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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
|
Just don't take my Riffe.
From my cold wet hands. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
It's great to play with word meanings but this is a real issue.
|
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
Blame the Republicans.... Yawn Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com