1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Another Dumb Gun Control Proposal

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Dragoon68, Jan 25, 2009.

Top Posters
  1. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Obamanites are already busy with new gun control legislation.

    This time it's     H.R. 45 dated 1/6/2009 introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush.

    Here are some of the highlights of his "great" ideas:

    *     A photo firearms license would be required for all firearms. Great! Another identification card to carry around!
     * A training class would be required to be licensed. Not likely to be designed to improve marksmanship but to discourage would be gun owners.
    * Disclosure of your storage method would be required for license. This would no doubt greatly impair ready access to a firearm at the very times when it would be most needed.
    * A thumb print would be required for license. Just another way to gather more fingerprints on non-terrorists and people minding their own business.
    * Every sale would be recorded by the federal government. This would be a great source for the future confiscation or all firearms and, when "accidentally" released by a bumbling government employee, it would become an immediate source for thieves to use in planning their best takes.
    * If you moved, and didn't tell the US Attorney General within 60 days, you would be in violation of law.
    * If a firearm were stolen and you didn't report it, you would become a criminal. The criminal who stole your firearms would, of course, be required to license it so that might help you recover yours - right?
    * There would be no grandfathered firearms. It would be retroactive to all firearms. You'd have to tell Uncle Sam about granddaddy's pistols you still have.
    * If you didn't obtain a license and report every firearm you currently own, you would be in violation of law. Self-disclosure to big government would be a mandate.
    * There would be a license fee and a fee for the "services" provided at the time of purchase time. The fees would likely become a lucrative source of government funding.
    * Licenses renewal would be required every five years.

    This Obamanite's misconception is that every criminal in Chicago - and nationwide - would willingly comply with all these requirements and the "world would be a better place". It's foolish to believe that and gets proved over and over yet they never stop attacking the liberty of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. They'd prefer will all become dependent wards of the state.

    He's a black man, ordained minister teaching the false social "gospel" of black theology, a Democrat, and "represents" some of the people living in the 1st District on the South side Chicago.
     [SIZE=+1]
    On the plus side, prior to becoming an Obamanite, he was quoted as saying, years ago, that: "Barack Obama went to Harvard and became an educated fool. Barack is a person who read about the civil-rights protests and thinks he knows all about it." While wrong in his H.R. 45 concepts he was correct about Obama but, of course, now that matters not because there are favors to be exchanged.
    [/SIZE]
     
    #1 Dragoon68, Jan 25, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 25, 2009
  2. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    Any step at gun control is ok with me. Might stop all the illegal passage of guns into Canada.

    Clean up the mess of criminals whilst at it.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
    #2 Jim1999, Jan 25, 2009
  3. abcgrad94

    abcgrad94 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What does he mean by "storage method?" Are citizens supposed to disclose the exact location of every firearm they own? I can see it now: "Well, sir, my .22 is in the gun cabinet, but my .38 is in the top dresser drawer and my 12-gauge is hanging in the back of my pickup. . .except for the 3rd Friday of November, when I clean it. . .wait a minute--it might be under the bed, I can't remember. Oh yeah, and great-grandpapy's musket is hanging over the mantle."

    What's next, the big government taking a census on how many butter knives I have in the kitchen drawer and how many pocket knives are in your cargo pants? Duh!
     
    #3 abcgrad94, Jan 25, 2009
  4. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're dreaming again, Jim! These kinds of laws don't get in the way of anyone except people otherwise minding their own business and a threat to no one else. They might, on the other hand, create a higher demand for firearms and, thereby, additional criminal activity to trade in them. A good source of trading material would then become all those legally licensed firearms.
     
    #4 Dragoon68, Jan 25, 2009
  5. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    Then maybe a better move would be to close down all the manufacturing companies. I don't need a gun. The last time I held a gun it killed people, and I have had to live with that all my life.

    Hunters are legitimate, but they don't need machine guns. They all have a licence to hunt and should have training before hunting.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
    #5 Jim1999, Jan 25, 2009
  6. windcatcher

    windcatcher New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I got a plan: Lets just send those who want gun control to Canada.

    Then the rest of us can protect our family, or go hunting, or keep a gun to kill a snake,........................... or deter criminals. BTW, Jim, I heard some of your folks in England are wanting their guns back.:laugh:
     
    #6 windcatcher, Jan 25, 2009
  7. windcatcher

    windcatcher New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    House Resolution 45 or the Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 introduced by Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) is essentially a national firearm licensing program that will place all sorts of unconstitutional requirements on people attempting to obtain a firearm.

    The rationale behind this bill is that they believe it will reduce gun violence in the United States. This is of course ridiculous because criminals will never go through any licensing process in order to obtain a firearm.



    Let’s look at some of the major sections of this bill.

    Section 101 outlines licensing requirements. The licensing requirements mandate that it will be unlawful for anyone to possess a firearm unless they have a license certified under the legislation. Unless you are a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer or licensed collector you will not be able to own a firearm. State firearm licensing and record of sale systems must be certified under section 602 of the bill.

    Section 102 of the bill outlines the application process of which an individual needs to go through in order to obtain a firearm. These are just some of the things an applicant will be required to submit to the Attorney General’s office in order to obtain a license.

    - Current passport-sized photograph.

    - Name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant.

    - Thumb print.
    - Certification attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant on the safe storage of firearms, the legal responsibilities of firearms owners and any other subjects the Attorney General determines to be appropriate.

    Section 103 of the bill describes the issuance of the firearm license which will be in the form of a tamper-resistant card that contains the information of the licensed individual. Each license will be good for 5-years.

    Section 104 of the bill describes the renewal process which requires the licensed individual to submit an application not later than 30 days before the expiration of the license.

    Section 105 of the bill gives the Attorney General the authority to revoke a license from an individual if they are no longer qualified to possess a firearm.

    Section 201 of the bill states that it is unlawful for any person to sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm to any person who is not also licensed under the requirements in the legislation.

    Section 202 of the bill requires that firearms dealers submit sale or transfer reports that include information such as the manufacturer of the firearm, model name of the firearm, serial number of the firearm, the name/address of the individual who transferred the firearm to the transferee and other assorted information. It also mandates that 9 months after this bill is signed into law that the Attorney General establishes and maintains this record of sale system.

    Section 301 of the bill amends U.S. Code so that all individuals who seek a firearm license are subject to a universal background check requirement.

    Section 302, 303, 304, 305 of the bill makes it illegal to, fail or maintain inspection of records for licensed manufacturers or licensed dealers in accordance with section 202, to fail to report a loss or theft of a firearm, to fail to provide a notice of change of address if you have a firearm license and places additional restrictions on anyone under the age of 18 coming in contact with a firearm.

    Section 401 provides penalties including jail time for failing to comply with their ridiculous licensing procedures, background checks and child access prevention regulations.

    Section 402 mandates that the Attorney General issue regulations governing the licensing and recorded sale of firearms.

    Section 403 gives the Attorney General the power to conduct inspections during regular business hours at any place where firearm products are manufactured, stored or held for distribution in commerce.

    Section 404 allows the Attorney General to prohibit the sale or transfer of any firearm that they find to be in violation of the Act itself.

    Section 405 allows the Attorney General to bring an action to restrain any violation of the Act in the district court of the United States for any district that the violation has occurred.

    Section 501 mandates that the Attorney General establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse to collect, analyze and disseminate information relating to the causes and prevention of death and injury associated with firearms.

    Section 601 ensures that the federal law overrides state laws on firearms that might be weaker than what is contained in the bill itself. If a state has regulations or prohibitions in greater scope of the bill, than that is OK.

    Section 602 allows the Attorney General to certify any firearm licensing system established by states.

    There are other sections, but that covers the major portions. This bill is entirely unconstitutional because it places unreasonable restrictions on law abiding citizens who wish to own a firearm to protect their life, liberty and property. Let’s take a look at the text of the Second Amendment.

    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.
     
    #7 windcatcher, Jan 25, 2009
  8. dcorbett

    dcorbett Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nope, you are definitely stepping on a nerve here. When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns. And it is our right as citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms.

    Debbie (card-carrying NRA member)
     
    #8 dcorbett, Jan 25, 2009
  9. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0

    What you're described is the consequence of using weapons in war which is a different subject than this proposed legislation addresses. Many of us posting here have had to use a weapon to kill in that venue and sometimes the thoughts of it are a heavy burden because it's rarely as clear or clean and if would seem to be from afar. Yet we have to understand it and deal with it.     Everyone should respect that there's a difference in murder and in killing under the authority of government. The lawful acts of war for a warrior are not sins for the warrior. It is the enemy that brings it upon themselves and those around them.

    Understanding this is essential for doing what has to be done and keeping one's sanity about it.     If a person is incapable of dealing with - whether by the extreme trauma or simple inability - it is then perhaps better that they should leave the possession of weapons to others.

    T    he act of defending another person or one's self is also not murder. The lawful acts of defense are not sins for the individual that is forced to do them. It is the criminal that shoulds bear that responsibility.

    A weapon merely provides a means for individuals to balance the power of extreme evilness among us for the sake of justice among us. It is not in itself evil although born out of the need to defend against the evilness of mankind.

    Protecting one's self and one's nation from the tyranny of governments that wish to render the citizens incapable of defending themselves - even in the interest of some alleged "greater good" - is essential for the ultimate defense of hard won liberty. The purpose of the proposed legislation is none other than to make it more difficult for citizens to be armed with the probable ultimate goal of rendering them completely unarmed. That then transcends from defense against criminals to defense against tyrants operating in the name of government. It happens every time!

    Hunting for food is no longer a necessity and hunting for sport never has been. Personal defense, on the other hand, is still very much a necessity among mankind as very few of us have the luxury of around the clock personal protective services from government. Strangely some people focus attention on hunting as being the only legitimate use of weapons while it is in fact very secondary to the primary purpose.

    [SIZE=+1]Protecting against the idealistic yet illogical conclusions of some among us is an essential duty of those who know better how humanity will continue to function until the end of time.
    [/SIZE]
     
    #9 Dragoon68, Jan 25, 2009
  10. BigBossman

    BigBossman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    One thing you got to understand is you might be abiding by the law. However, does that mean that a criminal who has no respect or regard for the law will abide by it?

    Also in response to your other post, when you hold a gun, you are in control of it. Guns don't kill, people do. I don't believe in killing, but I do believe in protecting myself & my family. I challenge all people who are opposed to owning guns to post a sign in front of their home stating:"This is a gun-free home". See what happens. If criminals know that you are a law abiding citizen & you don't have guns in your home; your home will be a target, because you don't have an effective way to deter them.

    I will say this: If guns become illegal here in the States & the federal government wants to take my guns away from me, they will have to do so by prying them out of my cold, dead fingers. The Second Amendment, which gives us the right to bear arms is one I will not compromise on. I take that right seriously.
     
    #10 BigBossman, Jan 26, 2009
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...