H.R. 45 - 2009 Antigun legislation

[GroundPounder]

I grew up in Philly, A.K.A Killadelphia. I’ve had guns pointed to my face and I’ve been shot at… as a kid! THAT’S WHERE I’M COMING FROM… that’s what I’m trying to say needs to be stop. This bill is not perfect, not by a long shot, but just saying “No” to any kind of gun laws and not supporting an alternative that does justice for those that live in rural Americans as well as the urban areas is doing a disservice to many, many Americans.

Thinking back, do you beleive that any of the events that you witnessed would have not happened if there was different set of laws in place at the time? It has been said a thousand other times, but it is a truism; If the person was willing to break the law with the gun, they would be willing to break the law to get the gun.

 

[Kazimake]

And how did those gang bangers get those guns? Answer: lax gun control laws… their not making them in the basement, their too stupid! They are buying them from the arms dealers who are selling guns to every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a wad of cash with little oversight concerning the transfer and issue of arms. Irrespective to how one interprets the 2nd Amendment, EVERYBODY should not be in possession of a gun.

Well then, how did those gang bangers get the drugs that they all too frequently sell??

And with your first statement.... how would requiring heavier licensing prevent a kid from getting a hold of his dad's gun??

----
And while some of you are talking about it, MO has some nice gun laws, background checks but no registration, and (For the moment) no wait period for handguns, but now we have a Dem governor who (I've heard) will be pushing for a 72-hour handgun wait.
----

Would also like to mention that a little girl I knew was killed a few years back by her cousin in a gun related accident. It sucks when that stuff happens, and if I really believed that these sort of laws could actually prevent all that I'd be much more willing to support them, but in all honesty, the gun was obtained legally by law abiding citizens, no amount of gun laws could have kept those kids from playing with the guns. In situations like that, it almost ALWAYS comes back to a parenting issue.

 

[Lawman]

how would requiring heavier licensing prevent a kid from getting a hold of his dad's gun??

Because his dad got fed up with all the bullshit regulatory crap and stopped owning guns...


No different than what the Army is trying to do to motorcycle riders. Make it such a pain in the ass to do something and people will eventually be worn down till they stop doing it all together. All you have to do is wait.

 

[insanebikerboy]

We can agree that society has the right to constrain individual freedom when it reasonably threatens to do harm to others. The First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater; your right to practice your religion does not encompass human sacrifice.

Ok, it's about time this argument is put to rest.

You can walk in any theatre in the US and yell fire all you want. What you're talking about is inciting a riot. If you walk into a theatre, yell fire, a stampede happens and someone gets hurt/killed, you're responsible for inciting that riot. If you walk into a theatre and yell fire and everyone gets up and orderly files out, what then? Nothing, and it's because the first ammendment allows you to yell whatever you want. Also, what happens if there is actually a fire, will you go to jail or get in trouble if you run in and yell fire then? No, because you weren't intentionally inciting a riot.

Human sacrifice isn't recognized as religion because it's depriving someone else of their life.

Using those arguments are a poor, veiled attempt at saying regulating our Constituionally given rights is ok, when it's not. What the Constitution doesn't allow is taking away or infringing someone else's right, unless done by due process. That means I can't kill someone, tell them they can't say something, that they can't own firearms, among many others.

As for those tank rounds, I personally think that if someone wants to buy them there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to. Just because someone buys those rounds doesn't mean they're gonna go sit outside an Army base and pick off Bradley's.

You advocating regulating Constitutional rights removes the freedom of personal choice from the individual.

 

[m26]

Ok, it's about time this argument is put to rest.

You can walk in any theatre in the US and yell fire all you want. What you're talking about is inciting a riot. If you walk into a theatre, yell fire, a stampede happens and someone gets hurt/killed, you're responsible for inciting that riot. If you walk into a theatre and yell fire and everyone gets up and orderly files out, what then? Nothing, and it's because the first ammendment allows you to yell whatever you want. Also, what happens if there is actually a fire, will you go to jail or get in trouble if you run in and yell fire then? No, because you weren't intentionally inciting a riot.

Human sacrifice isn't recognized as religion because it's depriving someone else of their life.

This is very wrong.

If a faith requires human sacrifice, it can still be considered a religion. Certain elements of a religion can be outlawed if they violate basic human rights.

And no, you cannot walk into a crowded theatre and yell fire. You are correct, somewhat, in that if no one reacts, and you shut up, you're probably golden. But if it causes a disturbance, you can get hit with disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace, and you won't win your appeal to the Supreme Court.

"Rights" are infringed ALL THE TIME by the government. The Supreme Court has stated ad naseum that the government can (lightly, you might say) infringe on personal rights if there is a "legitimate government interest."

 

[nittany03]

That argument boils down thus:

My right to swing my fist stops where your nose begins. I can fully enjoy liberty in whatever way I want so long as I don't violate your right to do the same. Government exists to protect people from having their right to do whatever the heck they want violated by someone else doing the same. NO MORE.

 

[Layzee101]

I once heard that the government should fear the people, not the people fear the government.

 

[GroundPounder]

Ok, it's about time this argument is put to rest.

You can walk in any theatre in the US and yell fire all you want. What you're talking about is inciting a riot. If you walk into a theatre, yell fire, a stampede happens and someone gets hurt/killed, you're responsible for inciting that riot. If you walk into a theatre and yell fire and everyone gets up and orderly files out, what then? Nothing, and it's because the first ammendment allows you to yell whatever you want. Also, what happens if there is actually a fire, will you go to jail or get in trouble if you run in and yell fire then? No, because you weren't intentionally inciting a riot.

.

Actually in Georgia you would be arrested and charged with " Transmitting a False Public Alarm " , its the same charge as calling in a bomb threat to disrupt school.

 

[insanebikerboy]

This is very wrong.

If a faith requires human sacrifice, it can still be considered a religion. Certain elements of a religion can be outlawed if they violate basic human rights.

Ok, you just restated what I said, albeit in a different way. The religion is recognized, just not taking another life in the name of that religion

And no, you cannot walk into a crowded theatre and yell fire. You are correct, somewhat, in that if no one reacts, and you shut up, you're probably golden. But if it causes a disturbance, you can get hit with disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace, and you won't win your appeal to the Supreme Court.

Again, you just said the exact same thing I did. Yes, you can walk into a theatre and yell fire. You can yell anything you want. In your example, the person isn't getting in trouble for saying "fire", he's getting in trouble for starting a disturbance. No where is it written that the word "fire" is forbidden to be said/yelled/written. You're glossing over the right of the First Amendment by talking about a result.

 

[m26]

Ok, you just restated what I said, albeit in a different way. The religion is recognized, just not taking another life in the name of that religion

Ok, that's fair. Your phrasing confused me.

Again, you just said the exact same thing I did. Yes, you can walk into a theatre and yell fire. You can yell anything you want. In your example, the person isn't getting in trouble for saying "fire", he's getting in trouble for starting a disturbance. No where is it written that the word "fire" is forbidden to be said/yelled/written. You're glossing over the right of the First Amendment by talking about a result.

That's a good point. But to use GroundPounder's example, states have banned warnings/threats of this sort on their own, regardless of the result.

The point I was trying to make is that most of the constitutionally guaranteed rights we have are regulated in one way or another. Guns are regulated. So is freedom of expression, speech, press, etc.

 

[A4sForever]

Back to the OP:

It ain't gonna happen ... H.R. 45 ... as much as some Dem's would like it. We pro-gun rights activists should always be vigilant but I wouldn't get wrapped around the main mount axle about THIS particular piece of trash -- 'scuse me, proposed legislation.

The bill's failure to attract co-sponsors is an indication of a lack of enthusiasm for it among many (most?) other congressmen. It's too far-reaching and repressive of gun owners' rights to merit serious consideration except by the most zealous of gun control advocates, much less gain a required majority in Congress.

If this bill passes, Democrats would likely lose control of the U.S. House in the upcoming mid-term elections in 2010. They don't want to do that again, and they've got enough on their plate right now ... hmmmmmmm .... mebbe this proposed bill should pass.

It's incumbent upon us to always be vigilant with our Constitutional and God-given rights and always watch out for those camels' noses comin' in under the tent flap ... but I don't think THIS is it. (a bill sponsored by a member of Congress who went AWOL from the US Army, is a former Black Panther, and served hard time for a ... *drum roll* .... firearms violation )

 

[m26]

I don't think THIS is it. (a bill sponsored by a member of Congress who went AWOL from the US Army, is a former Black Panther, and served hard time for a ... *drum roll* .... firearms violation )

Agreed.

Who votes for these people?

edit: Okay, I live in the district that produced Foley/Mahoney. But I didn't vote for either, in my defense.

 

[insanebikerboy]

The point I was trying to make is that most of the constitutionally guaranteed rights we have are regulated in one way or another. Guns are regulated. So is freedom of expression, speech, press, etc.

Those freedoms may be regulated when it can infringe the right of others. For example, I can write anything that I want to. However, if I start writing something and libel you, then my right to expression is regulated by laws since writing something libelous is harmful to you. Nowhere does it say that I can't write that down though.

Another example, individuals and groups can say anything they want; a good example are neo-Nazi's. They have extremely radical and offensive ideals to pretty much everyone else, but they are allowed to say and think whatever they want. However, if they use their speech to harass someone, then it becomes an infringement on someone else's personal right and space, which is illegal.

Now, compare that to the second ammendment. Regulations are being proposed based on what "might" happen. That's the key point, what might happen. For comparison, the right to free speech isn't regulated to prevent me from saying or writing what I want, but I am responsible for my actions. So, why can I not own a firearm, which is also a Constitutionally granted right, and be responsible for any misuse or harm that I may cause with it? That's the big difference, personal choice is being decided for us, not the other way around.

 

[A4sForever]

Who votes for these people?

Other people w/ an agenda....

 

[m26]

Now, compare that to the second ammendment. Regulations are being proposed based on what "might" happen. That's the key point, what might happen. For comparison, the right to free speech isn't regulated to prevent me from saying or writing what I want, but I am responsible for my actions.

I agree with you, Biker, about personal responsibility, at least in terms of my interpretation of the constitution and my own personal philosophy.

I guess we were kind of arguing different points. Mine was that our rights are shot to hell all the time, and not just on guns. But, failing to recall any specific examples to the contrary, the trampling of gun rights seems to be occurring in a way that is somewhat more absurd that the others.