ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST (US Constitution under attack again)...

[Jeffersons Ghost]

As if the USA Patriot Act 1 and two, which essentially destroyed the 4th amendment to the US Constitution isn't bad enough, here we go again...

Exclusive WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Big Brother's new target: Tracking of all firearms
This is nothing less than a declaration of war on American gun owners

U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., is hoping to pass a firearm-licensing bill that will significantly rewrite gun-ownership laws in America.

Among the more controversial provisions of the bill are requirements that all handgun owners submit to the federal government a photo, thumb print and mental heath records. Further, the bill would order the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer and owner's address in America.

The bill claims its purpose is "to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of firearms to criminals and youth."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86039

[napi21]

1. That one's not going anywhere.

[trumad]

2. /

:popcorn:

[SteppingRazor]

3. Wow, you are going to get reams of flack for that link.

:popcorn:

[TheWraith]

17. Deservingly so.

I wish people would quit tracking shit into DU from WorldNutDaily, WSWS, and other bullshit sites, no matter what personal fixation it has for them. Bullshit is still bullshit whether it comes from the left or the right.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. The mental health records are a bit far, however

We do the other things for cars. Outside of justifiable bitching about the DMV, no one complains about that at all.

Why is it suddenly an attack on the Constitution to do it for guns?

[Indy Lurker]

27. a couple of reasons

Driving is a privilege. You have no right to drive. Driving with a license occurs in public, on public roads. You must pass a test to show you know the rules, and can safely interact with others. You do not need a license to drive a riding mower, or a 4 wheeler, or a pickup truck on a farm or your own property.

Gun ownership is a right. Rights can not be restricted through fees and excessive procedures. The only way Indiana could use State ID or Drivers License for Voter ID was to give them away for free.

So it's ok to charge for a license to drive (a privilege), but not ok to charge for a license to vote or own a gun (a right)

Gun ownership occurs in private, and on private property, there is no justification for license of this right.

By contrast, carrying a firearm in public typically requires a concealed carry license.

a concealed carry license requires you to go through more through background checks and pass a test to show you know the rules, and can safely interact with others.

[eqfan592]

29. Because there is no "right" to a drivers license or to drive...

..on public property in general. Now you CAN argue there is a right to travel, but this says nothing about the use of a motor vehicle. Now if you want to start talking about licenses to walk down the street or to make use of trains and air planes, then it'll be a little closer.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. You support the unrecorded sale or transfer of firearms to criminals and kids?

:wtf:

[Statistical]

7. You support killing homosexuals?

:wtf:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Nice strawman to a reply that wasn't a strawman

The bill says it is to restrict the sale of firearms to criminals and kids. If you oppose the bill is it because you oppose regulating distribution of firearms to kids and criminals? If so, why?

[Statistical]

14. Banning all guns in all forms would "restrict access to criminals & kids"

If you are not in favor of banning all guns are you in favor of granted kids & criminals unrecorded access to firearms?

Most firearms that end up in criminals hands are stolen.
I find it unlikely any criminal who steals a firearm is going to file new registration on it to allow it to be tracked easier.

Of course your statement is a strawman.

It is possible to be both against HR 45 and against criminals & children gaining access to firearms.
The logical fallacy is that anyone against HR 45 is pro kids & criminals getting access to firearms.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. This bill doesn't call for banning all guns

It mandates registration and restricts the sale and transfer of guns to criminals and kids. Just like driving a car is restricted. I don't have a problem with that.

[benEzra]

24. Sale and transfer of guns to criminals and kids is ALREADY illegal.

We've seen how licensure worked in the UK, and how hysterically the U.S. gun-control lobby demonizes those of us in the U.S. who have submitted to a licensing process. No, thanks.

[eqfan592]

30. OH FOR CHRISTS SAKE MAN!!!!!!

Sales of guns to criminals and kids already ARE restricted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't you GET that??? This law will do NOTHING to stop guns from flowing into criminal hands! It is a totally USELESS bill.

So THATS why your argument is a total straw man!

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. Those restrictions aren't working!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FOR CHRISTS SAKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ManiacJoe]

36. Due to a lack of enforcement.

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. And resistance from many gun owners

Let's be honest here. It is easier to get a gun than a driver's license. I don't dare get behind the wheel of my car without my license. That same culture should be built around owning a gun.

[hack89]

40. I didn't need a background check for my license

and I don't remember having to wait before I could pick it up.

Since you need a license carry a gun in public, I think the culture you are looking for is already here. Unfortunately, just like some people drive without licenses and insurance, a small minority will disobey gun laws.

[Statistical]

41. You don't need a license to own a car.

You don't need a license to own a car.
You need a license to bring a car onto public roads.

In most states you don't need a license to own a firearm.
You need a license to bring that firearm (CCW) onto public property.

So they are similar in that respect.

The major difference is that you:
* don't need a background check to buy a car
* there are no limits (at state level) on how, how often, when, where you can buy a car
* your driver's license didn't require fingerprints to be taken
* if you become a felon you don't lose your ability to drive legally for life

Of course maybe the deadly object needs more regulation.
There are nearly 6 million accidents caused by cars every year
2.9 million people are injured by cars every year
42,000 people were killed by cars every year
total financial cost of damages caused by cars is $230 Billion

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. You need to license the car

And you can't drive it without a license. And most states require insurance.

Maybe we should make gun owners buy insurance :)

[Statistical]

46. Once again you CAN drive it without a license.

A driver's license is a permission to operate a vehicle on PUBLIC roadways
If you own a plot of land you can operate a motor vehicle on it without a license as much as you want.
To take it into PUBLIC areas requires a license.

Just as a CCW allows a gun owner to carry his/her firearm into PUBLIC areas.

As far as insurance, well once you show me that law abiding gun owners cause $230 Billion worth of damage each year like drivers do then I might agree insurance is needed.
Including damage and deaths caused by criminals is not relevant to the comparison (but even if you did it wouldn't be nearly $230 Billion) because someone who breaks the law and owns a gun when prohibited isn't going to get insurance on said illegal firearm.

I do have insurance. My firearms are insured against theft or damage and I have general liability insurance simply because we live in a very litigious society.
There would be no need for some super "gun insurance".

[AtheistCrusader]

48. You're so incredibly wrong it's hilarious.

You do not need registration, a license, or insurance to drive any automobile on your own property, or on the property of anyone who will allow/agree to let you do so.

You only need those three items if you plan on operating an automobile on a public road.


On the insurance piece, many of us who have CPL's for CARRYING IN PUBLIC also have umbrella liability coverage. It's a good idea. Even if you are attacked, and legally defend yourself, you can end up liable for unintentional damage, if say, the bullet goes through your attacker and hits something beyond him or her.

[Tim01]

42. Criminals drive cars illegally all the time. You are not a criminal.

Tons of people drive cars they can't legally drive. The fact that you don't do that is not relevant to the fact that they do.

The car laws are not working. You just think they are because YOU obey them.

Go hang out at traffic court sometime, your head will explode.

[slackmaster]

43. Carrying a concealed firearm in public does require a license in most states

What's your point?

[Taitertots]

47. Where do you get your drivers license?

I ran a red light and still passed my driving test. At 16, I walked into the secretary of state and walked out with a Michigan drivers license (the paper temp, they mailed the real one).


When I bought a gun they called the FBI and did a criminal and mental health background check. For my Pistol I had to follow the now out dated Michigan safety inspection procedure. Which required two trips to the police station.

[Tejas]

38. 20,000+ gun laws already on the books

Please, at least ACT like you care about crime.

[benEzra]

23. You support terrorists nuking cities?

Since the purpose of the Patriot Act, Bush's wiretap program, and the Secret Terrah Watchlist is to prevent terrorists from nuking cities, you must be in favor of nuking cities if you oppose those proposals, right?

We're all against the sale of firearms to criminals and kids (which is, FWIW, already illegal). Opposing this (bad) bill is not about protecting sales to criminals and kids, but about preventing the USA from going down the UK/Australia registration/licensure road, because that didn't turn out so well for legitimate gun owners in those countries.

[benEzra]

26. Practically every bad bill has a noble sounding statement of purpose.

You are confusing the stated purpose of this bill (which is good) with the actual details of the bill (which are not good).

How would you feel about a bill with the following purpose:

To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, (and) to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

[Taitertots]

44. You oppose the Iraq war?

They said the Iraq war was to protect us from WMDs. Do you want Iraq to attack us with WMDs? If so, why?
:sarcasm:

[eqfan592]

28. Yeah, because criminals are going to totally turn things around...

...and start recording their sales when we have this new law!!!

WTF right back at you....

[rl6214]

37. Nice Try

The sale and transfer of guns to criminals and kids is ALREADY ILLEGAL.

Is that the best you can do is to accused someone of something that is not true?

[DissedByBush]

49. That is already illegal

Do you think someone who is planning to commit such a felony is going to bother with a federal requirement to document the sale?

[billyoc]

6. This will get DOZENS of votes in the House.

:rofl:

[sabra]

8. world nut daily?

hmmm

[Towlie]

9. Alert sent: Should be moved to the Guns forum.

[hfojvt]

10. Is this why the NRA called me the other day?

Something about HR 43 and I could not find such a bill. Perhaps I forgot the number although I searched for it right after I hung up on them.

Other questions arise

1. How did they get my number?

and

2. Why did they think I might be likely to donate $100 to them?

[Statistical]

11. Two points.

1) might do better next time with a better source.

2) Notice the bill #. bills are introduced in numerical order. #45 was likely introduced in day 1 or 2 of this Congress. It is a fluff bill. The author knows it will die it committee but he can go home and say he is "fighting the good fight against the guns".

HR 45 will never even be voted to see if it will go to the floor to be voted.
Don't be surpised the same bill (or slightly reworded) will come up in the next Congress and the next Congress and the next Congress....

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. +1

[spanone]

12. sounds like some pretty good ideas to me.

[X_Digger]

15. Old link to (presumably dead) bill

No co-sponsors, referred to two committees so fast it left skid marks, and is dead ended there (hopefully.)

[MineralMan]

16. WTF? January link from WhirledNutsDaily?

It's July, and that is not a reliable news site in any way.

[Tejas]

21. "not a reliable news site in any way" - So, the article is false?

[MineralMan]

31. Hard to say. WND only puts the parts of the information that

support its viewpoint. All WND articles need careful double-checking and hunting down the original source is usually a very good idea. In any case, the article is six months old. So, what's going on right now with this proposal? Have any idea?

[X_Digger]

32. Here's a good resource for tracking bills..

http://www.govtrack.us

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45 -- H.R. 45 has no co-sponsors, was shuttled to the two different committees, and hasn't moved since February 9.

[MineralMan]

33. So, the original post was wasted, then.

It's dead, folks.

[X_Digger]

34. Pretty much, yeah..

.. obviously sometimes things come out of committee (every proposed law change goes to one committee or another), but I'd expect a bunch of co-sponsors, a companion bill in the senate, and multiple readings, amendments, etc.

[Tim01]

18. And there we have a great example of the radical left. Wow.

This would fit in perfectly with the patriot act and all the stuff Bush did/was doing/tried to do. Good company.

[jody]

19. It would be interesting to see Congress pass the bill and see Obama have to either veto it to honor

his pledge to support the 2nd or sign the bill and immediately become a one-term president.

[Tim01]

22. He has made his intentions clear. What would he do? Tough call. nt

[iverglas]

50. how can this be?????

Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill.


How can he not know that firearms control is racist and illiberal???