And the gun bans begin

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I don't see anything here that would even remotely change the lives of any responsible law abiding citizen that either owns or plans to own a fire arm. In fact, I am betting that if those of you who are upset over it were not even aware of its existence then you wouldn't notice a lick of difference even if it passes. You are blowing smoke just to blow smoke because you like doing that when issues concern firearms. Get over it. This thing is not going to change your lives at all including taking away your guns.

In short, why do you care?

Except of course if you move, in which case not knowing about this law makes you a criminal. So yeah, I'd say it would affect quite a few of us.

It is the responsibility of all US citizens to be aware of the laws that they must abide by. That is nothing new.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Registration leads to confiscation. Study history, junior.

Yeah. I think those that understand that understand how to take guns. You don't just take them, you make sure they are all registered first. THEN you take them.

Study history or be doomed to see it repeated.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski
Oh how silly of us. You are correct. The Right to possess an Object is so much more important than the Right to Free Thought and Right to speak those thoughts without recrimination.

And how do you think you can defend the right to do so?
When did this happen?

Ironically though, even though the second explicitly mentions "well regulated" and the first does not, Speach is somewhat regulated.

Speech isnt regulated, consequnses of it are. Let me guess, you want to play the "You cant yell fire in a crowded theatre card" ?? That would like saying the 2nd ammend supporters saying it protects the right to shoot people.

The 2nd is also the only one that explicitly mentions "being necessary to the security of a free State" hows that for Irony?
it also explicity states: "..well regulated...", but again-When did this happen? It was proved to be inadequate for that task.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: poohbear

Originally posted by: Specop 007
And so it starts. Its funny to think of all the times some empty talking head said "gun owners have nothing to fear". Of course we dont. Nothing to fear at all... Granted this has just been drafted but the point is quite clear. The Democrats dont give a shit about anythying other then putting their boot on the back of all of us.

Notice the section on licensing. No license, no firearm. License is shall issue with no timeframe. Which means the feds can choose not to give you a license before yours expires and without it your an instant criminal.

Now someone tell me again how we're "all on the same side"......

HR 45

dude, what exactly do you need, or want, a gun for? u're not in a warzone are u? i was in the army 3 years and i can assure you it gets boring REAL quick firing guns over and over. sure the 1st 2 months were exciting and interesting firing different weapons, but it gets repititve real quick.

Besides, I CANT STAND CLEANING GUNS. i swear cleaning guns made shooting them such a chore. It takes forever to clean em of carbon after you shoot em, so i can't understand how anyone can have it as a hobby? (assuming that's why you own em?)

I didn't think they allowed 12 year olds to enlist.

New excuse for not enlisting?

I enlisted 15 years ago. Try again fucktard.

.. yet somehow you still manage to act like the 12 year old you pretend not to be. Go figure. It's a shame the service didn't make a man out of you.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
.. yet somehow you still manage to act like the 12 year old you pretend not to be. Go figure. It's a shame the service didn't make a man out of you.

If I didn't know better, I'd say that needle you're waving around was your dick. Seriously, if you're going to stick your ePeen out there, you should probably make sure it's enough to impress somebody first.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: umbrella39
.. yet somehow you still manage to act like the 12 year old you pretend not to be. Go figure. It's a shame the service didn't make a man out of you.

If I didn't know better, I'd say that needle you're waving around was your dick. Seriously, if you're going to stick your ePeen out there, you should probably make sure it's enough to impress somebody first.

Not at all surprising that in addition to your other issues, you are also fixated on male genitalia. Congrats on making it through the don't ask don't tell years, however.

 

[poohbear]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: poohbear

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Care to clarify your concern? You have a problem with requiring a license to own a firearm? Why is this a problem? I need a driver's license, I need a fishing license, why would firearms be different?

Umm... Just gonna take a stab at this one...

Where in the constitution did our founding fathers feel the need to establish a specific right to go fishing... or drive... ???

They did, however, take the time to write the second amendment. You know... the part where it says that a free populace is dependant on that populace's ability to obtain and possess weapons. That's the problem. That concept is what is under attack.

If you're going to make an argument one way or the other, you might want to compare apples to apples.

but put things in context, that was the 18th century, where an empire loomed at the borders of America to the north. Things are very different now, do you still fear the king of England? The founding fathers also condoned & liberally partook in slavery, so it doesnt follow that everything they said and did was holy. We can question the validity of that amendment in the 21st century, no? i think its quite outdated by today's standards dont you think? im not against guns per say, but i dont think private citizens have any business owning guns, it should be reserved for law enforcement and the military, albeit that just seems like the most logical conclusion. What's your arguement for owning guns aside from this 2nd amendment? (im not american btw, im canadian, and its hard as heck to get a gun here in Toronto, Ontario. most ppl just give up trying from what i hear).

We have a much more violent culture than Canada so I'm not sure how discussion is relevant but as far as having guns I had no problem bear & moose hunting in Ontario or Alberta. My friend owns a lodge up there (@eagle lake) and has tons of guns too.

In violent USA guns prevent lots of crimes. I read a story at least once a week of an aborted rape or robbery when gun owner shoots the felon. Besides right to self defense is a fundamental right no one should be able to take away. Someone bigger stronger faster younger has no right to victimize physically weak or elderly people. Guns are equalizer. All these school shootings could have been prevented, the type where gun yielding psycho is roaming the halls for hours executing at will, if only one or two had guns.

As far as govt oppression. a few hundred thousand hunters with high powered rifles and optics here could make the mujahideen in Iraq look like a school yard brawl. Never discount the power of small arms from a determined resistance.

Lots of reasons to own them besides hunting.

now wait a minute. what if that bigger stronger & faster person has an ak47? how does that equalize anything? those psychos roaming the halls wouldnt have had those weapons that if guns were strictly regulated, try creating a massacre w/ a switchblade or a kitchen knife, it aint gonna be anywhere near the same scale.

are you so trusting in human nature that you think the majority of people owning guns are only owning them for "self defense"? i'd think the opposite, if people were allowed to own guns it'd attract the violent types that are interested in using em, not the weak looking for protection. doesnt that follow?

 

[daniel1113]

Sigh

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: umbrella39
.. yet somehow you still manage to act like the 12 year old you pretend not to be. Go figure. It's a shame the service didn't make a man out of you.

If I didn't know better, I'd say that needle you're waving around was your dick. Seriously, if you're going to stick your ePeen out there, you should probably make sure it's enough to impress somebody first.

Not at all surprising that in addition to your other issues, you are also fixated on male genitalia. Congrats on making it through the don't ask don't tell years, however.

Sounds you're ashamed of yours.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
-snip-
And seriously, why is a firearm license so much worse than a driver's license or fishing license? People seem to be okay with having to pay a fee every year in order to go fishing, or hunting for that matter. Why is that better than a blanket fee on all firearms?

What kind of thinking is this?

It's already been pointed out that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right.

If it's 'OK' to require a licence for this right, what about requiring a licence to vote, or excercise free speech?

BTW: If you fish on a private pond etc you don't need a licence. You do need one if the fish are on, or come from public property.

If you just wanna buy a car and leave on your private property you don't need a drivers license. You do need one to drive on public streets. You don't need a license to buy a car.

This firearms license rule would require a licence even if the gun was strickly kept on your own private property. In this case you would need a license to merely purchase a gun,

I do not believe this bill will pass. Even if it did, I doubt it would survive a SCOTUS suit. Then there are millions of gun owners out there, I doubt many who previously purchased will 'rush' into their nearest gov office to buy a license. So automatically a good portion of our citizens become criminals without actually doing anything.

The bill's author and sponsors are world class idiots.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Eeezee
-snip-
And seriously, why is a firearm license so much worse than a driver's license or fishing license? People seem to be okay with having to pay a fee every year in order to go fishing, or hunting for that matter. Why is that better than a blanket fee on all firearms?

What kind of thinking is this?

It's already been pointed out that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right.

If it's 'OK' to require a licence for this right, what about requiring a licence to vote, or excercise free speech?

BTW: If you fish on a private pond etc you don't need a licence. You do need one if the fish are on, or come from public property.

If you just wanna buy a car and leave on your private property you don't need a drivers license. You do need one to drive on public streets. You don't need a license to buy a car.

This firearms license rule would require a licence even if the gun was strickly kept on your own private property. In this case you would need a license to merely purchase a gun,

I do not believe this bill will pass. Even if it did, I doubt it would survive a SCOTUS suit. Then there are millions of gun owners out there, I doubt many who previously purchased will 'rush' into their nearest gov office to buy a license. So automatically a good portion of our citizens become criminals without actually doing anything.

The bill's author and sponsors are world class idiots.

Fern

Uhmm, Fern? In effect you DO need a license to vote. It's called voter registration. Of course constitutional rights can be subject to licenses, etc.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
Uhmm, Fern? In effect you DO need a license to vote. It's called voter registration. Of course constitutional rights can be subject to licenses, etc.

Common, you can't be serious?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
Uhmm, Fern? In effect you DO need a license to vote. It's called voter registration. Of course constitutional rights can be subject to licenses, etc.

Common, you can't be serious?

I'm 100% serious. All constitutional rights are subject to restriction, voter registration is in effect applying for a license to vote. (as it is not possible to do so without registering, and that registration is subject to the approval of the government)

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: poohbear

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: poohbear

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Care to clarify your concern? You have a problem with requiring a license to own a firearm? Why is this a problem? I need a driver's license, I need a fishing license, why would firearms be different?

Umm... Just gonna take a stab at this one...

Where in the constitution did our founding fathers feel the need to establish a specific right to go fishing... or drive... ???

They did, however, take the time to write the second amendment. You know... the part where it says that a free populace is dependant on that populace's ability to obtain and possess weapons. That's the problem. That concept is what is under attack.

If you're going to make an argument one way or the other, you might want to compare apples to apples.

but put things in context, that was the 18th century, where an empire loomed at the borders of America to the north. Things are very different now, do you still fear the king of England? The founding fathers also condoned & liberally partook in slavery, so it doesnt follow that everything they said and did was holy. We can question the validity of that amendment in the 21st century, no? i think its quite outdated by today's standards dont you think? im not against guns per say, but i dont think private citizens have any business owning guns, it should be reserved for law enforcement and the military, albeit that just seems like the most logical conclusion. What's your arguement for owning guns aside from this 2nd amendment? (im not american btw, im canadian, and its hard as heck to get a gun here in Toronto, Ontario. most ppl just give up trying from what i hear).

We have a much more violent culture than Canada so I'm not sure how discussion is relevant but as far as having guns I had no problem bear & moose hunting in Ontario or Alberta. My friend owns a lodge up there (@eagle lake) and has tons of guns too.

In violent USA guns prevent lots of crimes. I read a story at least once a week of an aborted rape or robbery when gun owner shoots the felon. Besides right to self defense is a fundamental right no one should be able to take away. Someone bigger stronger faster younger has no right to victimize physically weak or elderly people. Guns are equalizer. All these school shootings could have been prevented, the type where gun yielding psycho is roaming the halls for hours executing at will, if only one or two had guns.

As far as govt oppression. a few hundred thousand hunters with high powered rifles and optics here could make the mujahideen in Iraq look like a school yard brawl. Never discount the power of small arms from a determined resistance.

Lots of reasons to own them besides hunting.

now wait a minute. what if that bigger stronger & faster person has an ak47? how does that equalize anything? those psychos roaming the halls wouldnt have had those weapons that if guns were strictly regulated, try creating a massacre w/ a switchblade or a kitchen knife, it aint gonna be anywhere near the same scale.

are you so trusting in human nature that you think the majority of people owning guns are only owning them for "self defense"? i'd think the opposite, if people were allowed to own guns it'd attract the violent types that are interested in using em, not the weak looking for protection. doesnt that follow?

Bad people will own them for bad reasons. Good people will own them for good reasons. Neutral people for neutral reasons. There are FAR more guns used for neutral or good reasons (like many times more) than for bad reasons. It's always been this way, and always will be.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
404: Gun ban not found.

Perhaps the OP needs a boot up his arse, instead of on his back? :laugh:

Topic Title: And the gun bans begin

Misleading and incorrect Thread Title

The bias and hypocracy is deep in here.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
Uhmm, Fern? In effect you DO need a license to vote. It's called voter registration. Of course constitutional rights can be subject to licenses, etc.

Common, you can't be serious?

I'm 100% serious. All constitutional rights are subject to restriction, voter registration is in effect applying for a license to vote. (as it is not possible to do so without registering, and that registration is subject to the approval of the government)

Voter registration is no more a license than the store selling you a weapon needing to see your CC or DL (if taking a check) or applying the background check or making sure you're 18 yrs of age.

Registering as a voter is simply a way to conduct the process, just like the store's requirements above are neccessary to purchase a gun. You need not show a (license) voters registration card to vote at the polls.

Registering to vote is not a "restriction" per se, either.

If found at the polls without your voter's registration card you can't get 2 yrs (or more) in prison etc.

You don't have to pay to register to vote, as you do to get this gun license.

If you read this proposed law section 201 prevents individuals from selling our transfering their guns to other citizens. IMO, an infrigement on property rights. (You've gotta be: a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, and not jsut a licensed gun owner.)

No, this is not similar to registering to vote.

Fern

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Registration leads to confiscation. Study history, junior.

Fuck that elitism talking point bullshit. Pulling the age card indicates your attempt to abandon intelligent discourse in favor of dick waving. Try to keep it together despite your senility, grandpa.

Now then, let's actually talk about your claim. Take Canada for instance; they've had handgun registration since the 1930s and began a handgun ban in 2005. I'm sure you can do math, but that's 70 years later. Clearly the proponents of registration had no intention of confiscation, despite successful confiscation several generations later. However, this is a drastically different case since firearm ownership is not a right guaranteed by the Canadian government. Furthermore, this took place in a nation with already low rates of handgun ownership; the opposition to confiscation was minimal compared to what it would be in America.

Also, last I checked, all voters are required to register and our right to vote has yet to be confiscated. I guess your revisionist history doesn't agree with actual history.

If the proposed bill becomes a gun ban, I'll be the first to join you in your protests. Until then, you're all being a bunch of reactionary morons making a slippery slope argument.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
Uhmm, Fern? In effect you DO need a license to vote. It's called voter registration. Of course constitutional rights can be subject to licenses, etc.

Common, you can't be serious?

I'm 100% serious. All constitutional rights are subject to restriction, voter registration is in effect applying for a license to vote. (as it is not possible to do so without registering, and that registration is subject to the approval of the government)

Voter registration is no more a license than the store selling you a weapon needing to see your CC or DL (if taking a check) or applying the background check or making sure you're 18 yrs of age.

Registering as a voter is simply a way to conduct the process, just like the store's requirements above are neccessary to purchase a gun. You need not show a (license) voters registration card to vote at the polls.

Registering to vote is not a "restriction" per se, either.

If found at the polls without your voter's registration card you can't get 2 yrs (or more) in prison etc.

You don't have to pay to register to vote, as you do to get this gun license.

If you read this proposed law section 201 prevents individuals from selling our transfering their guns to other citizens. IMO, an infrigement on property rights. (You've gotta be: a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, and not jsut a licensed gun owner.)

No, this is not similar to registering to vote.

Fern

Yes, this is very, very similar to registering to vote. As I said before, both are a series of actions you must take that are subject to the approval of the government before you can perform the activity.

Regardless of if you agree on that, all sorts of constitutional rights are subject to licensing, permits, etc. Free speech and assembly are subject to permits, etc... etc. You were claiming that doing so would be some sort of unprecedented assault on a constitutional freedom, when clearly it is not.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Registration leads to confiscation. Study history, junior.

Fuck that elitism talking point bullshit. Pulling the age card indicates your attempt to abandon intelligent discourse in favor of dick waving. Try to keep it together despite your senility, grandpa.

Now then, let's actually talk about your claim.

Take Canada for instance;

they've had handgun registration since the 1930s and began a handgun ban in 2005.

Canadians had their balls snipped in 2005?

No wonder they have become such super wusses.

They'll be no revolution up there.

 

[blahblah99]

The only law thats even close to a ban is the one Bush signed a few days ago.