| bryantm3 |
10-20-2009 02:23 PM |
Re: Now he's after our guns!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelet
(Post 116976)
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.
Quote:
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. |
