1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Obama's gun control laws are coming !!!

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by jules60, Apr 5, 2009.

  1. #1
    You may have seen this already, but if you didn't act on it, please do so NOW. The crazies are out there and way too active!!!

    IT'S STARTED ..... OBAMA'S ....

    GUN CONTROL BILL

    PLEASE PASS ON FAR AND WIDE!


    http://www.opencong ress.org/ bill/111- h45/show
    Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009. We just learned yesterday about this on the Peter Boyles radio program.
    Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because it is flying under the radar. To find out about this - go to any government website and type inHR 45or Google HR 45Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of
    2009. You will get all the information.
    Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

    *It is registered.
    *You are fingerprinted.
    *You supply a current Driver's License.
    *You supply your Social Security #.
    *You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at anytime of their choosing.

    *Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.
    *There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.
    They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

    If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family - pass this along.
    Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on KHOW 630 a.m. in the morning. He suggests the best w ay to fight this is to tell all your friends about it and "spring into action". Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association, hunting associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA.

    This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.
    This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not. If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me.
    HR 45only makes me/us less safe. After working with convicts for 26 years I know this bill, if passed, would make them happy and in less danger from their victims.

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

    Please... Copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA .
    Contact your Congressman and Legislators of your state and let them know how you feel about this ..... Please do it now !

    Get ready to support the NRA for this fight !

    If we do nothing about this it will happen, we have to stand up and fight for our GUN RIGHTS!
     
    jules60, Apr 5, 2009 IP
  2. Zibblu

    Zibblu Guest

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    You better stock up now while you can!

    Stay tuned, you'll be getting further instruction from Glenn Beck.
     
    Zibblu, Apr 5, 2009 IP
  3. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    The 2nd Amendmant:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    I'm a big gun advocate. But, I do have some common sense. I think this is going into the 10th Amendmant issue though. If this passes someone is going to challenge the constitutionality of this law. But, I wouldn't be too worried about it. There are a lot of moderates and democrats that are from places like wyoming and montana. The only thing that I don't completely agree with is the ability to drop by un announced and enter your home. I think this is not going to pass with that part attached. There is the whole 4th amendmant to think about and it goes against that. Not having probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and evidence is there.
     
    hostlonestar, Apr 6, 2009 IP
  4. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #4
    Wow, i'm shocked. I was waiting on a big rant from hostlonestar over this. Well done sir.
     
    Bushranger, Apr 6, 2009 IP
  5. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    lol I'm a strict constitutionalist in my beliefs. However, having a head on my shoulders with some common sense allows me to see that some regulation of weapons is necessary. I think the so called Assault Weapons ban is rediculous. As the point of the 2nd amendmant is to keep a well armed militia of free citizens, than there should be no ban. That ban is more of the scary guns. Because an assault weapon is defined as a weapon with the ability to fire fully automatic. Things like the AK-47 and AR-15 (M-16) can be designed to fire semi automatic and are designed that way a lot of times, but, because they are classified as assault weapons because of their looks, you must now obtain a federal permit to purchase them. That is a bit rediculous.

    But, I recognize the need in modern society to place certain requirments for purchasing a gun. Not be a convicted felon or a person covered under the Lautenberg Amendmant (domestic violence) should disqualify you. You can't vote as a felon, why should you be able ot have a gun? Mentally unstable people (needs better defining) as well. Registration, although I'm not completely for it, I can accept, especially as a person that used to be employed as a law enforcement officer. Providing a DL? I think that is rediculous. Any form of government issued identification should do. Not all people have DL's, as it is a privalege not a right to drive, people loose them all the time. SSN...you already have to do that when purchasing a gun. The OP is not very up to date on this fact is he? In order to have a federal background check (required when purchasing a gun) you must supply a SSN. So that is a non issue.

    I think submitting to a mental evaluation is ok as well. How else are they supposed to know that you are still legally fit to have that weapon?

    As I said, the only real part that I disagree with is the part where I have to lock my guns up and the government can come check at any time. I keep most of my guns locked up. I have a rifle with an 8x scope hanging on hooks next to the front door (tradition in TX) with ammo in a small ammo safe in the closet on the top shelf next to it. This is to protect my horses and cattle. I have a large safe in my work building on my land (for building things, fixing things, etc. all tools are kept there, locked up, and seperate from the house, only my wife and I have a key). They are kept in a large gun safe with ammo stored in small safe inside, and the handguns also stored in a small safe inside. I have one handgun out at a time, that I wear when I leave the house, this is stored in a safe near the front door as well. The only time it is not in the safe is on my hip or next to me in bed at night on the table.

    But, them coming into my house at any time violates the 4th amendmant against search and siezure without probable cause. This is going to be the first part of this law challenged at the USSC and I'm willing to bet it will be turned over no matter which party has the majority. I may even be willing to accept something along the lines of we are coming there to check your storage. They must provide 2 weeks notice and the amount of time they say can not be more than a 7 day time frame. The checks must be conducted during the hours of daytime, just like a misdameanor warrant search.

    I may love my guns, but, I'm not a wackjob like this OP. I can't believe he trusts the NRA. They are the wack jobs. And they are not in line with my views. I refuse to pay dues to them when I have a complete set of represntatives/congressman that are a lot more inline with my views.
     
    hostlonestar, Apr 6, 2009 IP
  6. gamer

    gamer Peon

    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    gamer, Apr 6, 2009 IP
  7. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #7
    Fair enough you have your doubts on their intentions but as a self-proclaimed former cop you would understand they're not going to use it arbitrarily. That particular law would be there for a particular reason and will most likely be used only when needed.

    I think giving people a weeks notice of a raid won't help them catch out people doing the wrong thing. If guns are meant to be kept locked up at all times how will they know when the raidee has more than enough time to lock up his guns?

    I would imagine the drug dealers would also like a weeks notice before they're raided but it doesn't work as well like that and not many drugs will be found. I guess the no-notice raids will be the most effective.

    We do have similar laws here and many people were up in arms about it but I can't say i've heard of one case where it's been unfairly used in the 10 years we've had them. I'm not into guns myself and think they're not good for society as a whole but I sometimes wonder how fucked we would be if another country came to attack.

    Mind you, without them there is very little gun crime here now.
     
    Bushranger, Apr 6, 2009 IP
  8. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    There will always be gun crime here.

    I think this is a knee jerk reaction to the rash of nut jobs we've had.

    And it isn't designed as a raid, it is designed as a compliance enforcement. However, they could come upon a different crime happening which would then fall under what we call the fruit of the poisonous tree and pretty much anything the government obtains of evidtentiary value will be thrown from court, in turn causing more tax dollars to get blown.

    Yeah, it'll help with that. But, when they knock on the door people will just lock them up quick.

    A raid on a drug house is different. There is probable cause to believe a crime is occuring, is about to occur, or has occured. They have sought and obtained a search warrant, after demonstrating probable cause to a judge.

    It may not help them catch people doing the wrong thing, but, which constitutional amendmant does? The constitution is put in place to protect the people from the government.
     
    hostlonestar, Apr 6, 2009 IP
  9. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #9
    If you are a man that has had an assassination plot already foiled before you were even sworn in, I would think a gun shot would make you jump to.
     
    hostlonestar, Apr 6, 2009 IP
  10. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #10
    Well I do personally think that cops (& ex cops), judges & lawyers etc. should be allowed to have their guns handy as they're at more risk of some wacko taking revenge from past misdeeds.

    Here in Australia you do have to belong to a gun club in order to own a gun or have another excuse why you need them. Farmers culling kangaroos, foxes & the like but you can't just own one because you want one without jumping through legal hoops regularly such as attending training & regular visits to your gun club + registering them yearly with the law undergoing tests. All things only a serious gun-lover would do.

    I know of 1 farmer friend (now dead of old age & emphysema) who was raided and his guns forfeited for being left out at the ready to shoot a fox that was hanging around. He lived alone on his farm so he didn't see a problem with leaving it loaded beside the door and tried fighting it in court. He ended up losing his guns and license over it as he wasn't willing to join the local gun club.
     
    Bushranger, Apr 6, 2009 IP
  11. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #11
    [​IMG]
     
    ncz_nate, Apr 6, 2009 IP
  12. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #12
    Your pic is gone nate.

    Bushranger, every person has a reason to own a gun, to keep the government in check. As well as self defense. Remember, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

    Training should be a requirment, an 8 hour course is more than enough time to teach someone safe operating and handling of a gun.
     
    hostlonestar, Apr 7, 2009 IP
  13. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #13
    Now that's the comment I would have expected from you lol. Of course I strongly disagree.

    I think the pen is a much mightier weapon, whether at the ballot or before, but nonetheless a pen, rather than a gun, will do me.
     
    Bushranger, Apr 7, 2009 IP
  14. Truth777

    Truth777 Peon

    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    12
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    Yeah,
    Arm yourself to the teeth. So when you get pissed with something or somebody you can go in any government office and kill not 13 people but 130.
    Also you should have the right to possess tanks and missiles as well, in addition the right to orginize your own army for self defense.
     
    Truth777, Apr 7, 2009 IP
  15. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    Bushranger, that is the reason the 2nd Amendmant is in place in the US. To keep from having a tyrannical government. You may like to be a subject, but I prefer being a citizen.

    Pen's are great, but it's just like in the world politics and diplomacy game. Eventually you will need the military, just like eventually you will need a gun.

    And not just protecting you from the government, but protecting you from other people as well. You are from a different place than me. You were not raised with guns. So I do not expect you to understand the importance of having a weapon to defend yourself from another person or your government.
     
    hostlonestar, Apr 7, 2009 IP
  16. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #16
    hostlonestar, what makes you think it's there to protect you from the government and not from the burglars or are you doing to the constitution what nehemiah might do with his bible? Making your own meaning out of it.

    Truth777, valid post, good points.
     
    Bushranger, Apr 7, 2009 IP
  17. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    From the Declaration of Independance (which our constitution is basically designed from)

    The 2nd Amendmant to the US Constitution

    The US Supreme Court has ruled that this does not mean states militia's, such as the National Guard, but the individual right of a person.

    I am in no way making my own meaning from it. It is spelled out quite clearly and most Consititutional Scholars are in agreement about the meening. The 2nd Amendmant is what makes the others possible.
     
    hostlonestar, Apr 7, 2009 IP
  18. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #18
    Man, I just went to research both of those, had no idea how big they were. Will have to get back to you on them. Am surprised that it would call for government overthrow and bush lasted both his terms.

    How is it that Oswald, Sirhan & Ray were even charged?
     
    Bushranger, Apr 7, 2009 IP
  19. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #19
    Yeah, I was able to locate exactly what I want because I know a lot about the constitution and the supreme court rulings interperated. I have almost completed my Masters in Computer and Information Science. When I got my Bachelors I had a minor in constitutional law :) and keep up with supreme court decisions, especially in respect to law enforcement here in the US.

    The reason why Bush lasted both of his terms is becuase he really wasn't destroying America's soverignty. I really don't see Obama lasting through a second term.

    I read a good fiction book, it's written by Vince Flynn and it is called Term Limits. Its a great book and I think a lot of people should read it.

    Bush also lasted both his terms becasue the people that would actually stand up and overthrow the government were generally pleased with the way him and the congress were running the country. However, people are starting to get fed up with spending (on both sides) and it is only a matter of time before it happens. I recommend everyone read that book to see one possibility of what coudl happen in the very near future if things keep going the way they are.
     
    hostlonestar, Apr 7, 2009 IP
  20. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #20
    LOL... OK, I'll violate my self-imposed exile from P&R long enough to address this one. [ Knew you'd be thrilled. ] :)

    THIS Bill - Headed for the Heap
    Last I heard this bill had zero co-sponsors and was tied up in committee, which is generally a sign that it's DOA. Based on his history on the topic I do expect the Obama Administration to take a run at gun control before long, but I don't think this one is gonna be it.

    The Problem with Most Gun Control Bills
    Inevitably they are based on the assumption that criminals will obey laws. One of the first things that should be drummed into any legislators brain is that any solution that requires a change in human nature is going to be every bit as effective as repealing the Law of Gravity.

    [​IMG]

    Welcome to Baghdad: Check your AK Here
    If human behavior worked like it does in the fantasies of the average liberal lawmaker... we could end the fighting in Iraq by installing "Gun Free Zone" signs all over the country. Sadly virtually all gun control legislation is predicated on the idea that people that are disposed to murder (which has been against the law since before we were even a country) are most certainly going to follow strictures of a much lesser nature.

    Wait! Don't Criminals Deserve "Workplace Safety" Too?
    You might think in the wake of the many multi-victim shootings of the last 2 decades that somebody would notice they aren't caused by the proliferation of guns... based on the locations chosen, they are affected by the LACK of their presence. A gun-free environment guarantees the guy that choses to break the law a target-rich environment where he knows he won't receive return fire.

    If reality was as the guys that pass such laws imagine... mass shootings would occur at gun ranges and police stations instead of high schools, universities, etc... and armed robberies would take place at deer camps and gun stores instead of the supposedly gun-free streets of New York and DC.

    Thomas Jefferson - one of the sharpest minds to ever live in DC...
    Was also one of the guys that made sure the 2nd amendment was in writing. He went on record in indicating it was a hedge against tyranny, and pointed out its value in self defense (and the huge flaw in current legislative logic) when he said...

    Those that think they are smarter than Jefferson can be assured they are NOT. That includes anyone residing in DC as well as here.
    My 2 cents. If you disagree, argue with Jefferson, I've got work to do.
    :)
     
    robjones, Apr 8, 2009 IP