Democrat Gun Grab

The number one rule in politics is to never show emotion. Posting about raising arms, whether itâ??s done in a â??safeâ?� arena (ie: UPH.com), or in a state house, is always inflammatory. Obviously, this is a charged issue. Every one of â??usâ?� (UPHers) probably feels the same way about gun control. At the minimum we all demand the right to own firearms for hunting purposes. There are also those that demand the right to own combat/assault weapons on the other side of the paradigm. Why? For a revolution? To hold serve over their territory? Thatâ??s where the split occurs, and most politicians donâ??t always separate the two.

There must be intervention by government to mediate this issue, and government by definition cannot appease everybody. If you truly are concerned, you get involved. Thatâ??s as simple as an email to your representative.

Believe it or not, they read most correspondence from constituents even if they donâ??t reply directly. Good discussion!
 
For better or worse, the current administration will not challenge the gun lobby and support a reinstatement of the AWB. They have too many other irons in the fire -- economic crisis, 2 wars, border problems w/Mexico, healthcare reform, energy policy reform, the list goes on and on. Eric Holder raised the possibility of the AWB last month and Hillary Clinton raised it the other day. In both cases, the Whitehouse shot them down.
 
JMBZ71 said:
I think this is the best article I've read so far about how we got to where we are now.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/1
Click to expand...

Seriously, don't go to Tabbi at Rolling Stone as a non-biased, reporter. His article prior to the one you are quoting was an extremely sophmorish "last interview with George Bush" which was largely based on sex and fart (non) jokes.

What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
________
Town panel
 
Last edited:
kansasbrittany said:
Do you seriously think we're organizing a revolt here? We couldn't even if we wanted to. There are still too many complacent gun owners out there that would refuse join even the NRA at this point. It's going to take more than a waiting bill to get the attention of the sheep in our population. I would also like to add that there is quite a bit more going on than just some threats to our second amendment. People are upset for a multitude of reasons but that doesn't make them radicals or even activists. Take some of your own advice and stop trying to add more of us to the "stereotypical" list. I've never really heard hunters talking seriously about a civil war. If kiotehntr or I were really ready to organize something, you all would've been the first to recieve an invitation to some sort of gathering.

Peace be with you my fellow American. We'll stick together as countrymen for so long as our rights truly aren't being threatened. Places like this give people a chance to vent some of their concerns and nobody here has gone over board with anything yet.
Click to expand...
Thanks KB, all that I was trying to state is that the government knows better than just anounce the gun ban outright. They are going to try and get it thrown in under the radar while no one is really paying attention. I agree Wilsonchevy, getting involved is the only way to keep this from happening. I may have come off harsh at first but I apologize for that, but I WILL NOT apologize for trying to stand up for my rights, It doesn't matter who was presidnet, a white man, black man, white lady or any other race or sex I will fight for my rights to the bitter end. I'm not being a sterotypical hunter either, just an American that is standing up for my rights. I'm not starting anything just stating that I think some peoples views are blinded right now due to the emphasis on the economy, we all need to fight this challenge as ONE not seperate. Okay, sorry for my rant *steps off the soapbox*let's get ready for next season...
 
Last edited:
What rights?

Listen boys, this gun bill is absolutely in the works, and should scare the hell out of us. Basically a driverâ??s license for gun owners. Itâ??s a slippery slope; the bill itself is wholly ambiguous and leaves many decisions up to individual states. What we know is that it doesnâ??t matter if you buy all your guns tomorrow, 5 years from now, or have owned them for 100 years. It will affect you. Funny how they are quick to get fingerprints and special licenses for gun owners, but not for voters, but I digress.



Anyway, the only guns that will not be affected are long guns that do not accept detachable magazines (e.g. most shotguns and many bolt-action hunting rifles).



Read directly from the legislation:



â??(2) APPLICABLE DATE- In this subsection, the term â??applicable dateâ?? means--


â??(A) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person before the date of the enactment of Blair Holtâ??s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 2 years after such date of enactment; and


â??(B) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person on or after the date of the enactment of Blair Holtâ??s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 1 year after such date of enactment.â??.



In other words, you will have 2 years to submit your application for a firearms license, if you own a gun. Do you plan on just not doing anything, not admitting you own guns? Donâ??t worry, the Brady Bill already required the government to collect info every time you bought from a FFL, remember those forms you signed at the gun shop? Uncle Sam already knows you purchased guns.



Therefore you will need a license. To get licensed, along with a photo, a thumbprint, your mental health records, and lots of signatures, you have to pay a fee and pass a written examination. Written examination?? See how ambiguous the language is here:



(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding--

(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(B) the safe handling of firearms;


(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;

(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and


(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;


(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;



It sounds so reasonable, yet this is so open to abuse; individual states could make the written examination easy or extreme to dissuade gun ownership. They also set the fees, which could be exorbitant up to $25, basically another tax on the individual. Then, every 5 years, you will need to renew your license.



Here it is in full:



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45



Another example of big O government, and what you get for voting in a majority of liberals and the supreme overlord O. What more can expect under the Obama admin.? Remember his promises to sportsmen? Throw them all out the window.



By the way, the people committing the crimes with these sorts of guns get them illegally, steal them, buy them on the street, and will continue to do so with or without this legislation in place. This will only punish legal owners of firearms.



And, in closing, here are the penalties for failing to abide [2 years of prison, my god, thatâ??s more time that the criminal would get for burglarizing your home]:



(a) Failure To Possess Firearm License; Failure To Comply With Qualifying Firearm Sale or Transfer Requirements; Failure To Maintain or Permit Inspection of Records- Section 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

â??(8) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (aa), (bb), or (dd) of section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.â??.

(b) Failure To Comply With Universal Background Checks; Failure To Timely Report Loss or Theft of a Qualifying Firearm; Failure To Provide Notice of Change of Address- Section 924(a)(5) of such title is amended by striking â??(s) or (t)â?? and inserting â??(t), (cc), (ee), or (ff)â??.


(c) Child Access Prevention- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:


â??(9) Whoever violates section 105(a)(2) of Blair Holtâ??s Handgun Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, knowingly or having reason to believe that the person is prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a firearm, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.


â??(10) Whoever violates section 922(gg) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.â??.
 
Uncle Buck said:
Seriously, don't go to Tabbi at Rolling Stone as a non-biased, reporter. His article prior to the one you are quoting was an extremely sophmorish "last interview with George Bush" which was largely based on sex and fart (non) jokes.

What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. I posted the link in response to what others (Webguy, Bobeyerite, Kansasbrittany) were discussing. I can't comment on the George Bush article as I haven't read it. Did you read "The Big Takeover"? If not, you have no basis to criticize it.

As far as this thread's concerned, if the Whitehouse and Congress won't get behind a reinstatement of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, what makes you think they'd get behind a bill like Blair Holt (HR-45)? That bill's so restrictive, it hasn't picked up a single co-sponsor in Congress and without that, it'll never go to Committee, which means it'll never reach the House floor for a vote, let alone get passed. That doesn't mean a less restrictive version of the bill couldn't be introduced down the road and gain some traction, so I agree that we need to be vigilant about scrutinizing ANY proposed gun control legislation that's introduced. I just don't think HR-45 will ever see the light of day.
 
Last edited:
JMBZ71 said:
It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. I posted the link in response to what others (Webguy, Bobeyerite, Kansasbrittany) were discussing. I can't comment on the George Bush article as I haven't read it. Did you read "The Big Takeover"? If not, you have no basis to criticize it.

As far as this thread's concerned, if the Whitehouse and Congress won't get behind a reinstatement of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, what makes you think they'd get behind a bill like Blair Holt (HR-45)? That bill's so restrictive, it hasn't picked up a single co-sponsor in Congress and without that, it'll never go to Committee, which means it'll never reach the House floor for a vote, let alone get passed. That doesn't mean a less restrictive version of the bill couldn't be introduced down the road and gain some traction, so I agree that we need to be vigilant about scrutinizing ANY proposed gun control legislation that's introduced. I just don't think HR-45 will ever see the light of day.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did read it. I have a subscription to Rolling Stone. I don't subcribe to whatever fits what I want to hear.(preaching to the choir) I keep an eye on the oppisition. Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.
What happened to transparency? Barney Frank,Chris Dodd will Tabbi take a shot at them. Opps! Take a shot ? Shouldn't say that.
Good to see the J bros have hooked up again.
________
Juggalos
 
Last edited:
Uncle Buck said:
Yes, I did read it. I have a subscription to Rolling Stone. I don't subcribe to whatever fits what I want to hear.(preaching to the choir) I keep an eye on the oppisition. Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.
What happened to transparency? Barney Frank,Chris Dodd will Tabbi take a shot at them. Opps! Take a shot ? Shouldn't say that.
Good to see the J bros have hooked up again.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you reading Rolling Stone, Uncle Buck. Now if we can just get you a subscription to Mother Jones and The Atlantic...;)

-Jeffrey J. Bro
 
bobeyerite said:
Good Post wilsonchevy; I have been saying for a long time it was not the Democrats alone that put in gun control. People tend to forget President Reagan got shot but lived. Even back then on the Brady Bill. 8 Dems voted NO. But it was the cross-over Repub's Yes vote that got it passed. My point is; It is not the Party the man belongs too, but the man that does the voting. I also believe it is the Pro-Gun people in both parties that help us hunters, keep what we got. Not just the Republicans as the NRA would like us to believe.---Bob
Click to expand...

AMEN Bob!!!!!!
 
The right to bear arms and the right to free spreech are hand in hand. Our forefathers knew that without the ability to stand up for themselves the federal government would walk all over them. Apparently even with firearms they can walk all over us. It sure makes you appreciate what the pilgrams were willing to go through for freedom. I bet they would all say it was worth it.
I doubt the antigun folks will out right ban firearms, but they will take our rights away piece by piece.
God Bless America
 
Gun Rights and Regulations

Two things to bear in mind are that the U.S. Supreme Court has at long last recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment; and that gun ownership is widespread in the U.S. and crosses all political and socio-economic lines. These two factors dramatically reduce the probability that bills in Congress such as the current one to require a license to possess a handgun or a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine will ever become law or, if enacted, will survive constitutional challenges in court. But with every firearm-aided massacre, like the one in Binghamton this week, more and more people move toward the idea of regulations and restrictions. That behooves us to be vigilant of others and their violent propensities, and warn law enforcement authorities if we suspect something is afoot. Also, I think we hunters and other responsible gun owners act against our own interests when we glibly talk about revolution and the like when discussing gun laws. Such talk suggests that more regulations and restrictions are in order, not fewer, and conjures images of armed idiots "going postal." We need to be relaxed, rational, well-informed, and in touch with our representatives in Congress who really do respond to what they hear from their constituents. If you haven't contacted your reps in Congress, do so. It is no more difficult to communicate with them than it is to communicate with us in this forum.
 
Last edited:
BritChaser said:
Two things to bear in mind are that the U.S. Supreme Court has at long last recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment; and that gun ownership is widespread in the U.S. and crosses all political and socio-economic lines. These two factors dramatically reduce the probability that bills in Congress such as the current one to require a license to possess a handgun or a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine will ever become law or, if enacted, will survive constitutional challenges in court. But with every firearm-aided massacre, like the one in Binghamton this week, more and more people move toward the idea of regulations and restrictions. That behooves us to be vigilant of others and their violent propensities, and warn law enforcement authorities if we suspect something is afoot. Also, I think we hunters and other responsible gun owners act against our own interests when we glibly talk about revolution and the like when discussing gun laws. Such talk suggests that more regulations and restrictions are in order, not fewer, and conjures images of armed idiots "going postal." We need to be relaxed, rational, well-informed, and in touch with our representatives in Congress who really do respond to what they hear from their constituents. If you haven't contacted your reps in Congress, do so. It is no more difficult to communicate with them than it is to communicate with us in this forum.
Click to expand...


Extraordinary post Sir!!!! I agree totally! At times, I tend be one of those irrational idiots you're referring to. You're absolutely right, there is a better way to go about getting our point(s) across. Thanks...
 
As far as gun registration goes, you have to remember that every gun manufactured or imported since 1968 is already "registered". Given the serial number, the BATF can trace the gun from manufacturer to distributor to retail sale.

Your guns are mostly already registered. Only guns which were originally sold prior to 1968 were not, and any of them which have passed through a dealer since 1968 are now registered.

Do I care that my guns are traceable to me? Of course not, why would I?

As far as the Blair Holt bill, it's nothing more than a repeat which has been introduced in more or less the same form by someone, every year for the last thirty years. Not one of those bills have ever even come up for a vote, and this years will die too. It will never even be discussed.

Still it's good money raising propaganda for the NRA.

"Help! Help! those @#^*&#@!s are going to take your guns unless you send more money!

Democrats are after our guns? Nope, we are not. Read this -

http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2009/01/blair-holt-bill-cynicism-at-its-finest.html
 
Last edited:
BritChaser said:
Two things to bear in mind are that the U.S. Supreme Court has at long last recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment; and that gun ownership is widespread in the U.S. and crosses all political and socio-economic lines. These two factors dramatically reduce the probability that bills in Congress such as the current one to require a license to possess a handgun or a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine will ever become law or, if enacted, will survive constitutional challenges in court. But with every firearm-aided massacre, like the one in Binghamton this week, more and more people move toward the idea of regulations and restrictions. That behooves us to be vigilant of others and their violent propensities, and warn law enforcement authorities if we suspect something is afoot. Also, I think we hunters and other responsible gun owners act against our own interests when we glibly talk about revolution and the like when discussing gun laws. Such talk suggests that more regulations and restrictions are in order, not fewer, and conjures images of armed idiots "going postal." We need to be relaxed, rational, well-informed, and in touch with our representatives in Congress who really do respond to what they hear from their constituents. If you haven't contacted your reps in Congress, do so. It is no more difficult to communicate with them than it is to communicate with us in this forum.
Click to expand...

Well said, BritChaser. The "Cold, dead hands" types and the self-styled "Patriots" who advocate violent overthrow of the government scare the Beejebus out of people. Hell, they scare me.

August 14 I'm taking a group of seven twenty-something young men who have never fired a gun out to the gun club. We'll go through a couple flats of shells, and when I finish with them, they'll understand, I hope, that firearms are inanimate things which can be used and enjoyed just like a set of golf clubs, requiring only a little knowledge and common sense to be both fun and safe.
 
Last edited:
As a Conservative personally I don't think it's the democrats that hunt , It's the Liberals in the big cities such as Chicago , New York , Washington DC. etc etc. These people are passing legislation to make it harder for hunters to get a license to hunt or to obtain a permit to have a gun.

It's these people that don't care if you hunt or not because in their twisted little mind they believe that the reason for most of the gun crimes are due to guns not the people who fire them.
 
Mr Hyde said:
As a Conservative personally I don't think it's the democrats that hunt , It's the Liberals in the big cities such as Chicago , New York , Washington DC. etc etc. These people are passing legislation to make it harder for hunters to get a license to hunt or to obtain a permit to have a gun.
Click to expand...

How so, Mr Hyde? Tell us.

I spent 60 seconds on-line and now have a lifetime hunting/fishing permit. $10. How "hard" is that?

I walked into Wal*Mart, spent less than five minutes filling out a BATF form, and walked out with a new Rem 1100. How "hard" is that?

I loaded sixty boxes of shells into a cart, paid for them, and left. How "hard" was that?

It's no "harder" than it was 30 years ago.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top