View Full Version : Here we go...
Senator McCarthy originally proposed this in 2008, and I didn't care because we had the Shrub in office. Now we have the Messiah™. Great.
F*ck you, Bobby Rush. Seriously, die in a fire.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text#
"It is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms."
F*ck you.
It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license.
F*ck you. 2nd Ammendment pwns u.
F*ck you. 2nd Ammendment pwns u.
You mean that constitution doohickey? That doesn't apply to apply to us peasants, it's only for our kings.
Okay I have some questions.
What are the requirements going to be to obtain a firearm license? Nevermind I found it.
And what limitations on use will this license bring with it?
What about those who already own firearms like DoK and Myself?
"In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held."
Um... No.
"(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..
(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;"
Wait, what?! This is bad...
(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;"
Wait, what?! This is bad...
I wonder if this is going to be like Marijuana in the 30's where it was illegal to grow without a license and they never handed out any licenses.
In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held."
This portion of the legislation doesn't pertain to private owners, although many people are actively trying to spin it that way to scare the rest of us (as if this whole document wasn't scary enough). The BATF does this already, so I'm not sure why they want to add this under the jurisdiction of another governing authority - oh wait, I forgot, there can't be too many governing authorities for anything! More government FTW!
Contact your congressman.
This portion of the legislation doesn't pertain to private owners, although many people are actively trying to spin it that way to scare the rest of us (as if this whole document wasn't scary enough). The BATF does this already, so I'm not sure why they want to add this under the jurisdiction of another governing authority - oh wait, I forgot, there can't be too many governing authorities for anything! More government FTW!
Contact your congressman.
Glad you caught that. In my disbelief I completely read over that part of it.
It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license.
F*ck you. 2nd Ammendment pwns u.
Second Amendments : "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's still debated, but for me regulated could point to having license.
But the statement kinda contradicts the purpose though, which is that the people of the U.S could stand up against tyranny (if the government turns out to be), but getting a license for it does mean that the government would have a list of who's had what type of firearms and where they resides.
And if the government really revolve around tyranny......... they'll round up those with firearms and confiscated them :p
Second Amendments : "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's still debated, but for me regulated could point to having license.
It is debated because people do not understand the definition of the word "regulated" in the time when this was written. There were no such things as government regulations in the sense of how we see regulations today.
If you read Alexander Hamilton's federalist paper, Concerning the Militia (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html), you will find just one of several examples of historical context surrounding the 2nd amendment and its wording.
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution....
Militia = everyone capable of holding a rifle. Hamilton is explaining that since they do not have the resources to train the entire populace in military practices, it would not be practical to try.
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
Well-regulated = well-trained = knows how to shoot straight
So, knowing that a well-regulated militia would be required to protect the United States, and knowing that training every citizen in the ways of war was not practical, the framers left the responsibility - not right - of maintaining proficiency with arms at the most basic level to the people.
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
The first half of that statement is a dependent clause, and the second half is an independent clause. The first half of this sentence is meant to qualify the main idea of the second half.
Example:
"50 FPS being necessary to enjoy Far Cry 2, I'm going to upgrade my video card."
Why am I going to upgrade my video card? Because I want 50 FPS so I can enjoy Far Cry 2. This can also be written, without changing the meaning of the sentence, as:
I'm going to upgrade my video card because 50 FPS is necessary to enjoy Far Cry 2.
Similarly...
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Why is the right of the people to keep and bear arms not going to be infringed? Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. This can also be written, without changing the meaning of the sentence, as:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
Or, as Ted Nugent would say...
"'Keep' means 'it's mine and you can't have it'; 'Bear' means 'I have it right here'; 'Shall not be infringed' means 'f*ck you, and drive safely.'"
It is debated because people do not understand the definition of the word "regulated" in the time when this was written. There were no such things as government regulations in the sense of how we see regulations today.
If you read Alexander Hamilton's federalist paper, Concerning the Militia (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html), you will find just one of several examples of historical context surrounding the 2nd amendment and its wording.
Militia = everyone capable of holding a rifle. Hamilton is explaining that since they do not have the resources to train the entire populace in military practices, it would not be practical to try.
Well-regulated = well-trained = knows how to shoot straight
So, knowing that a well-regulated militia would be required to protect the United States, and knowing that training every citizen in the ways of war was not practical, the framers left the responsibility - not right - of maintaining proficiency with arms at the most basic level to the people.
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
The first half of that statement is a dependent clause, and the second half is an independent clause. The first half of this sentence is meant to qualify the main idea of the second half.
Example:
"50 FPS being necessary to enjoy Far Cry 2, I'm going to upgrade my video card."
Why am I going to upgrade my video card? Because I want 50 FPS so I can enjoy Far Cry 2. This can also be written, without changing the meaning of the sentence, as:
I'm going to upgrade my video card because 50 FPS is necessary to enjoy Far Cry 2.
Similarly...
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Why is the right of the people to keep and bear arms not going to be infringed? Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. This can also be written, without changing the meaning of the sentence, as:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
Or, as Ted Nugent would say...
"'Keep' means 'it's mine and you can't have it'; 'Bear' means 'I have it right here'; 'Shall not be infringed' means 'f*ck you, and drive safely.'"
Well played sir. :thumb:
Touche, DoK ;)
But it bothers me though, unregulated militias could turn into vigilantes.
So yeah, there's bright and bad side to all things, and applying for license to own a gun ain't that hard, isn't it?
Even when you want to drive a car you need a license. Before you could own a license you would be taught on how to drive that car.
The same goes to a gun, the owner need to be properly trained on the gun usage, safekeeping (i know for a fact that most teenagers found their parents gun and then making a hell out of it), etc.
Just my 2cents
Touche, DoK ;)
But it bothers me though, unregulated militias could turn into vigilantes.
So yeah, there's bright and bad side to all things, and applying for license to own a gun ain't that hard, isn't it?
Even when you want to drive a car you need a license. Before you could own a license you would be taught on how to drive that car.
The same goes to a gun, the owner need to be properly trained on the gun usage, safekeeping (i know for a fact that most teenagers found their parents gun and then making a hell out of it), etc.
Just my 2cents
Driving a car is a privilege - not an enumerated right of the constitution. No one should have to have a license to exercise any of theirs rights.*
Also, requiring a license to own a firearm is not going to satisfy the goal of this bill, which is to reduce gun crime. Ask *ANY* policeman - the guns they confiscate from criminals were not purchased legally.
Additionally, I think it's interesting that gun control didn't even exist until the last half of the 20th century. I don't see why we need it now. Them damn hippies and their feel-good laws is where this stems from :).
*there are laws in place that I agree with completely to help prevent felons and the mentally ill from owning firearms.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.