Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You really haven't read the proposed bill, nor kept up with the discussion here.
The proposed bill has a great sounding title, so that when it is voted down they can post headlines like the OP has done.
Especially important and highlighting the problem with the bill was post #67 quoted here:
I have, and it doesn't effect me or anyone I know = I don't give a ****
The problem with people like yourself is that you're nothing but a follower. You're incapable of deciphering what is BS from what is not.
I love my guns, but I will be the first to say that most gun enthusiasts are not smart people. They tend to not question things. This is why most will follow retarded ideologies like organized religion or in this case, a huge lobby like the NRA.
Be a lion bro. We already have enough sheep in this world. If you don't want your gun rights infringed upon, then stop being unreasonable. It's because of people like yourself that the anti-gun establishment views most gun owners as "crazy," or "irrational." Within my lifetime the anti-gun crowd will far outnumber the pro-gun crowd, and I'm going to lose my basic rights because of people like yourself turning people off from responsible gun ownership with your craziness.
So? Cons are almost hysterical in their push to profile middle easterners & blacks, why wouldn't you support this type of profiling?
profiling is one thing. if you see a crime go down, and the person committing that crime is described as being white male between the ages of 25-30, 6' to 6' 3", average weight, with blond hair, then why would you even bother looking at grandma as being the criminal?
or if you are looking for terrorists, and they are described as generally being of middle eastern descent, and between the ages of 25-35, why then are you checking the diapers of two year old children? or the depends of grandma?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spankys bbq
"Permits the Attorney General to withhold information in firearms and explosives license denial revocation suits if the Attorney General determines that the disclosure of such information would likely compromise national security."
All the AG has to do is invoke national security and the applicant is screwed.
This bill was also introduced February 25, 2015. It's not like they couldn't have been selling this bill to the public all that time. I guess they'd rather play up recent events.
If a person sells 300 firearms per year they are NOT a private seller, and are exploiting the law.
Are you still arguing that point?
That could be illegal.
Quote:
18 USC 922
(a) It shall be unlawful—
(1) for any person—
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; or
Someone selling 300 firearms per year (and not reducing the number of firearms they actually own) is clearly engaging in the business of dealing in firearms. If BATFE even threatened to investigate this would dry up in a heartbeat.
As far as the regulation of private sales within a state, the Federal Government has no ground to interfere. Interstate commerce is the underpinning of the gun regulations we currently have, a sale within a state from one state resident to another state resident does not interfere with even the MC Escher/Daliesque inspired interpretation that is currently used to determine what is or is not involved in interstate commerce.
As far as this specific law, I think it's a really stupid idea, anyone can be a terrorist suspect, just like anyone can be a suspect of any other crime. If there is sufficient evidence then act on that evidence, if there is insufficient evidence then you cannot really do anything, because at the end of the day you're just saying that you don't want person X to have a gun because it scares you, well what if people don't want persons X driving, or living in the same country, or buying gas, or being paid because it scares them. It's some nasty Nazi BS, it doesn't matter that this application of the principle may be something you personally disagree with the ownership of, because sometime in the future in some dark smoky room in DC, someone's going to say "Sure we can do that, we already do that for people buying guns". No one should have their rights restricted because of a general fear, only because of sufficient evidence that they have acted in ways that demonstrate the fear isn't general, but highly specific and real.
Be a lion bro. We already have enough sheep in this world. If you don't want your gun rights infringed upon, then stop being unreasonable. It's because of people like yourself that the anti-gun establishment views most gun owners as "crazy," or "irrational." Within my lifetime the anti-gun crowd will far outnumber the pro-gun crowd, and I'm going to lose my basic rights because of people like yourself turning people off from responsible gun ownership with your craziness.
LOL
"Now, if you don't want your rights infringed upon you are just going to have to accept some infringements upon them".
When someone can be added to the "terror suspect list" based on arbitrary criteria and discretion, without even knowing it, and when there is no due process afforded BEFOREhand, yep, that's exactly what I'm saying.
The terrorists just love this! They can go to a gun show and stock up, no questions asked!
I have, and it doesn't effect me or anyone I know = I don't give a ****
The problem with people like yourself is that you're nothing but a follower. You're incapable of deciphering what is BS from what is not.
I love my guns, but I will be the first to say that most gun enthusiasts are not smart people. They tend to not question things. This is why most will follow retarded ideologies like organized religion or in this case, a huge lobby like the NRA.
Be a lion bro. We already have enough sheep in this world. If you don't want your gun rights infringed upon, then stop being unreasonable. It's because of people like yourself that the anti-gun establishment views most gun owners as "crazy," or "irrational." Within my lifetime the anti-gun crowd will far outnumber the pro-gun crowd, and I'm going to lose my basic rights because of people like yourself turning people off from responsible gun ownership with your craziness.
Be sensible, bro.
To say that most gun enthusiasts are not smart people is, well, not smart. Religion aside, I'd imagine there are more gun owners who have an excellent grasp on the law than non-gun owners. An example, many, many gun owners have a detailed knowledge of firearms laws in multiple states where they travel, they understand interstate transport, self-defense and castle doctrine laws, magazine capacity laws, etc. Many also frequently write letters to their state's Attorney General asking for clarification on particular laws. They'll also write letters to the BATFE for clarification. Simply Google "firearm opinion letter" and you'll get quite a few results.
To make a blanket statement like that makes me question whether you are able to decipher the BS.
I'd like your definition of "unreasonable". I don't care what Merriam-Webster says, or what some politician says. I'd like to know what Talkinhead's definition of "unreasonable" is.
Is it unreasonable to stand in opposition of a proposed law that would put our 2nd Amendment rights in the hands of a bureaucrat? Reference the law this thread originally discussed. Is it unreasonable to expect our current laws, all of them, be enforced in a non-selective manner? Is it unreasonable to expect our Constitutional rights not be infringed, as is clearly stated?
Now, let's ask what is reasonable? You want mental health histories? How do you get around HIPPA? If one must go get a mental health check, what's to say the person preforming said check is not anti-gun and would just deny every person they could? What is the metric used to make such a determination? If a man had a rocky period with his wife and the police were called because of a verbal argument, is that enough to deny him a firearm? How about a DUI several (5+) years ago? Who gets to determine the criteria?
We've already been told there are not enough law enforcement personnel to check out ever 4473. What makes anyone think a new law requiring further screening would be effective or even practical? Heck, I'll even ask what makes one think it would even be possible?
To go back to the original point of this thread, I'll say the verbiage was pretty. "NRA blocks bill..." However, when being a member of the Tea Party, or having 7 days of food, or believing in conspiracies, etc., finds you eligible to make the list, I cannot support such a law. Who determines who gets on the list and who gets a pass? Most likely a bureaucrat, that's who. Depending on which one gets your file could determine your future ability to exercise a right guaranteed in our Constitution.
On April 6, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union "filed a nationwide class-action challenge to the government's No Fly List", in which they charge that "many innocent travelers who pose no security risk whatsoever are discovering that their government considers them terrorists – and find that they have no way to find out why they are on the list, and no way to clear their names."[69] The case was settled in 2006, when "the federal government agreed to pay $200,000 in attorneys' fees to the ACLU of Northern California" and to "[make] public, for the first time, hundreds of records about the government's secret 'no fly' list used to screen airline passengers after September 11, 2001."[15]
On August 5, 2010, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 plaintiffs challenging their placement on the No Fly List. [70] and on June 24, 2014, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown ruled in favor of the plaintiffs saying that air travel is a “sacred” liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution[71] and ordered the government to change its system for challenging inclusion.[70] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
The terrorists just love this! They can go to a gun show and stock up, no questions asked!
It is incumbent on a seller to be satisfied that the purchaser of a firearm is not a felon, ineligible to own a firearm, or otherwise not allowed to own a firearm. Something tells me your average private seller isn't going to be too keen on selling to a guy with a Middle Eastern name or accent unless the seller knows said person. Hey, racism can work.
Republicans are so anxious to block all syrian refugees from settling in their states, but they have given free reign to the NRA to wreck havoc with guns.
Stupid post. The NRA cannot block any bills. Only Congress can block a bill.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
