HR 4269
 

Here we go..... Democrats trying to rewrite the Constitution. And take away guns from law abiding, licensed citizenry. Obama wants this done before gets out of office and has 124 of his democratic reps acting as his sheeple. Wake the eff up people!

Here it comes...be aware
 

HR 4269

google it

Filed at year end when many are off, not paying attention. 124 reps of one party doing the dirty work. Intent is clear. And they will try to justify rewriting the Constitution to get their way.

Ross
Its only the beginning , where it stops no one knows . If more carried guns knuckleheads would think twice before shooting up a crowd . And less would suffer and or die .

There is no way to stop a determined person from doing what hey want to do . They may get delayed but eventually they do it .
Case in point the World Trade Centers ! A determined enemy of the people of the United States . isis is also determined we have no idea what they will do next .

OK im gong back into my cave
Have a NICE New Years !

Wow they want to ban a ton of firearms in this bill. While i don't see the need for owning a so called "assault rifle" they sure are fun to shoot and i don't see the need to ban them. Bills like this will make AR's and AK's fly off the shelf. Close the so called gun show loophole. Don't see a problem with background checks but that's as far as i am willing to go.

Can the right please stop being afraid of everything.. I have been hearing this same song for 30 years and it still hasn't happen yet .. Have has many guns as you want but i feel they should be registered and if you want Military rifles you should have a addition permit .. But if the gun lobby keeps it stance on Guns like they do on Global warming just denying the problem . then others are just going to try to change things without them..

But yet The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted for the 56th time to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act.

Point is they Congress try all the time and both parties waste time on Votes only to pander to their bases.. and the regular American gets ignored

No warrant gun confiscation begins in Kalifornia tomorrow... Slippery Slope

Via The Washington Times:

Gun-safety legislation going into effect in California next week will allow authorities to seize a person’s weapons for 21 days if a judge determines there’s potential for violence.

Proposed in the wake of a deadly May 2014 shooting rampage by Elliot Rodger, the bill provides family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that allowing that person to possess a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.”

“The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore told a local NPR affiliate. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”

“It’s a short duration and it allows for due process,” he continued, adding: “It’s an opportunity for mental health professionals to provide an analysis of a person’s mental state.”

Entire article here:
http://www.redstate.com/2015/12/30/h...ion-january-1/

Why is that a bad thing?

If a judge decides I am a risk for being violent with my guns, I would hope someone took them away from me.

I would really like to see less mass shootings...

The way I see this happening is a family member or friend might call the athoraties and inform them that this person is unstable and should not own guns.

Is it perfect ? Probably not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is a process gun owners must follow in order to possess their guns, including a background check, and, at least in Massachusetts, authorization from local police chief, or local agency.
The back end of the license process, similar to drivers license, is not well defined. Slippery slope? Maybe. But has some merits.
If I am at a gun range, I am always super aware of who is around me and their actions. No way I want an unstable individual there, especially with a firearm in their possession. There have been some who would have been judged stable, but by their behavior and handling of a weapon have made me nervous. So while not having read this particular law in whole, it has some merits in protecting the public.
But..... It is not trying to override an amendment of the Constitution. It is not banning possession of certain weapons. It does include a rough draft of a due process that would need to be developed. (Not a lot of Mass. judges that I would want deciding my rights in this situation.) I don't care if it is a resident, a neighbor, family member, fellow military unit member, or just another guy at the range; if they are not mentally fit, they should not be in possession. As redlite once said on this board; owning and carrying a gun is likely the most awesome responsibility one can have.

Get a concealed carry permit or a LTC...whatever they call it in your state. It's one of the way to protect your rights...I think. BTW, I have a concealed carry permit.

Um,yeah. The guy who threw rocks at Rick for being in his fishing spot is level headed.

To me the most awesome responsibility is raising children. It will be difficult fixing the gun thing as the gun nuts will always cling to the constitution regardless of the flaws that have become evident to anyone with common sense. I am not opposed to guns,just opposed to stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a case of guilty until proven innocent where the burden of proof falls upon the innocent who lost their rights as the result of an allegation...

"Gun nuts " , childish names like this pretty much makes everything else you said irrelevant. it's very tough to have an honest conversation about guns when any point you bring up includes name calling .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not a firearm owner but respect gun owners rights and privileges... to a point. But what really troubles me is the gun lobby's stubborn refusal to compromise on just about anything. The argument that "once we give up something the door is open" is really getting old. Refusing to compromise has now set up a predicted presidential Executive Order coming out soon. This is what happens when they don't come to the table.

"Common sense"? "Cling to the Constitution"? So, are we supposed to amend the Constitution using "common sense"? How about science? You seem to value science as a final verdict of sorts. Should science depend on common sense? Are you a common sense nut? Are you clinging to common sense? And your "opposed to stupidity"?

You like to accuse others of being like the Taliban. But you don't mind throwing out Taliban-like dictums which would require the rest of the world to accept your version of what is right, or your version of common sense?

Common sense varies according to what a majority at any given time has as a common belief. It doesn't protect minority beliefs or rights. And what is common not only changes, but it is often stupid.

Sorry, Ross, there's no reason to start the same political thread in the main forum, when there's a live thread in the correct forum, which is this one. I'm going to merge the two threads---there is a re-direct in the main.

What's with all the common sense?

Just don't take my Riffe.
From my cold wet hands.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Compromise is a really comfortable word. It has a great common sense ring to it. And the great majority of people probably believe that compromise is a good answer for many disputes.

But there is a harsher, far less comfortable word. Principle. It is a source word. A basis from which things function. It is not subject to common sense. Common sense which is devoid of a valid principle is more often stupid sense.

When principles are compromised, chaos and conflict follow. Rule of law is corrupted. "Coming to the table" becomes surrender to majority opinion, tyranny of the majority, destruction of minority rights.

Compromise in the universe of little things, personal disputes over non-essential things which are not rooted in fundamental principles . . . compromise in such things is usually good.

Compromising the principle of a thing is the destruction of that thing.

No. Permits and legal firearms ownership is not the issue. I will not submit to any additional restrictions. Why people think more laws and regulations will help anything is beyond me.

It's great to play with word meanings but this is a real issue.

That is exactly how I feel.

There are a lot of gun laws on the books , so gunowners can't be accused of not compromising . Feel free to post up statistics showing that the gun laws that are on the books are either enforced or are working .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Considering that gun lobby pandering Republicans have largely prevented the Government from seriously studying the issue where do you think these "statistics" are going to come from?

Don't you hate when the Republicans abide by the Constitution . The nerve of them .

There are plenty a private gun studies that are done , of course the validity of them can be suspect because the source of the money pretty much dictates the results of the study . Such is the case of any government studies .

Enjoy your New Year's Spence !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ah yes, the Constitution doesn't explicitly call for the study of health issues so they're abiding by it.

What about all those other Government health studies the Constitution doesn't call for but that we benefit from? I assume you're going to exempt yourself and your family from most treatments for infectious disease etc...

Would that make you a hypocrite or just one of Dangle's gun nuts?

Why didn't we do the "studies " in the first few years of Obama's tenure? You know when the Democrats controlled everything .
Blame the Republicans.... Yawn
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, a year of research should certainly prove conclusive...

Can you imagine if this country actually went back to the original way that the constitution intended ? True freedom and oppression of government ? That would be sweet
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry if that term offended anybody with thin skin but the expression has a lot of validity. The fact I have to explain myself to a human being that thinks that there is no need for new restrictions because the old don't work anyhow.....
Wow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually I believe what I said was your explanations were irrelevant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Check out ghost guns on the National geographic channel. They could outlaw hand guns like Australia and only the drug dealers and criminals will have them.
Drugs Inc. on natgeo channel shows the ice dealers having handguns in Australia.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Today at Angle Tree Stone,,, I'm the nut with the baronet mounted LOL 2nd bench.... 🔫
Attachment 62090

Actually I believe I said human being🔨🔨
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If only criminals would follow laws. Now there's an idea.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It would be great
But then they wouldn't be criminals
Try reality
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's the sad part of it all. just about every mass shooting has happened where guns aren't allowed. You don't see them at gun shows,sporting shops,open carry places,veteran meeting halls,outdoor recreation area or places where someone is protecting carrying a firearm. as long as there are inocent victims available those looking for victims will have a target.Unless there's someone there carrying a firearm.Then the story changes.

Reality is to make more laws? I'll stick to my version .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which is exactly why we shouldn't "play" with word meanings. "Real" issues require real words, not play words. Falling back on mushy bromides such as "let's compromise" when foundational principles are at stake is not just about fixing a problem. It is, in regard to the Constitution in this case, about reversing the constitutional relation between citizen and government.

It is no big secret what progressive tinkering with constitutional rights over the past hundred years has been about. It is no secret that what progressives have been trying to achieve with incremental "compromises" is the elimination of the Constitution and its structural guarantee of individual rights. And replacing that with an all-powerful administrative central government which decides and dictates what rights the citizen has.

It is no secret that among the "vast residuum" of constitutional rights that progressive government has already vanquished, a few obstinate ones remain to be destroyed. The Second Amendment being at the top of the list.

It is no secret that a cherished goal of progressives is to abolish the Second Amendment. And it is no secret, that the ultimate goal of never-ending gun control "compromises" is to eliminate private gun ownership.

Of course, the ruse is that it is about fixing the problem of gun violence. In actuality, it is about fixing the central government's problem of its inability to convince the voters that they must not have guns.

And the propaganda which progressives have convinced even themselves of as being the "truth," is that they are trying to make our lives free "from" the eternal slings and arrows which life casts our way, such as fear, or want (poverty), or violence. But the real truth is that government cannot give us the "right" not to be plagued by nature's evils so long as we, as individuals, have inherent rights "to" or "of" some basic freedoms. Those pesky basic freedoms get in the way of government giving us the "right" to be free "from" bad stuff. Free people get in each other's way. They do unacceptable, offensive, stuff to each other.

The only way the government can give us the "right" to "freedom" from bad stuff, including violence to each other (or lack of health care, or catastrophic global climate change, etc.), is to have full control of us. It must have the power to give us that "right," and not to be limited by various individual "unalienable" rights.

Ultimately, it is not only the control of our natural impulses that progressive government must have in order to provide us the panacea for a trouble free life, but it requires the control of nature itself. The burden such a government imposes on itself is so great that it cannot truly "compromise" with irritating factions and splinter groups, with "extremists" or "kooks." With "clingers" to old things or silly notions. Not yet having the total power it wants, it must still play at little compromises which will eventually lead to its promised land.

So when the government raises a "real issue," beware of how it plays with words, and the meaning of those words. It's probably true that generations have gradually been conditioned to accept the pre-eminent role of the Federal Government in every aspect of our lives. So it's only natural to most that Presidents can willy-nilly make executive orders about whatever the President wants. Or that Federal Regulatory Agencies can do just about the same. And the rationale, or excuse, is that if the Congress fails to do what the President wants, then he can just go ahead and do it himself.

But note what such logic, such playing with the meaning of words, leads to. If we accept such governance, what is the meaning of the words in the Constitution? What is the meaning of the words of any law or statute? What is the meaning or necessity of Congress? Of what use are various competing localities such as States? They, and much more, including the "rights" you think you own, are all subject to the whim and pen of one person.

And that is what you wind up with when "compromise" overrules principle.

In most mass shooting events over the past several decades there has been a personal connection or grievance that determined the location of the murders. I've never seen any evidence that killers look to gun free zones as easy targets...it's a myth.

Oh Bull S hit... you and your myth dismissals are getting old. Do you need direct evidence? Or can you show even one mass event where perp was at least matched with even number of armed people? They might be sick, but their primal instinct to survive will drive them to act out where there will be no armed resistance.