The Obama Administration Year One: The Flight from gun control

[eye95]

imported post

doubletap.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

God damn it. I am so sick of all the mindless crap that goes on in this forum these days.

I lost about 5,000 IQ points reading this thread.

I am so done here.

 

[Hunterdave]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

PointofView wrote:

eye95 wrote:

PointofView wrote:

The Air Force was added as it was not in existence at the time.

Hence living document.

The Air Force is simply a modern form of the Army mentioned in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the current Air Force was once a part of the Army organization. When the Air Force was created, it was simply a reorganization. The Constitution did not change.

It changed when they stopped counting Blacks as 3/5 of a person.

It was changed by the 13th and 14th Amendments, the proper way to change the Constitution.

BTW, to be factually accurate, freed Blacks were to be fully counted. It was slaves who were only counted at 3/5 of a person. I am in no way justifying this horrific facet of the Constitution, just being precise.

When put into historical context accurately, this was an inherently brilliant compromise at the time. The reason the Framers did this was, if slaves were
counted as whole persons pro slave states would have added seats in congress
and tipped the the balance of congress to pro slavery. Then new states being
admitted to the union, would most assuredly be admitted as slave states.

 

[syntax_error]

imported post

Just sent to my congressman. I encourage all to do the same (but don't just copy/paste!)

Congressman Tanner,

I am a Tennessee resident currently living in Norfolk, Virginia and actively serving in the United States Navy. I am writing to express my concern and opposition to a bill currently in the House of Representatives.

H.R. 2324 is an attempt of extortion of firearm vendors and, furthermore, another of already dozens of impeachments of our Second Amendment rights.

The proposed Sec. 932(a)(6) of Title 18, Ch. 44, would require yet another fee be paid by already licensed FFL dealers who have already paid a substantial number of fees to the United States Attorney General's office to obtain the license. To require that these FFL dealers pay a fee to an office of the Federal Government for the sale of an item that is already federaly taxed and on properties not owned by the federal government is blackmail and theft.

Furthermore, the requirements of proposed Sec. 932(d) at an event as popular and heavily attended at gun shows, as defined by HR2324 Sec.2(b)(36), be an unreasonable burden on the vendors, property owner, and attendees of the gun show, and would require a record-keeping process that would hamper any business conducted at gun shows.

Lastly, the penalties proposed in the bill are a serious threat to vendors both in terms of sentence and their financial income. Any person who's been to a gun show, or any open market for that matter, knows that the fast and fluid pace of events there would leave many people vulnerable to infringement of law. These penalties are both irresponsible and reckless.

As for the criminal background check in proposed Sec. 932(c), I feel that it is acceptable to conduct these checks, without any fees and near-instantaneously, to ensure expiditious transfer of firearms to persons who are authorized to posses firearms and prevent transfer of firearms to persons who do not immediately qualify for possession.

As a concerned citizen of Tennessee, I encourage you to vote against H.R. 2324.

Signed,
****** * ******