the right of the government, at it's discretion, to subject you to mental and physical evaluations (you already cannot legally own a gun if you have certain mental illnesses, etc.) These are just a few and on the surface might seem rather harmless, you could be repeatedly and periodically subject to this at any time.

The fact is law-abiding citizens guns do not end up on the black market. Criminals are selling illegal guns to criminals, not the average John Q Public that legally owns guns for home protection/recreation. Since criminals, by definition, do not obey laws how does passing more gun laws that only make it much harder for law-abiding citizens to own guns make you or I safer? Think about it. Truth is there are enough exisiting gun laws that only need to be enforced better, not more laws.

Right to carry states statistically have lower violent crime rates.

 

[eddavidson9]

...(for starters the government has the right to inspect, at it's discretion, your gun storage area to ensure no one under 18 has access to them.) Another is the right of the government, at it's discretion, to subject you to mental and physical evaluations (you already cannot legally own a gun if you have certain mental illnesses, etc.)

the snopes article says these statements are false. as i'm too lazy to read the bill, can somebody resolve this for me?

The fact is law-abiding citizens guns do not end up on the black market.

uhhhh.......really? where'd u get that "fact"?

 

[CTobias]

the snopes article says these statements are false. as i'm too lazy to read the bill, can somebody resolve this for me?



uhhhh.......really? where'd u get that "fact"?

I don't believe snopes. Everything I have read about this new bill is inline with what Ryan R was saying.

As for the fact that law abiding citizens guns don't end up in the wrong hands, well it's tough to say. I know people buy them legally and have them stolen, then they end up in the wrong hands. I have also heard of people buying guns for people who can't get them (which is illegal). So, technically speaking people who are law abiding citizens wouldn't allow their guns to end up on the black market because they do just that, Follow the law.

 

[Hllywd76]

Ryan is correct there are laws in place and also rules that Law abiding gun owners deal with. I personally have 23 guns and a couple thousand rounds of ammo. all legal.

The laws do not stop the Pieces of crap from committing crimes with guns. I am in favor of tougher guns penaltys. Kill someone with a gun get convicted of murder give a family member have the choice of killing you not even life in prison for murder. A life for a life. Rob a bank with a gun get 30 years automatic. One less gun offender on the street. See how the crimes start getting commited with other weapons then. The pieces of crap that commit these crimes will Always find a way to get a gun illegally.

Law abiding people are being hurt here not the criminals.

And wait they were trying to ban 50 cal. guns also. guess what some hunting guns are 50 cal. and I have one of them too.

Hllywd

 

[CTobias]

And wait they were trying to ban 50 cal. guns also. guess what some hunting guns are 50 cal. and I have one of them too.

Hllywd

NYS is trying to ban .50 cal guns. Most people think this in reference to the sniper rifle, when in fact it is just the caliber. This would ban almost all slug shooting shotguns as well as muzzle loaders.

 

[Trout Nazi]

A small number of legally bought guns are stolen and end up in the wrong hands. The majority out there are obtained illegally. I have relatives in both Federal and local law enforcement working violent gang related crime. Most guns recovered are cheap foreign knock-offs. There is a thriving illegal market for these, coming into the US via Canada and Mexico. Most criminals aren't rocking $800 H&K's and SIG's. The preferred weapons of choice for murder are actually knives and srewdrivers. Easier to get, easier to get rid of, penalties are less severe for posession.

We should register all screw-drivers, and the big ones should be illegal, since they are really made to be used as weapons, since no one reallly has screws that big to turn.

 

[eddavidson9]

can't let me be lazy, can ya...

from the bill (GovTrack: H.R. 45: Text of Legislation, Introduced in House)

SEC. 403. INSPECTIONS.
http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45&version=ih&nid=t0:ih:203http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45&version=ih&nid=t0:ih:203
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.


EC. 102. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.
http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45&version=ih&nid=t0:ih:89http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45&version=ih&nid=t0:ih:89
(a) In General- In order to be issued a firearm license under this title, an individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)) an application, which shall include--
http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45&version=ih&nid=t0:ih:90http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45&version=ih&nid=t0:ih:102http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45&version=ih&nid=t0:ih:102
(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;




nowhere that i can find does it provide for inspections of residences or require physical or mental evaluations

 

[CTobias]

HR 45 May be More Troubling Than the Average Anti-gun Bill


"And make no mistake about it: Licensing is only a way-station to discouraging, arresting, or humiliating gun owners and outlawing guns. Under H.R. 45, for example, the applicant must also make available ALL of his psychiatric records, pass an exam, and pay a fee.
So… are you a veteran who has ever consulted a psychologist or psychiatrist? Guess what? The FBI would soon be examining every confidential statement you have ever made during those consultations.
Private sales of handguns and semi-autos would be outlawed, and reports to the attorney general of all transactions would be required, even when — as the bill allows — the AG determines that a state licensing system is sufficiently draconian to substitute for the federal license.
But, you may be thinking, “I’m just a hunter with a deer rifle… surely, none of this is relevant to me”?
Then you should know that, with virtually no exceptions, ALL firearms transactions (including person-to-person private sales of long guns, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc.) would be subject to the same paperwork hassles that are required when buying from a dealer.
In addition, the bill would make it unlawful in virtually all cases to keep any loaded firearm for self-defense. A variety of “crimes by omission” (such as failure to report certain things to the government) would be created.
Criminal penalties of up to ten years and virtually unlimited regulatory and inspection authority would be established.
Combined with the Ammunition Accountability effort to outlaw ammunition in numerous states, this two-pronged attack would soon make gun ownership a thing of the past.
Barack Obama was fond of saying during the campaign that he supported the Second Amendment. And we read of gun buyers who are flocking -– while it is still legal -– to purchase firearms, but who concede that they believed Obama’s assurances and voted for him.
But we may soon see a more horrific, nastier side of Barack Obama… and a capacity to go after his political enemies. And we have to assume that he will view gun owners as just about the most important of those enemies."

 

[Ryan R]

the snopes article says these statements are false. as i'm too lazy to read the bill, can somebody resolve this for me?

Yeah snopes is reliable. Snopes is a liberal husband and wife team, perfect for lazy folks out there I guess

Sorry, I should have been less literal and put the majority of law-abiding citizens guns do not end up on the black market.

FYI, the bill is tad longer than 2 paragraphs (BUT THE ANSWERS IS RIGHT IN YOUR POST.) The topic is all yours, no more from me. I gave my opinion and you have yours and I'll respect that. I'm not getting into the kind of pointless, nasty debates that often go on here.

 

[catskill dick]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Why do conservatives have such a hard time reading the words "well regulated"?

For what it is worth, I am a gun owner.

 

[CTobias]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Why do conservatives have such a hard time reading the words "well regulated"?

For what it is worth, I am a gun owner.

It is not referring to the armed forces. It is necessary for the populace to be armed so that if they have to, they can defend themselves against a tyranical government.

 

[Ryan R]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Why do conservatives have such a hard time reading the words "well regulated"?

For what it is worth, I am a gun owner.

You are the one that does not understand it. Also you can't read just one piece of it and extract the entire meaning. It recognizes that a well regulated militia (an organized group, simply the able-bodied men of the villages at the time, a gun club could be considered that) is necessary to the security of a free State and simply because of that recognition the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It does not mean only the military, police, etc. or any other twisted interpretation anti-gun rights people try to snow naive folks with.

This is not just my opinion but comes from reading a majority of opinions from constititutional law experts.

 

[Kilgour Farms]

The only problem with gun control laws is that they do nothing to stop criminals from possessing them.

Just an after thought. DUH!!!

 

[CTobias]

Give me your address and I'll come demonstrate about how there are too many drift boats on the Salmon River infringing upon my right to wade.

I'll yell "Hell no! All boats must go!" If I can bring myself to buy some Corona, maybe I'll bring AK. I think he'd be able to carry a picket sign and walk around in a little circle. (He probably wouldn't be able to walk a straight line).

Haha. I will PM it to you, since I don't want too many of you coming over. I will leave a case of corona near the curb. You just have to bring the limes.

 

[catskill dick]

You are the one that does not understand it. Also you can't read just one piece of it and extract the entire meaning. It recognizes that a well regulated militia (an organized group, simply the able-bodied men of the villages at the time, a gun club could be considered that) is necessary to the security of a free State and simply because of that recognition the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It does not mean only the military, police, etc. or any other twisted interpretation anti-gun rights people try to snow naive folks with.

This is not just my opinion but comes from reading a majority of opinions from constititutional law experts.

I understand and agree with reading the Constitution broadly. However, conservatives whine and moan that anything other than strict construction of the Constitution is un 'merican when it comes to Miranda rights, abortion, etc. I think that there should be some consistency when it comes to the Second Amendment.

 

[Ryan R]

I understand and agree with reading the Constitution broadly. However, conservatives whine and moan that anything other than strict construction of the Constitution is un 'merican when it comes to Miranda rights, abortion, etc. I think that there should be some consistency when it comes to the Second Amendment.

No conservatives simply want consistency and preservation of the original intent of the document instead of re-interpretation to support a liberal agenda. The right was meant for law-abiding citizens to be able to keep and bear arms. Speaking out and fighting against the continued assault on our 2nd Amendent rights from the far left is now whining and moaning? Whatever.:crap:

 

[Future Fanatic]

No conservatives simply want consistency and preservation of the original intent of the document instead of re-interpretation to support a liberal agenda. The right was meant for law-abiding citizens to be able to keep and bear arms.

?
You say "original intent" but leave out the fact that the intent was that since the "everyman" actually was the "militia" it was important that the "everyman" be armed.

I love my guns, but I can't remember the last time I was called on by my government to fire on the enemy.

You SAY you are fighting to preserve the original intent.... really?

 

[Ryan R]

?
You say "original intent" but leave out the fact that the intent was that since the "everyman" actually was the "militia" it was important that the "everyman" be armed.

I love my guns, but I can't remember the last time I was called on by my government to fire on the enemy.

You SAY you are fighting to preserve the original intent.... really?

What are YOU trying to say? Forgive me, but I do not wish to respond to questions like this from you.

"Now if you wanna talk fishin', well I guess that'll be okay."

 

[eddavidson9]

The bill was originally introduced in...2007?...and has been reintroduced at least once, never having gone anywhere, and it's not expected to this time.

The bill is being frantically fought with rhetoric and misinformation. It's being tied to Obama though I haven't seen any references to it made by him, and was introduced long before he was in (the presedential) office. It seems to be just another "talking point" picked out by conservatives who are upset about the current political climate in the US.

I dont have an opinion on whether it should be passed or not. It seems many gun owners are dead-set against it, and i'd like to back them up (i dont own a gun and probably never will but support very much your right to own them). But it also seems that many opponents of the bill are uninformed or misinformed. To me, this is just another inflammatory issue raised by talking heads to stir up anti-obama sentiment.

Not that i dont think you should fight it if you feel it is infringing on your rights. Just my personal opinion that, when all is said and done, this bill is not and never was going anywhere, is not a diabolical scheme, isnt framed by obama and just isnt that big of a deal.