Stock up on guns and ammo before it's too late.

Discussion in 'Computers and Stuff' started by jimbo, Apr 16, 2009.

  1. MN-E

    MN-E New Member

    Messages:
    29
    If I sounded disrespectful or insulting in anyway, then I apologize to you. I was only trying to clarify what your position is, and I'm sorry if I offended you in some way.

    And I'm not looking to get into a petty fight with anybody here; hopefully just having a discussion among adults.

    Regarding ammo taxes and gun bans, I wasn't able to find anything of substance on the issue. Plenty of folks talking about it on websites, but nothing that I could see that shows that these things are actually going through legislation on the Federal level.
    If you happen to run across anything - - a bill number, reference, or what have you - - then I'd certainly like to take a look at it.
  2. Redwood

    Redwood Master Plumber

    Messages:
    7,453
    Location:
    Connecticut
    This information was posted earlier by Catch Chick in this thread...
    http://www.terrylove.com/forums/showpost.php?p=196556&postcount=37

    The link below is an online petition against it you can sign.
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/lets-stop-bill-hr-45
  3. theelviscerator

    theelviscerator New Member

    Messages:
    72
    Location:
    Elkhart, IN

    Shhh, the gungrabbers don't want anyone to know the facts.....
  4. MN-E

    MN-E New Member

    Messages:
    29
    Thanks for the info, but the bill doesn't have any language regarding increased taxation of ammo, nor does it ban any guns.

    And... you're going to hate me for this, but this doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. Comparing it to the registration I need for my truck, and the fact that I have to renew my driver's license every 5 years, I'm just not seeing why this is such a bad idea. (Also, checking Snopes & the language of the bill, the "mental & physical evaluation" bit is not truly a part of the bill).

    Sorry, sir, but I'm guessing we're just not going to see eye-to-eye on this.
  5. Scuba_Dave

    Scuba_Dave Extreme DIY Homeowner

    Messages:
    885
    Location:
    South of Boston, MA
    The only people who follow the law are law abiding citizens
    Criminals will NOT follow these procedures
    So the Law is pointless in gun "control"
    What we need is "Criminal" control
    This is an added expense & problematic
    More Govt wasting $$
  6. Redwood

    Redwood Master Plumber

    Messages:
    7,453
    Location:
    Connecticut
    I guess some of us are just destined to become sheep!
    Sometimes it pays to read the full text rather than let somebody tell you what it says.

    Here is the section of the bill regarding mental health.

    Years ago I had a messy divorce, and ended up with custody of my children ages 5 and 6... I sought counseling... I supose that could be a good reason to revolk my permit huh?

    Come on in... Just walk into my house any time you want no warrant required!:eek:

    A set up for a future bill involving confiscation if you ask me.:eek:

    Just another tax...:eek:

    Yea there are a few issues and more when you read the full text.

    I for one am not ready to surrender my constitutional rights based on the inability of the goverment to use existing laws to control a criminal population that is illegally using guns.:cool:
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2009
  7. speedbump

    speedbump Previous member

    Messages:
    4,540
    Location:
    Riverview, Fl.
    When I first heard of this HR 45, I emailed the NRA. They informed me that they are well aware of it and that nothing at this time is being done about it because they feel that it's DOA. But they are watching things on the horizon.

    I agree with Redwood, just another tax and an easier way to snatch our guns if they ever wanted to. Which by the way in my opinion, they would love to do if they had the support. Then we are all sheep. Oh; except the criminals who wouldn't surrender theirs.

    bob...
  8. MN-E

    MN-E New Member

    Messages:
    29
    "Sheep"?? Come on, Red... I've tried to be respectful here. Certainly we can have a discussion without resorting to namecalling.

    The post you referenced for me (which is a chain e-mail) states "You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing". This is not true; you do have to authorize the release mental health records, but it doesn't state what conditions would make one inelligible for gun ownership. Consider somebody who suffers from schizophrenic delusions; they should be able to get guns without any restrictions?

    Read the text again, buddy... it pertains to any place in which firearms are manufactured, stored or held FOR DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE. Not private households.

    Unwarranted alarmism, if you ask me. Is your vehicle registered? Are they going to confiscate that from you?

    As far as taxes & regulations... you know what has a lot of regulations? My state & city plumbing code. Costs me a lot of money, too, paying for inspections & what-not. Are they trying to make sure I'm not going to end up creating a safety hazard for my neighbors... or are they really just infringing on my individual rights?!?


    Look, I know I keep beating this point into the ground, but the majority of folks just aren't biting on it:
    Tell me the 2nd amendment states I have every right to keep nuclear & chemical weapons in my home (and carry them with me if I choose), and that any restrictions to that end are unconstitutional.
    I'll vehemently disagree with you, but at least I'll know that you're being intellectually honest & consistent.

    If, however, you disagree with that statement...? Then I think you'd have to admit that not all laws & regulations regarding ARMS are a bad thing, and we don't always have to react to them with the notion that the sky is falling and we're all "sheep."
  9. Redwood

    Redwood Master Plumber

    Messages:
    7,453
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Yup you're right...[​IMG]

    I can think of worse animals to be called than a sheep... LOL
    If the shoe fits wear it!

    After 40 years of passing "New Gun Control Laws"
    We still haven't gotten the criminals to stop using guns illegally...
    Go figure...
    Instead we keep on limiting the rights of law abiding citizens in hopes of cutailing the activities of the criminal element....
    Sounds like a recipe for success to me!:cool:

    Did you know that in America you can kill someone with a gun and be back out on the streets in less the 12 years?:eek:

    I'm ready for criminal control myself!
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2009
  10. Scuba_Dave

    Scuba_Dave Extreme DIY Homeowner

    Messages:
    885
    Location:
    South of Boston, MA
    Be real, Nuclear & chemical weapons did not exist back then
    That's an idiotic argument
  11. MN-E

    MN-E New Member

    Messages:
    29
    So the 2nd amendment only applies to weapons which were in existence at the time that the Constitution was drafted?
    ...think that one over before you answer.
  12. Scuba_Dave

    Scuba_Dave Extreme DIY Homeowner

    Messages:
    885
    Location:
    South of Boston, MA
    Think it over yourself
  13. MN-E

    MN-E New Member

    Messages:
    29
    The 2nd Amendment refers to "arms" not "firearms". Both words existed in the English language at the time, so their choice of words is telling.

    (my point is that semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons did not exist back then)
  14. Scuba_Dave

    Scuba_Dave Extreme DIY Homeowner

    Messages:
    885
    Location:
    South of Boston, MA
    If you think people should be able to build & keep nuclear weapons then you belong somewhere with rubber walls & long armed jackets
  15. MN-E

    MN-E New Member

    Messages:
    29
    I agree. And I do not really think that.

    The point I'm trying to make is that you can't have it both ways. You can't use the 2nd amendment to say that any gun laws are unconstitutional, and then turn around and say that restrictions to other types of arms just fine & dandy. (And, again: the 2nd amendment covers all arms, not just firearms.)
  16. Scuba_Dave

    Scuba_Dave Extreme DIY Homeowner

    Messages:
    885
    Location:
    South of Boston, MA
    There is no comparison between a nuclear weapon & the right to bear arms


    [​IMG]
  17. Redwood

    Redwood Master Plumber

    Messages:
    7,453
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Pssssssssssssstttttt

    [​IMG]
  18. leejosepho

    leejosepho DIY scratch-pad engineer

    Not so, and I have just learned this in the past few minutes:

    Nuclear arms are arms, firearms are arms, grenades are arms, clubs and knives are arms ... and so on and on. Quite simply: Anything with which a man or a people might arm himself or themselves is an arm. Hence, the right to bear arms is the right to bear arms ... and those facts leave us with a dilemma:

    Likely none of us wants to see *all* arms born at the domestic level, some of us seem to want all arms banned at every level, and some of us say there should be virtually no ban or restriction on domestic firearms, or even other arms ... and while we spin wheels in muddy debate, globalists keeping tightening the NWO's grip.
  19. Scuba_Dave

    Scuba_Dave Extreme DIY Homeowner

    Messages:
    885
    Location:
    South of Boston, MA
    I guess I need to repeat myself

  20. MN-E

    MN-E New Member

    Messages:
    29
    I'm a "troll" now? Huh... for referencing the 2nd amendment in a gun control discussion? Wow.

    Okay, apparently I screwed something up here; I've used the site a few times asking for plumbing advice, then stumbled upon some of the more "random" topics here & thought I'd jump in on the discussion.
    I should've just kept out of it.

    Sorry to step on your toes, guys!
Similar Threads: Stock guns
Forum Title Date
Computers and Stuff Woodstock 1969 Revisited Aug 14, 2009

Share This Page