The Gun Control Regime!

Lounge
1

snopes.com: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act

Keep the CHANGE! Hitler promised change too :roll_eyes::open_mouth:

----- Forwarded Message -----

HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009
Please send this to everybody on your list…
this is Obama gun control by secrecy.
Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced 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 in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair 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 any time of their choosing
.Each update - cha nge 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 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.

The Government 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..
OpenCongress - Text of H.R.45 as Introduced in House Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

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 way 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 i s accomplished before anyone realizes it.
(Did Obama promise transparency? It seems his motives are more and more transparent while his methods are hidden in back rooms.)

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

2

Not to mention:

It is illegal to orally ingest duck dander in nine American states due to its intense hallucinogenic properties.

3

That explains some of my dreams. Damn down pillow.

4

Meh, Im not a gun freak so I could care less about this. The less of those things whose purpose is nothing but to harm around me the better it is in my book.

5

most of this is already in place
they are redefining firearm and the types of ammo we can use.

This is serious, now how we will stop them is unknown. I own many guns myself, and noone is taking them from me, I legally purchased them, and I will continue to own them until I die.

Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

Watch out for the new Ammo Act, all ammo must be used within 8 months or you will be fined and imprisoned, all ammo after that must have a serial number, so when you buy ammo the number is tied to you.

fu(king stupid socialist obama regime, I miss Bush, at least he only bent us over sideways, Obama is going for the tri-fecta…

Once our governmental coffers are empty, the world bank will take over with the UN.

6

I am a gun owner, and am not overall a conservative, nor a Republican. Basically I resent that the only way to support gun rights is, apparently, to support the Republican party (because except for this issue I don’t). Neither am I a Democrat for a multitude of reasons. Sometimes I feel like slapping the liberals/democrats I know upside the head screaming “you want to disarm yourselves against these people?! Are you crazy?!” {points to various nut jobs, right-wing and left-wing}

7

Care to explain what exactly is wrong with this? Things build to kill other people HAVE to be controlled extremely well. And what does that have to do with Hitler? I don’t get it… :confused:

Especially this coming from someone who’s around to ‘spread the love’ is a little confusing to me! What does owning fire weapons have to do with ‘spreading the love’? They are build for the exact opposite!

8

People can kill with a pencil, inanimate objects only make this easier.

if you take away guns, you take away people right to defend themselves, from each other and their government if need be.

9

Well, it kinda makes sense: Take the peoples guns away so they can’t form a militia and defend the Constitution, while they’re ripping the country apart and stripping away our rights. :angry:

10

well said!

11

Hi bubblebob:

The purpose of our second amendment is supposed to allow people the means to protect themselves from a possible tyrannical government. I suppose you could ponder the question of what could have happened if the German citizens including the German Jews, had been armed with guns and unwilling to go down without a gun fight.

Gun rights advocates will argue that this right is getting eroded away as the government exercises more and more control over who gets a gun.

Just to be the devil’s advocate, I would argue that the function of the amendment as intended by our founding fathers is already gone. We are already, for all intents and purposes, disarmed against the government. In the 1700’s, the government had guns, and local militia’s had guns, and the citizens had guns. Today, the government has computer-guided missiles, nuclear weaponry, rocket launchers, grenades, tanks etc. etc. and the citizen has…shotguns, rifles, and handguns.

12

There’s a clear correlation between the ease of getting a gun and the numbers of guns overall and the rate of murders in a state.

There’s a nice study from Harvard called “State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003”. This study shows, that the murder rates in states with the highest rates in firearms ownership are 114% above those rates in states with the lowest rates in firearms ownership.

The U. S. being the western country with the most liberal firearm ownership bills AND the highest homicide rate shows clearly that this liberal attitude towards things that are build to kill just cause MORE harm in every way.

Sooo… if this clearly does way more harm than good - what’s the reason to keep it the way it was???

13

Sooo… you vote for people having the right to own tanks and missiles in order to be able to defend themselves against the government?? :stuck_out_tongue:

Btw, if you feel the utter need to be able to defend yourselfes against the government while living in a democracy in ‘god’s own country’ - things are going very very wrong…

14

A few weeks ago I went to a gun store to look into purchasing a gun and I was told that since I live in New York City the amount of hoops I would have to go through in order for me to purchase a gun would make it so much of a pain that it’s not really worth me purchasing a gun. The guy behind the counter literally told me I would be better off moving if I wanted to own a gun.

This S**T if absolutely ridiculous, this is not what the framers of the constitution wanted when they wrote the second amendment… In fact this sort of thing is EXACTLY what they feared.

15

I question if you truly have liberty if you are not allowed the basic right to defend yourself. In the U.S. desire to own a gun has little to do with any immediate threat of danger from the government, it’s more of an exercise of one of your most basic guaranteed rights as an American. (Supposedly)

16

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The goverrnment has been slowly stripping away at the Constitution and our rights for years, and once they have disarmed all citizens just imagine how far they’ll be able to go.

Take away the peoples guns and what you’ve got is a herd of sheep that can’t do anything but follow the shepherder to the slaughterhouse!

This is a little off topic, but I believe it does tie back to gun rights, conspiracy theories, and just how far the govenment might go to accomplish hidden agendas.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield all said that they had no way of anticipating the terrorist attacks of 9/11, then within 6 months the Patriot Act was passed and our Constitutional rights were severly chipped away at.

BTW, for the 4 years precedding 9/11 numerous bills similar to the Patriot Act had been shot down by Congress and each of them was less stringent or imposing on the public than the one that passed in 2002.

Does anybody realize that the Pentagon had been engaged in training, which included a scenario of hijacked planes flying into buildings on 9/10 and 9/11?

I won’t go so far as to say the government conspired with the terrorists and had an active part in the attacks, but I wholeheartedly believe that they were complacent in the events of that day.

And, I still have a hard time understanding how a commercial airliner was allowed to freely fly through the most heavily protected airspace on the planet and fly into the Pentagon, after both towers of the Wolrd Trade Center were laying on the ground in rubble.

Just my 2 cents, but I have little faith or trust in this government, and I fear what this country may become.

For anyone that’s interested, here’s one link to a pretty acurate and detailed depiction of military activities that were going just prior to and during the 9/11 attacks: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6906

Some other events of 9/10 and 9/11: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x61565

17

No, I didn’t say that, please don’t put words in my mouth.

Don’t bother pushing the religion buttons with me, honey, I’m an atheist.:slight_smile:

18

Well, it seems that this is caused by some clash of cultures. I asked some colleagues here concerning this question and none of them - without exception - could agree to the american thought of having the right to own fireweapons without any boundaries and without even the need to register them (I take it that this need is currently not given as it is part of this new bill).

Did I ever feel the need to own a fire weapon? No.

Do I feel more safe in a country where not every idiot is allowed to buy weapons that could kill me without me having even a single chance to defend myself? You bet!

Do I believe owning weapons would make my life even a tiny bit more safe? Definitely no - and the clearly more violent means in the U.S. prove me right (I just found a nice comparison: In the late 90s 70 of 100.000 people in Washington per year were murdered. Guess what’s the number for Berlin: 3! So the chances of getting killed are 23 times higher in D.C. than here…).

What I don’t understand is: This new bill wouldn’t even take away your rights to buy weapons. It only says that you have to register them and register yourself as a weapon owner, keep 'em away from children, and you will be tested for mental stability so people with the tendency to violence are not allowed to buy them. This doesn’t even come close to a ban of private weapon ownership.

So what exactly is the problem with the points stated in the first post?

19

That’s why there was a :stuck_out_tongue: behind! :slight_smile: But really, it would be the logical conclusion if you think over your argument until the very end, wouldn’t it?

Me too, so there’s no button pushing implied! :slight_smile:

20

Well, no, because I said I was playing the devil’s advocate. = Arguing the other side of the issue. In other words, one could say that the intent behind the second amendment is a moot point because we lost that right long ago, and the authors of the constitution had no inkling of the kinds of weaponry that would be developed hundreds of years in the future.

I think the problem people have with laws such as the one Steve posted about is that they allow law enforcement a wide avenue for abusing the system. For example the part about keeping guns locked up and away from children. Yes, this is a good idea. But, if you take a gun out of your safe to go hunting, then during the entire hunting trip, the gun is not locked out of the reach of children. If you have your guns out cleaning them, and you have children in the household, you are breaking the law. If you take your under 18 children out shooting or hunting, you are breaking the law. If you piss off the local sheriff, it is easy for him to find a technicality on which to take your guns away.

RE: DC murder rate. But DC has the lowest percentages of gun owners in the U.S. Within the U.S., gun violence is not correlated with gun ownership percentages:

www.AsymptoticLife.com: More on Guns and Violence

Some states (e.g. Utah) have very high gun ownership but gun murder rates lower than what you quote for Berlin. When you start comparing the U.S. to Germany or other European coutries, you are getting into something of an apples and oranges comparisons, because there are so many other ways in which these countries differ besides gun ownership and gun laws. Personally, I think our (U.S.) culture is f’ed up in terms of violent gangs, people going violently insane, serial killers, etc. All of these are higher in the U.S. than Europe. I don’t know what is causing this, and it would be a really good thing if we could fix that, but I am not convinced guns are the underlying cause or that outlawing guns would fix all of these problems.