Now he's after our guns!!!!!

[Sean]

So I get email updates from Townhall.com (http://townhall.com/), and the one that came today was fun. It was from a Republican Congressman named Paul Broun, and he's pissed off about "Obama's Gun-Free America" (which also happens to be the subject heading of the email). Here's the text for everyone to enjoy. I've highlighted some of my favorite, key points:

Dear Concerned American,

The great pay-back has begun, and it's going to be ugly.

The gun grabbers in Congress are paying back the anti-gun extremists who put them and Barack Obama in office.

Hi, this is Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia...I wish I had better news, but you and I are facing an assault on our gun rights like we’ve never seen before.

You see, H.R. 45 is Barack Obama’s gun control package, and it includes the most vile anti-gun measures he’s supported over the years.

It's only the first step...

...but it's a HUGE step.

H.R. 45 establishes a NATIONAL gun registry database of every gun and its owner -- for the whole county! Your private information and every gun you own would be in the system.

But that’s only if you succeed in buying a gun in the first place!

And since H.R. 45 dramatically increases requirements for firearms purchases far beyond those ever proposed, you just might find youself incapable of buying a firearm once this bill takes effect.

And it gets worse too.

The National Association for Gun Rights has a survey ready for you to complete, but I want you to understand just how dangerous this bill is before I give you the link...Please bear with me for a moment.

You see, H.R. 45 would establish a national gun registry database which would:

Increase requirements for firearms purchases, far beyond those ever proposed.

Create a national firearms registry overseen by the Federal Government.

Invoke Draconian penalties for bookkeeping errors related to the Federal Firearms Database.

It gets worse though.

Sarah Brady and her allies in Congress want to force you to take a written exam to prove that you are "fit" to exercise your Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

I'm outraged by this, and I know you are too.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that gun registration has historically laid the groundwork for total firearm confiscation. Citizen disarmament is the watchword of tyrants everywhere.

In fact, the most brutal dictators of the last century were famous for their gun registration and confiscation schemes.

But H.R. 45, Obama's National Gun Registry and Citizen Disarmament Act, is more than just a forced registration of all firearms in America.

The bill also makes it increasingly difficult to buy a gun in the first place.

Taken right out of Sarah Brady's Christmas wish list, H.R. 45 includes a laundry list of new restrictions on firearms purchases.

In addition to the outrageous national gun registration requirement, H.R. 45 also requires you to:

Pass a written examination to purchase a firearm.

Release your medical records -- including confidential mental health records -- to the government to get your "fitness" to own a firearm approved.

Observe a two-day waiting period before all firearms purchases.
Pay a gun tax of $25 or more on all firearm purchases.

Moreover, H.R. 45 bans all private firearms sales and maximizes penalties for minor clerical errors in dealing with the national gun registry.

The list goes on and on...It's enough to turn your stomach.

I know I don't have to tell you, but these restrictions make a mockery of the Constitution..."The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" might as well say: "You have no rights."

If a two-day waiting period, a written exam and a gun tax aren't infringing our rights, I don't know what is!

Even the Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision guaranteeing an individual’s right to own a firearm doesn’t hamper Barack Obama’s agenda one bit.

In fact, it emboldens gun grabbers to pass legislation taxing ammunition, increasing registration requirements, and drastically limiting when, how and where you can use your firearm.

That’s why I’ve decided to stand with the National Association for Gun Rights fight back against this radical scheme.

They're fully committed to stopping the efforts of the gun grabbers, but they need the help of grassroots gun owners like you.

With liberals calling the shots in Washington, all supporters of the Second Amendment must join together, draw a line in the sand, and fight this battle to the end.

We must make this gun-grab expensive and politically painful for the enemies of freedom...If we do, they'll flinch ... and LOSE.

By mobilizing hundreds of thousands of grassroots gun owners across the country, the National Association for Gun Rights can put anti-gun politicians on the hot seat.

Are you opposed to national gun registration?

Are you opposed to a written examination to buy a gun?

Are you opposed to a new $25 gun tax?

Are you opposed to a total ban on private firearm sales?

If you said "Yes" to these questions, click here to fill out a special survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you (http://www.nagr.org/hr45survey1.aspx?pid=t2).

Your survey will put you squarely on the record AGAINST Barack Obama’s gun control package.

Stopping un-Constitutional gun control bills like H.R. 45 may be NAGR’s top priority, but they need your help.

Along with your signed survey, please send the National Association for Gun Rights a generous contribution to help finance this battle...You will have the opportunity to donate right after you fill out the survey.

The truth is, H.R. 45 is just the tip of the iceberg.

Sarah Brady and her cohorts in Congress now have the support of a willing White House and won't stop until they've reached their ultimate goal: A virtual ban on private, individual firearm ownership.

That is why NAGR simply must hear from you immediately.

Please take a moment to fill out NAGR's H.R. 45 survey, and, if at all possible, send a contribution of $200, $150, $100 or maybe just $25 to help the National Association for Gun Rights fight H.R. 45 and Sarah Brady's gun control wish list.

I know this is a lot to ask, but inaction could very well lead to defeat and the loss of our right to keep and bear arms.

Whether you can afford $200 or a lesser amount of $50 or $25, please contribute what you can.

It's critical we do all we can.

Thank you in advance for contributing your time and money towards defending our Second Amendment rights.

For Freedom and Liberty,

Paul Broun
U.S. Congressman (R-GA)
National Association for Gun Rights.

So then keeping track of guns through a national registry, testing to make sure mentally ill people don't get access to them, testing for basic competency to safely use a gun, banning private gun sales (you know....the kind of sales that people with criminal records would be going through) and having a two day waiting period to buy a gun are bad things? Personally, I think there's a fair debate to be had about guns and their role in our society, but I just don't see the problem with these basic precautionary measures. Crazy.

[Strangelet]

once again its not about gun-owner rights or the issue themselves. Its about screaming about a take-over of anti-gun extremists and Barrack the-first-thing-hitler-did-was-take-away-the-guns Obama.

why is it not possible to talk about issues without dressing them up in a context of conspiracy of insidious intent?

[Sean]

why is it not possible to talk about issues without dressing them up in a context of conspiracy of insidious intent?If you find the answer, I'd love to hear it.

Meanwhile, I just actually read the National Association for Gun Rights survey that was linked (http://www.nagr.org/hr45survey1.aspx?pid=t2) in the email, and not surprisingly, it's pretty sophomoric. Here are the three survey questions on the "Official NAGR Gun Rights Survey":


1. Do you believe the gun registration and prohibition measures proposed by H.R. 45 violate the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding United States citizens?
Yes No Unsure

Okay, honestly, that's a fair enough question to start with. My personal answer is "No", but Democracy in action and all that...


2. Do you believe dictators, tyrants and despots throughout history have used firearms registration as the first step toward gun confiscation and citizen disarmament?
Yes No Unsure

Now in this case, I'm not really sure what the point is. Asking people if they believe in historical facts? Why? Wouldn't a more appropriate question be something like "Do you believe that tighter gun control laws will ultimately lead to gun confiscation and citizen disarmament?", or something along those lines?


3. Do you believe forcing law-abiding citizens to pass a written examination, submit to a two-day waiting period, release medical and mental records to the government, and pay of fee of $25 to own a firearm infringes on America's most basic freedoms?
Yes No Unsure

Really? They don't want to "pay of fee of $25"? Lemme guess, with crappy grammar like this on a national survey that represents their organization, it's probably a safe bet that these people were the same ones who were pissed off about Obama urging kids to stay in school, and who hated him as soon as he was deemed an "intellectual". Clearly, getting educationalized isn't too important to these folks.


And then, as if in a conscious effort to remove all doubt about their stupidity, they share these brilliantly crafted, post-survey closing thoughts:


"Only with the financial support of grassroots gun owners can help Nation Association for Gun Rights prevail in the fight to fight for your rights. Please make a generous contribution."


They didn't even spell the name of their own organization correctly. Their dumbness scares me, because they're all armed. Seriously, if there's one thing that dumb doesn't go well with, it's guns.

[Strangelet]

2. Do you believe dictators, tyrants and despots throughout history have used firearms registration as the first step toward gun confiscation and citizen disarmament?
Yes No Unsure

Now in this case, I'm not really sure what the point is. Asking people if they believe in historical facts? Why? Wouldn't a more appropriate question be something like "Do you believe that tighter gun control laws will ultimately lead to gun confiscation and citizen disarmament?", or something along those lines?


right. but that means they have to account for Canada, if they want to argue the contrapositive: that any registration implies a dictatorship. Canada has a gun registration system but enjoys a much higher rating on the freedom of speech and freedom of the press than we do.

http://www.rsf.org/en-classement794-2008.html
(http://www.rsf.org/en-classement794-2008.html)
Getting the average american to believe they aren't #1 on all things freedom is in general a daunting task, for that matter.

[Sean]

right. but that means they have to account for Canada, if they want to argue the contrapositive: that any registration implies a dictatorship. Canada has a gun registration system but enjoys a much higher rating on the freedom of speech and freedom of the press than we do.

http://www.rsf.org/en-classement794-2008.html
(http://www.rsf.org/en-classement794-2008.html)
Getting the average american to believe they aren't #1 on all things freedom is in general a daunting task, for that matter.Yeah, I'm always really put off when some Americans get pissed whenever anything negative is pointed out about this country. How are we supposed to make this country a better and better place if we have our heads in the sand, ignoring our faults and flaws? It makes no sense to me. Although one thing you can say for them is that they are consistent in their willful ignorance, as you just pointed out so well Strangelet.

And incidentally, I came across another article (http://www.lvrj.com/news/oath-keepers-pledges-to-prevent-dictatorship-in-united-states-64690232.html) just now that ties into this thread. It's about a group called the "Oath Keepers", who claim to be non-partisan defenders of freedom on a mission to prevent a dictatorship from happening in the U.S. Here are my favorite few quotes - I particularly love the quotes following the declaration of being "non-partisan":

Oath Keepers bills itself as a nonpartisan group of current and retired law enforcement and military personnel who vow to fulfill their oaths to the Constitution.

More specifically, the group's members, which number in the thousands, pledge to disobey orders they deem unlawful, including directives to disarm the American people and to blockade American cities.

And then...

The group's Web site, www.oathkeepers.org, features videos and testimonials in which supporters compare President Barack Obama's America to Adolf Hitler's Germany. They also liken Obama to England's King George III during the American Revolution.

One member, in a videotaped speech at an event in Washington, D.C., calls Obama "the domestic enemy the Constitution is talking about."

"Non-partisan" indeed. :rolleyes: And here's where it starts tying more directly into this thread...

What Rhodes terms "the rise of executive privilege" during the post-9/11 years of the Bush presidency will in his opinion only accelerate with Obama in office. What's worse, he said, is that "gun-hating extremists" now control the White House.

...and...

Another prominent Oath Keeper is former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack, who has long been an outspoken government critic.

The Southern Poverty Law Center calls Mack a "longtime militia hero" who helped weaken gun control laws.

So yet another frightening example of the type of people who are probably the most well-armed in our country.

[bryantm3]

like it or not, we have a second amendment, and it should be protected as much as the first amendment. however, there should be reasonable limitations on the right to own a gun, such as if a person is declared mentally unstable by a court of law, or if a person has committed a felony. this should extend to all gun sales, including gun shows. however, much of the things outlined in the bill are unreasonable. you argue that "it's just $25", but what is the point? tax revenue is the only point here, because $25 will not stop a criminal from buying a gun, and this is the biggest problem with extended gun legislation: if you make more and more laws regarding guns, it only affects those who aren't likely to commit a crime with those guns. if a criminal wants a gun, he'll get it in other ways.

there are several other things that bother me in the bill. first, the fact that they want your records from your psychologist. that's really none of their business, and it's a clear violation of privacy, which i strongly believe that the constitution implies a right to privacy. in addition, if someone was treated with depression at one time, they could be denied the right to own a gun, which is a violation of their constitutional right to own a gun. think about it: about a third of the population are on medication for ADHD, depression, and many other mild mental illnesses. are you going to deny them their right to own a gun based on that?

secondly, the fact that the federal government wants a list of all who own a gun. doesn't this bother you? remember when george w. bush was illegally wiretapping american homes and monitored the activities of innocent americans? it's the same deal, but now the left is doing it instead of the right. most (if not all) states have a list of those who have firearms licenses, and that should be good enough; if there is a criminal investigation involving a felony, they can pass that information on to the feds, but otherwise, it's not their business since firearms are mostly regulated by the states. it's also a waste of taxpayer dollars to monitor law-abiding citizens who are following the rules. big brother anyone?

lastly, the test to own a gun. remember the tests they gave to blacks in the south to vote? same deal. you shouldn't have to pass a test to exercise a constitutional right. the same goes for the two day waiting period. it's pointless.


so basically, to sum it up, i believe
-everyone should be allowed to own a gun, unless they are a felon or were declared mentally incompetent by a court— not under treatment for an illness.
-there should be a mandatory background check for every gun purchase in the US that checks for those two things.

anything else is overkill, violation of the second amendment, you name it. the more you restrict guns, the more you empower criminals who get guns by other means.

[Strangelet]

Well argued but lets look deeper into this bill

1. It has no co-sponsors. Not even another democrat. Its one of several hundred bills that any of the 535 members of congress can propose any given year.

2. It has no chance of ever passing.


It has a single sponsor, Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago. It was introduced on the first day of the new Congress, and on Feb. 9 it was referred to subcommittee as a routine matter. As of Feb. 20, it was still sitting there with no action scheduled.
That’s the way the vast majority of bills die – and the way this same legislation died last year after Rush introduced it in the previous Congress.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/02/gun-control/#

3. No one is going to deny someone gun ownership because of depression. I mean do you really think that's how its going to pan out? The state of Illinois has its own law that mirrors that of the proposed hr 45 so we can look at its actual implementation for clues as to how hr 45 will work if it ever passes, which it wont. As you can see from below. It specifically mentions being committed, having severe mental retardation, and those whose mental state is so severe as to be a clear danger to the community. We're talking sling blade here, not sad smurf.


Illinois law bars anyone with a history of mental illness from getting a firearm owners identification (FOID) card to possess or acquire firearms or ammunition The law applies to anyone (1) with mental retardation; (2) who was a patient of a mental institution within the past five years; or (3) whose mental state is so impaired that he is a clear and present danger to himself, others, or the community The law requires private hospitals to report all relevant mental health records on anyone receiving inpatient, but not outpatient, treatment to the State Police. The police must check the database when processing FOID card applications and may use the records only to determine whether an applicant is barred from getting a card based on mental health issues.
3. The "Obama Regime" may be intimately tied to this bill because it comes from chicago, since Obama is from chicago, or it might be because Chicago is a fucking warzone where kids are getting shot while looking out their bedroom window.

4. So if it has no chance of being passed, is infested with hyperbolic misunderstanding, is currently spreading around the internet and used as a talking point for georgian republicans, what does that add up to? If you said tea bagger bait meant to help disenfranchized republicans crawl out of their hole in time fore 2010, you're today's grand prize winner!!!

[stimpee]

Whats the big deal? does the 2nd ammendment also state that crazy mental retards have a right to arms too? i guess I dont get this right to bear arms thing. its a lucky thing that there were no nuclear weapons in the 18th century and a right to bear nuclear missiles. "but we've always had a right to bear nuclear missiles!".

Okay., the gun debate. im not getting dragged in. besides, godwins law has already been invoked. its over.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

. besides, godwins law has already been invoked. its over.


Do you not know the routine with sequels? Bigger, better, & more, no? Life imitating art(sp?)?

[Sean]

like it or not, we have a second amendment, and it should be protected as much as the first amendment. however, there should be reasonable limitations on the right to own a gun, such as if a person is declared mentally unstable by a court of law, or if a person has committed a felony. We completely agree on all of this.

this should extend to all gun sales, including gun shows. however, much of the things outlined in the bill are unreasonable. you argue that "it's just $25", but what is the point? tax revenue is the only point here, because $25 will not stop a criminal from buying a gunOf course it's for tax revenue. Personally, I tend to not be a fan of focused taxes like this on guns, extra taxes on cigarettes, stuff like that. But I hardly view this $25 as "making a mockery of the Constitution".

this is the biggest problem with extended gun legislation: if you make more and more laws regarding guns, it only affects those who aren't likely to commit a crime with those guns. if a criminal wants a gun, he'll get it in other ways.That's why I like the inclusion of an outright ban on private gun sales in the legislation. Private sales are how criminals would tend to get their guns (or stealing them I guess), so making that illegal could help in effectively prosecuting people who are buying and using guns for the wrong reasons.

there are several other things that bother me in the bill. first, the fact that they want your records from your psychologist. that's really none of their business, and it's a clear violation of privacy, which i strongly believe that the constitution implies a right to privacy. in addition, if someone was treated with depression at one time, they could be denied the right to own a gun, which is a violation of their constitutional right to own a gun. think about it: about a third of the population are on medication for ADHD, depression, and many other mild mental illnesses. are you going to deny them their right to own a gun based on that? I need to dig deeper to find out the specifics of this psychological angle, but in principle, I absolutely agree that the mentally ill shouldn't be armed.

secondly, the fact that the federal government wants a list of all who own a gun. doesn't this bother you? remember when george w. bush was illegally wiretapping american homes and monitored the activities of innocent americans? it's the same deal, but now the left is doing it instead of the right.This is where we really start to part ways. There are lists everywhere keeping track of our income, our cars, our homes...all for specific reasons that we all seem to accept and live with just fine. So personally, no, I have no inherent problem with a federal gun registry, assuming it's not somehow abused. If it's simply a registry to keep track of what gun is in what person's possession, then we're that much more informed when a crime is committed and we need to maybe track down where the gun involved came from, who may be involved, etc.

most (if not all) states have a list of those who have firearms licenses, and that should be good enough; if there is a criminal investigation involving a felony, they can pass that information on to the feds, but otherwise, it's not their business since firearms are mostly regulated by the states. it's also a waste of taxpayer dollars to monitor law-abiding citizens who are following the rules. big brother anyone?So it's not big brother when the state does it, but it is when the federal government does it? I don't know. I don't see it that way.

lastly, the test to own a gun. remember the tests they gave to blacks in the south to vote? same deal. you shouldn't have to pass a test to exercise a constitutional right. the same goes for the two day waiting period. it's pointless.Sorry, but this is a ridiculous comparison. Requiring a test to confirm that someone who wants to buy a gun is competent to use it is nothing like testing blacks before allowing them to vote. Testing blacks was an exercise motivated by some of the last vestiges of blatant, institutional racism. Testing for competency to use a firearm is a simple matter of safety. If you want an accurate analogy, compare it to a driver's license. You need to take a driving test before being legally allowed behind the wheel of what could potentially be a big hunk of lethal metal, so why shouldn't you be tested before putting your finger on the trigger of something that's built for the sole purpose of killing? Not only do I not have a problem with this testing, I actually wonder why in the world we haven't been legally requiring it all along. We're talking the most basic safety on this point, not an infringement of rights.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Whats the big deal? does the 2nd ammendment also state that crazy mental retards have a right to arms too? i guess I dont get this right to bear arms thing. its a lucky thing that there were no nuclear weapons in the 18th century and a right to bear nuclear missiles. "but we've always had a right to bear nuclear missiles!".

Okay., the gun debate. im not getting dragged in. besides, godwins law has already been invoked. its over.

I am pretty sure crazy mental retards can't buy weapons now. I am also pretty sure that weapons of mass destruction would never have been a constitutional right if they existed 300 years ago. Gun control is a tricky issue. 99% of the people who buy guns legally are not going to use them to commit crimes. You would think that logically, making it tougher to get guns would put less in the hands that those who would. But come on, that last 1% who do plan to or could forseeably shoot an innocent person in the future would be able to get access to a gun regardless of any such laws. The government bans the sale of marijuana, shrooms, and LSD, but come on, you can get those without much effort. A psychopath is not going to be stopped by a written test. A jealous, motivated killer is not going to drop his carefully laid revenge plans because of a $25 fee and a 2-day waiting period. (is it just me or does the $25 fee sound like a way to fund this new registry? Is that insult to injury or what??)

I'm with Stranglet on this one. There's a good argument to be made against this bill, but there's no reason it has to be so sensationalist. It's one of those arguments that starts "look, I'm not saying that Obama is going to be a brutal, merciless dictator" and then spends 5 pages trying to show just that. But as I recall, liberals had a huge shitfit when the government passed a law to try to monitor the activities of terrorists, saying that we had the right to keep certain things private. Now the conservatives are pulling the same argument, and I dont think it makes the liberals look good when they shoot them down. I dont think comparing Obama to Hitler is much different than accusing Bush of orchestrating 9/11. Although I guess the liberals did at least have a few somewhat logical arguments for that one. And you know, the guy who wrote this carries a firearm.

Whatever..you know Hitler loved Corn Flakes? And Obama eats them every day! I find this veeeeery interesting...

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Whatever..you know Hitler loved Corn Flakes? And Obama eats them every day! I find this veeeeery interesting...


I have an excellant recipe using Corn Flakes on meat/fish for a crunchy, tasty zing! And it's not meatloaf, ... eek.

[bryantm3]

Well argued but lets look deeper into this bill

1. It has no co-sponsors. Not even another democrat. Its one of several hundred bills that any of the 535 members of congress can propose any given year.

2. It has no chance of ever passing.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/02/gun-control/#

3. No one is going to deny someone gun ownership because of depression. I mean do you really think that's how its going to pan out? The state of Illinois has its own law that mirrors that of the proposed hr 45 so we can look at its actual implementation for clues as to how hr 45 will work if it ever passes, which it wont. As you can see from below. It specifically mentions being committed, having severe mental retardation, and those whose mental state is so severe as to be a clear danger to the community. We're talking sling blade here, not sad smurf.

3. The "Obama Regime" may be intimately tied to this bill because it comes from chicago, since Obama is from chicago, or it might be because Chicago is a fucking warzone where kids are getting shot while looking out their bedroom window.

4. So if it has no chance of being passed, is infested with hyperbolic misunderstanding, is currently spreading around the internet and used as a talking point for georgian republicans, what does that add up to? If you said tea bagger bait meant to help disenfranchized republicans crawl out of their hole in time fore 2010, you're today's grand prize winner!!!

agreed. i was not aware of the state of the bill in congress, but all congressmen (and congresswomen!) participate in intentionally creating these sorts of 'dead bills'. for example, our senator, saxby chambliss (i am in GA) introduced a bill during the tomato salmonella outbreak (which turned out to be jalapeños) that would ban shipping tomatoes across the georgia state line only during a salmonella outbreak. of course, he knew the bill was crap, but he wanted to be able to say during the campaign that he had attempted to protect georgia citizens from salmonella outbreaks. i suspect the congressman from chicago is trying to make a political gain based on the recent shooting incidents up there. so if this is another one of those 'dead bills' the point is really moot, yet, on the same token, many of these gun ownership restrictions have been discussed by certain congressmen— so there's no point in getting up in arms about this specific bill being passed, but the details do deserve a degree of discussion, as they may come up in another bill.

@ #3, the thing that bothers me is that the bill proposes that the government should receive a copy of your private records from your psychologist. i don't believe anyone should have access to that data except for you. that's why they passed HIPAA.

This is where we really start to part ways. There are lists everywhere keeping track of our income, our cars, our homes...all for specific reasons that we all seem to accept and live with just fine. So personally, no, I have no inherent problem with a federal gun registry, assuming it's not somehow abused. If it's simply a registry to keep track of what gun is in what person's possession, then we're that much more informed when a crime is committed and we need to maybe track down where the gun involved came from, who may be involved, etc.



since gun licenses are not issued by the federal government, it's not their business. personally, i don't believe the government has a right to know how much income a person makes, so that fact doesn't sit easily with me. i just see it as part of an overall plan to cede more rights to the federal government when the states, for the most part, do just fine on their own. for example, our public school systems began locally and are run by the state/county. i see no reason for the feds to intercede in any way, including funding, unless the school is obviously in trouble and the state can't fix it. it's the same with gun licenses: the federal government should make a limited outline of how it should work, and let the states handle it. it's simply more efficient. we were formed as a federal republic so that individual states can determine how they want to run their government instead of having to answer to the national government. that's outlined in the tenth amendment.

i do agree that it's a matter of gun safety to have a safety test, and although it seems like a good idea, i feel that the government, at any time, could decide to make the test more and more vigorous to prevent people without military or police training to own guns. it just leaves too much room for that. an idea might be a state-by-state rule that if you get a gun license, you have to take a gun safety course from a private instructor within the year, leaving no room for 'tweaks' in the tests.

[bryantm3]

I am pretty sure crazy mental retards can't buy weapons now. I am also pretty sure that weapons of mass destruction would never have been a constitutional right if they existed 300 years ago. Gun control is a tricky issue. 99% of the people who buy guns legally are not going to use them to commit crimes. You would think that logically, making it tougher to get guns would put less in the hands that those who would. But come on, that last 1% who do plan to or could forseeably shoot an innocent person in the future would be able to get access to a gun regardless of any such laws. The government bans the sale of marijuana, shrooms, and LSD, but come on, you can get those without much effort. A psychopath is not going to be stopped by a written test. A jealous, motivated killer is not going to drop his carefully laid revenge plans because of a $25 fee and a 2-day waiting period. (is it just me or does the $25 fee sound like a way to fund this new registry? Is that insult to injury or what??)

I'm with Stranglet on this one. There's a good argument to be made against this bill, but there's no reason it has to be so sensationalist. It's one of those arguments that starts "look, I'm not saying that Obama is going to be a brutal, merciless dictator" and then spends 5 pages trying to show just that. But as I recall, liberals had a huge shitfit when the government passed a law to try to monitor the activities of terrorists, saying that we had the right to keep certain things private. Now the conservatives are pulling the same argument, and I dont think it makes the liberals look good when they shoot them down. I dont think comparing Obama to Hitler is much different than accusing Bush of orchestrating 9/11. Although I guess the liberals did at least have a few somewhat logical arguments for that one. And you know, the guy who wrote this carries a firearm.

Whatever..you know Hitler loved Corn Flakes? And Obama eats them every day! I find this veeeeery interesting...

*thumbs up* Dan Bryant hoffi hyn.

[the mongoose]

you know Hitler loved Corn Flakes? And Obama eats them every day! I find this veeeeery interesting...

Dude, you are totally fucking on to something!:cool:
>>>Click<< (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI3xjjO2_8E)

[Sean]

since gun licenses are not issued by the federal government, it's not their business. personally, i don't believe the government has a right to know how much income a person makes, so that fact doesn't sit easily with me. i just see it as part of an overall plan to cede more rights to the federal government when the states, for the most part, do just fine on their own. for example, our public school systems began locally and are run by the state/county. i see no reason for the feds to intercede in any way, including funding, unless the school is obviously in trouble and the state can't fix it. it's the same with gun licenses: the federal government should make a limited outline of how it should work, and let the states handle it. it's simply more efficient. we were formed as a federal republic so that individual states can determine how they want to run their government instead of having to answer to the national government. that's outlined in the tenth amendment.

i do agree that it's a matter of gun safety to have a safety test, and although it seems like a good idea, i feel that the government, at any time, could decide to make the test more and more vigorous to prevent people without military or police training to own guns. it just leaves too much room for that. an idea might be a state-by-state rule that if you get a gun license, you have to take a gun safety course from a private instructor within the year, leaving no room for 'tweaks' in the tests.Very good points. I don't personally subscribe to the idea that testing would be as manipulative as you feel it could be here, but all the stuff about state versus federal and such sounds fair enough to me.