Sounds like more FUD.We also need to stay after Congress NOT to ratify the Treaty Obama signed recently that would allow International law to userp our Constititional RTKBA.
In recent meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama promised to urge the U.S. Senate to pass an international arms control treaty. The treaty, "Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials" or CIFTA, was signed by President Bill Clinton ten years ago but it was never ratified by the Senate. The resurrection of this bill brings into question if this is another back door move to restrict second amendment rights by force in a treaty.
Here is a bill that was introduced around the same time as HR45, but this has 21 sponsors and it is in our best interest.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-17
I don't get why you do not desire this bill.dmworken wrote:Here is a bill that was introduced around the same time as HR45, but this has 21 sponsors and it is in our best interest.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-17
Bull@#$%! How can you say it's to our best interests? It declares that a person is not
prohibited under THE BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT......
And that's in our best interest? We need to be interested in something else other
than this. :cuss:
marine77 wrote:I don't get why you do not desire this bill.dmworken wrote:Here is a bill that was introduced around the same time as HR45, but this has 21 sponsors and it is in our best interest.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-17
Bull@#$%! How can you say it's to our best interests? It declares that a person is not
prohibited under THE BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT......
And that's in our best interest? We need to be interested in something else other
than this. :cuss:
HR17 ensures that those persons not prohibited cannot be prevented from purchasing a firearm for self-defense. What is wrong about that? It IS in our best interests. It disallows "gun-free cities" where handguns are prohibited for self-defense; such as DC. Don't you want to allow ALL Americans to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right for self-defense? :?
WHERE, are the brady bunch "giving gun owners anything?"wrightme wrote:marine77 wrote:I don't get why you do not desire this bill.dmworken wrote:Here is a bill that was introduced around the same time as HR45, but this has 21 sponsors and it is in our best interest.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-17
Bull@#$%! How can you say it's to our best interests? It declares that a person is not
prohibited under THE BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT......
And that's in our best interest? We need to be interested in something else other
than this. :cuss:
HR17 ensures that those persons not prohibited cannot be prevented from purchasing a firearm for self-defense. What is wrong about that? It IS in our best interests. It disallows "gun-free cities" where handguns are prohibited for self-defense; such as DC. Don't you want to allow ALL Americans to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right for self-defense? :?
Since when did the brady bunch in their infinite wisdom give gun owners anything?
Even if convicted of misdemeanors, according to them your not allowed to own fire-
ams. Also look at the Hot Topics forum under Incorporation 101, i didn't know that
until i looked at it, apparently the 2nd amendment means nothing to the states the
way i read it. And i thank jpierce for bringing that to our attention.
marine77 wrote:WHERE, are the brady bunch "giving gun owners anything?"wrightme wrote:marine77 wrote:I don't get why you do not desire this bill.dmworken wrote:Here is a bill that was introduced around the same time as HR45, but this has 21 sponsors and it is in our best interest.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-17
Bull@#$%! How can you say it's to our best interests? It declares that a person is not
prohibited under THE BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT......
And that's in our best interest? We need to be interested in something else other
than this. :cuss:
HR17 ensures that those persons not prohibited cannot be prevented from purchasing a firearm for self-defense. What is wrong about that? It IS in our best interests. It disallows "gun-free cities" where handguns are prohibited for self-defense; such as DC. Don't you want to allow ALL Americans to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right for self-defense? :?
Since when did the brady bunch in their infinite wisdom give gun owners anything?
Even if convicted of misdemeanors, according to them your not allowed to own fire-
ams. Also look at the Hot Topics forum under Incorporation 101, i didn't know that
until i looked at it, apparently the 2nd amendment means nothing to the states the
way i read it. And i thank jpierce for bringing that to our attention.
It isn't Brady. It is about PREVENTING bans beyond Brady, or don't you get it?
How so? It aims to prevent further infringements, thus is worthy of support. Do you prefer that infringements are allowed, preventing purchase for self-defense?wrightme wrote:.
WHERE, are the brady bunch "giving gun owners anything?"
It isn't Brady. It is about PREVENTING bans beyond Brady, or don't you get it?
But it already starts with a brady ban and that's enough of an exception. It's just my
$.02 worth, and just my opinion. You may like this bill, more power to you. Just in my
opinion, not worth the paper it's printed on.