Hr45

[PubliusInfinitum]

* It will be “unlawful” to own a firearm without a license.
* Be required to submit a picture and thumbprint.
* Provide certification that the firearms are properly stored.
* Pass a written firearms exam which tests a persons knowledge of the safe storage of firearms in the presence of children, safe handling of firearms, risks associated with firearms, legal responsibilities of a firearm owner, and anything else the Attorney General deems fit.
* A release of any mental health records.
* Makes private sales illegal.
* Establishes a Federal Record of Sale system which records make, model, serial number, license of the transferee and name and address of the transferor.
* Provides for inspection of your home (fourth amendment violation)
* Reporting of lost or stolen firearms
* Notice of change of address
* Numerous other fun nuggets.

I find it particularly repugnant that the title of the bill refers to Blair Holt. Blair Holt was a young man who was fatally shot while trying to defend some passengers on a bus from being shot by a 16 year old gang-banger. The fact that the shooter was a 16 year old gang member who could not possibly legally own a firearm does not stop Congressman Bobby Rush from using it to add an emotional aspect to the legislation. There are certainly no logical reasons for a bill like this to be passed. Perhaps if one of the passengers on the bus had been armed with a legal firearm the whole tragedy could have been averted.

A large part of the bill has to do with licensing and registration. The Federal government is always trying to add more paperwork to legal gun ownership. I am sure there will be fees involved with all this, making it another source of revenue for the government.

HR45 – More feel good gun control legislation sponsored by the Democrats :: The Mind of Tefft
-----

Never happen.

Doesn't matter if it does happen... the bill, should it be passed into law, would be immoral... it would stand at odds with the Second Amendment; wholly infringing upon the Right of the Individual to keep and bear arms...

For a law to be valid, it must serve justice... and that a faction finds itself in a majority; thus possesses the POWER to implement a law, in NO WAY establishes that the law is valid, simply by being processed by that factional majority.

Now this doesn't mean that this unjust law would not represent the law; or that they would not be capable of enforcing it through the police powers of the state... it simply means that the law is invalid in terms of it's means to usurp the right; thus the moral authority to disregard that law is established; and where the free sovereign does so, they will be forced to endure the slow, anguished process of righteous disobediance... wherein they will be charged, tried; likely convicted and forced to defend themselves from that charge and conviction until such time that reason returns to the process.

But this is the sort of anti-American policy the left notoriously advances when in power; thus it comes as no surprise... what's more, should they find themselves with sufficient power to implement this law, it will stand as the kindling for a catastrophic civil war, which nature requires to burn the infection from the culture.

Thus: Towards the end of striving for a peaceful, prosperous and free culture, I offer the following plea:

'please... don't do this... stop... '

Let the record reflect that we've made every effort to prevent them from destroying themselves...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

While gun supporters use the nation's gun-toting history in defense of their way of life, and revolutionary enthusiasts replay skirmishes on historic battlefields, it now turns out that America has not always had a gun culture, and wide-scale gun ownership is much newer than we think. After a 10-year search for "a world that isn't there," professor and scholar Michael Bellesiles discovered that Americans not only rarely owned guns prior to the Civil War, they wouldn't even take them for free from a government that wanted to arm its reluctant public. No sharpshooters, no gun in every home, no children learning to hunt beside their fathers. ...

Amazon.com: Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture: Michael Bellesiles: Books

This is the PERFECT ILLUSTRATION for requiring book stores to have a section dedicated to "REVISIONIST HISTORY."

 

[LOki]

There are 200 million guns in private hands in this country.

This is never going to happen.

That is exactly what the Framers intended.

The Framers owned slaves.

And Democrats immediatly promulgated some of this nation's first gun control laws to prevent blacks from keeping and bearing arms.

Your last assertion is irrelevent to the discussion. . .

 

[LOki]

Criminals get their guns by stealing them from gun owners, so gun owners are responsible for a lot of criminals with guns.

Patently erroneuos.

But studies show that local background checks are the most effective form of gun control. The federal background checks are not as effective as local ones.

Studies that demonstrate local background checks to be more effective than federal background checks, do not demonstrate that that local background checks are any effective form of crime control--including the crime of stealing guns.

I'm willing to wager that the prospect of a background check serves only to motivate a criminal to steal a gun--want to take that bet?

 

[LOki]

While gun supporters use the nation's gun-toting history in defense of their way of life, and revolutionary enthusiasts replay skirmishes on historic battlefields, it now turns out that America has not always had a gun culture, and wide-scale gun ownership is much newer than we think. After a 10-year search for "a world that isn't there," professor and scholar Michael Bellesiles discovered that Americans not only rarely owned guns prior to the Civil War, they wouldn't even take them for free from a government that wanted to arm its reluctant public. No sharpshooters, no gun in every home, no children learning to hunt beside their fathers. Bellesiles--whose research methods have generated a great deal of controversy and even a subsequent investigation by Emory University--searched legal, probate, military, and business records; fiction and personal letters; hunting magazines; and legislation in his quest for the legendary gun-wielding frontiersman, only to discover that he is a myth. There are other revelations: gun ownership and storage was strictly legislated in colonial days, and frivolous shooting of a musket was backed by the death penalty; men rarely died in duels because the guns were far too inaccurate (duels were about honor, not murder); pioneers didn't hunt (they trapped and farmed); frontier folk loved books, not guns; and the militia never won a war (it was too inept). In fact, prior to the Civil War, when mass production of higher quality guns became a reality, the republic's greatest problem was a dearth of guns, and a public that was too peaceable to care about civil defense. As Bellesiles writes, "Probably the major reason why the American Revolution lasted eight years, longer than any war in American history before Vietnam, was that when that brave patriot reached above the mantel, he pulled down a rusty, decaying, unusable musket (not a rifle), or found no gun there at all." Strangely, the eagle-eye frontiersman was created by East Coast fiction writers, while the idea of a gun as a household necessity was an advertising ploy of gun maker Samuel Colt (both just prior to the Civil War). The former group fabricated a historic and heroic past while Colt preyed on overblown fears of Indians and blacks.

Amazon.com: Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture: Michael Bellesiles: Books

Michael Bellesiles--in particular this bit of fiction--is a proven fraud.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Considering the enormous number of laws in this country the Congress has passed in the heat of political moment, even if this does become law (doubtful) it will be enforced selectively, if at all.

This kind of crap is usally consituency pandering, propose with the fully expectation that the measure will be killed. Looks the same this time. The adults up there know what could happen if they really tried to do this as presently outlined in the proposed statute.

 

[ItsFairmont]

I like guns, but have never shot anyone. I don't plan to either.


I like plinking, and a .22 is my favorite. It's accurate, cheap, and fun.

 

[Chris]

Criminals get their guns by stealing them from gun owners, so gun owners are responsible for a lot of criminals with guns.

Patently erroneuos.

But studies show that local background checks are the most effective form of gun control. The federal background checks are not as effective as local ones.

Studies that demonstrate local background checks to be more effective than federal background checks, do not demonstrate that that local background checks are any effective form of crime control--including the crime of stealing guns.

I'm willing to wager that the prospect of a background check serves only to motivate a criminal to steal a gun--want to take that bet?

Sure. Criminals are lazy.

States with local background checks have fewer violent crimes and fewer gun deaths. There is nothing wrong with keeping guns out of the hands of crazies.

This is not to say that this bill is a good idea. I tend to believe background checks should be left to the states.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While gun supporters use the nation's gun-toting history in defense of their way of life, and revolutionary enthusiasts replay skirmishes on historic battlefields, it now turns out that America has not always had a gun culture, and wide-scale gun ownership is much newer than we think. After a 10-year search for "a world that isn't there," professor and scholar Michael Bellesiles discovered that Americans not only rarely owned guns prior to the Civil War, they wouldn't even take them for free from a government that wanted to arm its reluctant public. No sharpshooters, no gun in every home, no children learning to hunt beside their fathers. Bellesiles--whose research methods have generated a great deal of controversy and even a subsequent investigation by Emory University--searched legal, probate, military, and business records; fiction and personal letters; hunting magazines; and legislation in his quest for the legendary gun-wielding frontiersman, only to discover that he is a myth. There are other revelations: gun ownership and storage was strictly legislated in colonial days, and frivolous shooting of a musket was backed by the death penalty; men rarely died in duels because the guns were far too inaccurate (duels were about honor, not murder); pioneers didn't hunt (they trapped and farmed); frontier folk loved books, not guns; and the militia never won a war (it was too inept). In fact, prior to the Civil War, when mass production of higher quality guns became a reality, the republic's greatest problem was a dearth of guns, and a public that was too peaceable to care about civil defense. As Bellesiles writes, "Probably the major reason why the American Revolution lasted eight years, longer than any war in American history before Vietnam, was that when that brave patriot reached above the mantel, he pulled down a rusty, decaying, unusable musket (not a rifle), or found no gun there at all." Strangely, the eagle-eye frontiersman was created by East Coast fiction writers, while the idea of a gun as a household necessity was an advertising ploy of gun maker Samuel Colt (both just prior to the Civil War). The former group fabricated a historic and heroic past while Colt preyed on overblown fears of Indians and blacks.

Amazon.com: Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture: Michael Bellesiles: Books

This is the archtypical research by a Global Warming believer, Prissy!!!

The expert that you quote was exposed as the fraud that so many of Prissy's Global Warming experts are!

I guess he doesn't read the WSJ, since his work was the subject of several articles years back.
"Michael A. Bellesiles is a former professor of American colonial history at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. Two years after publishing Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000), Bellesiles was investigated by Emory University for research misconduct. After the committee found him "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work," he resigned his professorship in October 2002, and the Bancroft Prize of Columbia University, earlier awarded the book, was rescinded.[1]"

Michael A. Bellesiles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess that puts Prissy right up there with SealyMattress,
.
Uh, oh, I guess that means he gives me another neg rep.

 

[Chris]

While gun supporters use the nation's gun-toting history in defense of their way of life, and revolutionary enthusiasts replay skirmishes on historic battlefields, it now turns out that America has not always had a gun culture, and wide-scale gun ownership is much newer than we think. After a 10-year search for "a world that isn't there," professor and scholar Michael Bellesiles discovered that Americans not only rarely owned guns prior to the Civil War, they wouldn't even take them for free from a government that wanted to arm its reluctant public. No sharpshooters, no gun in every home, no children learning to hunt beside their fathers. Bellesiles--whose research methods have generated a great deal of controversy and even a subsequent investigation by Emory University--searched legal, probate, military, and business records; fiction and personal letters; hunting magazines; and legislation in his quest for the legendary gun-wielding frontiersman, only to discover that he is a myth. There are other revelations: gun ownership and storage was strictly legislated in colonial days, and frivolous shooting of a musket was backed by the death penalty; men rarely died in duels because the guns were far too inaccurate (duels were about honor, not murder); pioneers didn't hunt (they trapped and farmed); frontier folk loved books, not guns; and the militia never won a war (it was too inept). In fact, prior to the Civil War, when mass production of higher quality guns became a reality, the republic's greatest problem was a dearth of guns, and a public that was too peaceable to care about civil defense. As Bellesiles writes, "Probably the major reason why the American Revolution lasted eight years, longer than any war in American history before Vietnam, was that when that brave patriot reached above the mantel, he pulled down a rusty, decaying, unusable musket (not a rifle), or found no gun there at all." Strangely, the eagle-eye frontiersman was created by East Coast fiction writers, while the idea of a gun as a household necessity was an advertising ploy of gun maker Samuel Colt (both just prior to the Civil War). The former group fabricated a historic and heroic past while Colt preyed on overblown fears of Indians and blacks.

Amazon.com: Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture: Michael Bellesiles: Books

This is the archtypical research by a Global Warming believer, Prissy!!!

The expert that you quote was exposed as the fraud that so many of Prissy's Global Warming experts are!

I guess he doesn't read the WSJ, since his work was the subject of several articles years back.
"Michael A. Bellesiles is a former professor of American colonial history at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. Two years after publishing Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000), Bellesiles was investigated by Emory University for research misconduct. After the committee found him "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work," he resigned his professorship in October 2002, and the Bancroft Prize of Columbia University, earlier awarded the book, was rescinded.[1]"

Michael A. Bellesiles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess that puts Prissy right up there with SealyMattress,
.
Uh, oh, I guess that means he gives me another neg rep.

Why would I give you a neg rep? Your point is well taken. I stand corrected.

I will never understand the name calling on a message board, however. It's silly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While gun supporters use the nation's gun-toting history in defense of their way of life, and revolutionary enthusiasts replay skirmishes on historic battlefields, it now turns out that America has not always had a gun culture, and wide-scale gun ownership is much newer than we think. After a 10-year search for "a world that isn't there," professor and scholar Michael Bellesiles discovered that Americans not only rarely owned guns prior to the Civil War, they wouldn't even take them for free from a government that wanted to arm its reluctant public. No sharpshooters, no gun in every home, no children learning to hunt beside their fathers. Bellesiles--whose research methods have generated a great deal of controversy and even a subsequent investigation by Emory University--searched legal, probate, military, and business records; fiction and personal letters; hunting magazines; and legislation in his quest for the legendary gun-wielding frontiersman, only to discover that he is a myth. There are other revelations: gun ownership and storage was strictly legislated in colonial days, and frivolous shooting of a musket was backed by the death penalty; men rarely died in duels because the guns were far too inaccurate (duels were about honor, not murder); pioneers didn't hunt (they trapped and farmed); frontier folk loved books, not guns; and the militia never won a war (it was too inept). In fact, prior to the Civil War, when mass production of higher quality guns became a reality, the republic's greatest problem was a dearth of guns, and a public that was too peaceable to care about civil defense. As Bellesiles writes, "Probably the major reason why the American Revolution lasted eight years, longer than any war in American history before Vietnam, was that when that brave patriot reached above the mantel, he pulled down a rusty, decaying, unusable musket (not a rifle), or found no gun there at all." Strangely, the eagle-eye frontiersman was created by East Coast fiction writers, while the idea of a gun as a household necessity was an advertising ploy of gun maker Samuel Colt (both just prior to the Civil War). The former group fabricated a historic and heroic past while Colt preyed on overblown fears of Indians and blacks.

Amazon.com: Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture: Michael Bellesiles: Books

This is the archtypical research by a Global Warming believer, Prissy!!!

The expert that you quote was exposed as the fraud that so many of Prissy's Global Warming experts are!

I guess he doesn't read the WSJ, since his work was the subject of several articles years back.
"Michael A. Bellesiles is a former professor of American colonial history at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. Two years after publishing Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000), Bellesiles was investigated by Emory University for research misconduct. After the committee found him "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work," he resigned his professorship in October 2002, and the Bancroft Prize of Columbia University, earlier awarded the book, was rescinded.[1]"

Michael A. Bellesiles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess that puts Prissy right up there with SealyMattress,
.
Uh, oh, I guess that means he gives me another neg rep.

Why would I give you a neg rep? Your point is well taken. I stand corrected.

I will never understand the name calling on a message board, however. It's silly.

I wrote that because the last time we disagreed you did give me a neg rep.

But your post requires me to apologize.