-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
HR 45-- its real.
- Thread starter John Wolver
- Start date
imported post
Yes, it is real, as in it exists.
Have you looked at the number of sponsors? The movement it has had through committee?
It exists, but it is going nowhere.
Sit down. Take a few deep breaths. Maybe breathe into a paper bag for a while. Then have a sip of water.
Everything is going to be OK.
Tomorrow we'll check out those monster dust bunnies under the bed.
stay safe.
skidmark
Yes, it is real, as in it exists.
Have you looked at the number of sponsors? The movement it has had through committee?
It exists, but it is going nowhere.
Sit down. Take a few deep breaths. Maybe breathe into a paper bag for a while. Then have a sip of water.
Everything is going to be OK.
Tomorrow we'll check out those monster dust bunnies under the bed.
stay safe.
skidmark
bigdaddy1
Regular Member
imported post
Have to agree with Skid,
This bill has been around for a few years now. No one is willing to co-sponser the ticket, and none of the lobbiest parites are willing to stand behind it.
There are others floating around that have a better chance of sneaking through tied to other bills. Those are the ones you have to watch out fore.
Have to agree with Skid,
This bill has been around for a few years now. No one is willing to co-sponser the ticket, and none of the lobbiest parites are willing to stand behind it.
There are others floating around that have a better chance of sneaking through tied to other bills. Those are the ones you have to watch out fore.
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
Yes, this bill is real. Do we need yet another thread about it? There are easily several dozen already.
Yes, this bill is real. Do we need yet another thread about it? There are easily several dozen already.
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
imported post
Got a good friend who is as into guns as I am and he had a panic attack over this. I think I finally got him calm.:dude:
Got a good friend who is as into guns as I am and he had a panic attack over this. I think I finally got him calm.:dude:
John Wolver
Regular Member
imported post
i am calm, i didnt do anything more then post it... so i think those who offer the advice may need to calm themselves just as much.
i am calm, i didnt do anything more then post it... so i think those who offer the advice may need to calm themselves just as much.
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
imported post
Not a thing wrongwith you posting it we need to be ever alert!
Never give up alertness because of a pause on weather a post is right or wrong.
Thank you for the post.:dude:
Not a thing wrongwith you posting it we need to be ever alert!
Never give up alertness because of a pause on weather a post is right or wrong.
Thank you for the post.:dude:
John Wolver
Regular Member
imported post
np
np
dmworken
Regular Member
imported post
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
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
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
imported post
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.
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.
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
Task Force 16 wrote:
Clinton signed CIFTA. Congress has not ratified it. Where is it legitimately reported that Obama signed any such treaty? He did mention it during the visit with the Mexican pres, but he hasn't signed it.. AFAIK.
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2009/04/obama-tells-a-lie-and-slips-in-the-cifta-treaty-.html
Task Force 16 wrote:
Sounds like more FUD.
Clinton signed CIFTA. Congress has not ratified it. Where is it legitimately reported that Obama signed any such treaty? He did mention it during the visit with the Mexican pres, but he hasn't signed it.. AFAIK.
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2009/04/obama-tells-a-lie-and-slips-in-the-cifta-treaty-.html
imported post
dmworken wrote:
Bullshit! 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:
dmworken wrote:
Bullshit! 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:
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
marine77 wrote:
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? :?
marine77 wrote:
I don't get why you do not desire this bill.
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? :?
imported post
wrightme wrote:
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.
wrightme wrote:
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.
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
Good grief. Notices about this dead letter are as common as Nigerian Scam spam mail. All knds of nutty stuff gets one or two sponsors and floats around Congress.
Now, we should not be surprised that firearms owners scare the hell out of the bad guys. That is in the end why we keep and bear arms in the first place and furthermore is how it should be. Outside of course of the strict Fudders, who are IMO just wabbit-killing Vegans and just as much a contradiction in terms. (oh, wait. Didn't PETA mercy-kill a whole group of former pet bunnykins to put them out of the misery of being possible beloved well fed pets?), we keep weapons to defend ourselves and our rights from deadly threats coming from wherever.
I will agree we need to keep an eye on these grifters. They are like weasels looking for a chink in the chicken wire. But the DemonRat leadership is not likely to allow this kind of garbage to advance while they are laying siege tunnels as fast as they can dig. They are currently looking to pass some kind of health care legislation that they envision will ultimately allow them to dictate the most intimate parts of everyone's life. As I have repeatedly warned, a very likely scenario would be , once they had at last taken over the health insurance industry or replaced it with total government control; to place an exorbitant tax (they will say "premium" in public but will argue "tax" to SCOTUS) on gun owners for reason of supposed increased risk of expensive injury by gunshot.
Heck, for that matter how about rationing red meat, etc; as part of the same plan? And with "cap and tax", that hunting trip all the Fudds look forward to may have to be cancelled because they can't hire anyone to plant enough trees to justify emitting all the carbon burned to get out to where the game is.
I am not saying this bill is no threat. The Ratz won't try and pass it (unless they think we are not watching) but they are not going to table (kill) it either. They hope we will watch this like hawks and thus they will be able to slip their further reaching and vile back-door stuff past right under our noses. Running around like Chicken Little squawking about a diversionary assault like this IMO leaves us vulnerable to a surprise attack on our flank. We have skirmishers watching this. We also have a superior force. We can only be defeaated through subterfuge on their part and spinelessness on our part.
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS.
Good grief. Notices about this dead letter are as common as Nigerian Scam spam mail. All knds of nutty stuff gets one or two sponsors and floats around Congress.
Now, we should not be surprised that firearms owners scare the hell out of the bad guys. That is in the end why we keep and bear arms in the first place and furthermore is how it should be. Outside of course of the strict Fudders, who are IMO just wabbit-killing Vegans and just as much a contradiction in terms. (oh, wait. Didn't PETA mercy-kill a whole group of former pet bunnykins to put them out of the misery of being possible beloved well fed pets?), we keep weapons to defend ourselves and our rights from deadly threats coming from wherever.
I will agree we need to keep an eye on these grifters. They are like weasels looking for a chink in the chicken wire. But the DemonRat leadership is not likely to allow this kind of garbage to advance while they are laying siege tunnels as fast as they can dig. They are currently looking to pass some kind of health care legislation that they envision will ultimately allow them to dictate the most intimate parts of everyone's life. As I have repeatedly warned, a very likely scenario would be , once they had at last taken over the health insurance industry or replaced it with total government control; to place an exorbitant tax (they will say "premium" in public but will argue "tax" to SCOTUS) on gun owners for reason of supposed increased risk of expensive injury by gunshot.
Heck, for that matter how about rationing red meat, etc; as part of the same plan? And with "cap and tax", that hunting trip all the Fudds look forward to may have to be cancelled because they can't hire anyone to plant enough trees to justify emitting all the carbon burned to get out to where the game is.
I am not saying this bill is no threat. The Ratz won't try and pass it (unless they think we are not watching) but they are not going to table (kill) it either. They hope we will watch this like hawks and thus they will be able to slip their further reaching and vile back-door stuff past right under our noses. Running around like Chicken Little squawking about a diversionary assault like this IMO leaves us vulnerable to a surprise attack on our flank. We have skirmishers watching this. We also have a superior force. We can only be defeaated through subterfuge on their part and spinelessness on our part.
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS.
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
marine77 wrote:
It isn't Brady. It is about PREVENTING bans beyond Brady, or don't you get it?
marine77 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?
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
It is quite disturbing that if you and your wife/husband/boyfreind/girlfriend get into an arguement and it gets loud, in many cases the police can chaarge one or both with domestic violence and, though it be a misdemeanor, prohibit one or both parties from ever again possessing firearms ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE. This is one of the reasons that since that law passed, I have avoided getting myself into any "signifigant other" relationships. The other reason is I am ugly. :banghead:
It is quite disturbing that if you and your wife/husband/boyfreind/girlfriend get into an arguement and it gets loud, in many cases the police can chaarge one or both with domestic violence and, though it be a misdemeanor, prohibit one or both parties from ever again possessing firearms ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE. This is one of the reasons that since that law passed, I have avoided getting myself into any "signifigant other" relationships. The other reason is I am ugly. :banghead:
imported post
wrightme wrote:
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.
wrightme wrote:
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.
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
marine77 wrote:
marine77 wrote:
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?
crazydude6030
Regular Member
imported post
It isn't hard to figure out why this stuff keeps coming up. I get a e-mail about twice a day with something along the lines of how my freedom is being attacked.:?
The latest one is this little print. Check the date on the article Sept 30 2009.
http://www.personalliberty.com/free...dar-would-devastate-u-s-gun-ownership-rights/
It doesn't mean we don't need to watch this stuff but seeing it as often as I do just seems more like fear mongering more then anything.
It isn't hard to figure out why this stuff keeps coming up. I get a e-mail about twice a day with something along the lines of how my freedom is being attacked.:?
The latest one is this little print. Check the date on the article Sept 30 2009.
http://www.personalliberty.com/free...dar-would-devastate-u-s-gun-ownership-rights/
It doesn't mean we don't need to watch this stuff but seeing it as often as I do just seems more like fear mongering more then anything.