Hide your Guns…Here it comes!

I would have to agree that by you not admitting it can happen, when it already has in the recent past is misinforming people here.

RR, you are right on the money. It is easy for some to say “It really doesn’t matter as long as it does not apply to me.” When it comes to yours and my 2nd Ammendment rights, you cannot pick and choose what you are for or against. The founding fathers made no distinction. You want to legislate society into compliance of some sort? Start by enforcing laws against those who use guns in crimes. Then at least you have a snowballs chance of actually “Punishing” or “Deterring” the bad guys. That’s what you want, right?

Certainly in its most true form the title is a complete and utter over reaction. I cannot speak for the person who wrote it but will say that I took it to mean something more like “hey read me, this is important gun owner info”. Heck we all use exaggerations right? Like the time I accidentally dropped the fact that I am the most handsome gentleman in Wisconsin. Turned out I was in Minnesota at the time!

What I am admitting is, I have the right to keep and bear arms. How I acquire them, either bought on the street or a pawn shop, that is what is being legislated, not the right to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the 2nd amendment, does it say, you have the right to sell your arms to anyone you feel like, it says you can keep and bear arms. Pretty simple to me, some would make more out of a proposal, than what it really says.

big G

So by your reasoning…no one should be concerned when some legislators in Washington decide that my rifle and magazines are deemed illegal? With one stock, my gun is a “Ranch Rifle.” with my optional stock it can be considered an “Assault Rifle.” The sales of my rifle and magazines could be deemed illegal. THAT is what I am talking about. Not where and how you buy it. Because you wont be able to. Big difference in my book.

Hide your guns? I don’t think so…what may be decided FOR YOU is whether or not you have the RIGHT to buy it.

Quote:

---

Nowhere in the 2nd amendment, does it say, you have the right to sell your arms to anyone you feel like, it says you can keep and bear arms.

---

Truth is the Second Amendment doesn’t say the government has the right to limit arms commerce either. And even if it specifically said one way or the other believe me when I tell you the government would challenge it either way. Who here believes if all gun owners and special interest groups were to take two years off and ignore politics and go shooting instead that we’d return to gun freedoms as it is now? We should be able to thanks to the Second Amendment, but who honestly believes we could?

Almost forgot this. Another part they were pushing was to limit the number of firearms you could buy!

Alcohol- tobacco- and firearms should be a convience store not a federal agency!

No single effort, bill, ban, requirement , etc will be the end of firearm ownership. Rome was not built in a day.

The winds of change are blowing……..and I can hear the 2nd ammendment being nibbled at………like eating an elephant, the opposition is wisely doing it one bite at a time.

chip, chip, chip, chip……….

Tim

Quote:

---

The Clinton Bill and Brady has not affected me at all… what has it done to you? There, my head is out….

big G

---

Probably the most worrisome post I have seen.

The “It doesn’t affect me, so big deal” attitude is what will allow the anti’s to steamroll over anything and anybody in their path.

Tim

I guess I consider myself reasonable. Will things change in this country as we go forward, yes. Is it something new with this administration, no. It has been happening for centuries. Those who believe change will not happen, that’s who has their head in the sand. Most of the posts here make concern for me. Read what is written, not what you construe it to say or what “might” happen. Didn’t the roman empire come falling down too ????

big G

Is change inevitable? Yes.
Will our country continue to change? Yes.

Should we sit idly by and let it change for the worse? This is where I disagree. I say that we can stop the change for the worse. We DO NOT need to just let it happen. Change WILL happen, but I believe that there are enough people with good sense and values left that we can cause that change to be good instead of bad.

Sorry if not wanting to accept negative change is a bad thing, or I have my head buried in the sand, but I plan to continue fighting for my rights (and yours), even though some don’t condsider them worth fighting for.

Tim

Actually, I was told to pull my head out…. of the sand only…. I for one DO NOT want the government to take my guns. I will fight that to the end, theirs or mine. What I am saying is, this bill has no wording of them “taking” my guns, like the thread title insinuates. If you want to protest or question a bill, the best way is to actually address items that are in the bill. If I was the author of the bill and I heard peoples concern was, that I was taking their guns and there is nothing in the bill of that sort, I would pretty much ignore them, because what they are saying is not even part of the bill, if that makes sense. Now if you have an issue with the gov’t saying, that you cannot sell your AR15 to some guy on the street corner, then you should be worried about the legislation that was proposed and address that issue with your congress people. Don’t dream up issues that are not there yet.

big G

Take a look at what was in H.R.45. Not really dreaming stuff up.
Sure changes take place all the time but I can’t recall the feds violating admendment 9 and 10 and going after the 1st and 2nd like the present admin.

That’s just it Don, I did read it !!!! It was alot of mumbo jumbo, leading to restricting selling firearms on street corners, pawnshops and gunshows, without proper checks and registration. Please point out the article that would lead you to insinuate, you have to hide your guns. I am not for more gov’t control, but what I am for is informing people of “actual factual” bills that are being proposed. The chicken little approach does not work. Look at the bill and then protest the bill, not leap to “they are taking my guns” I would equate this to, a law changing the speed limit from 70 to 65, somehow meaning, they are taking our cars away ????? Not everybody here, will take the time to read the proposal, but rather will look at the post title and assume, that what is posted is fact…. if you read it, then you know it is not. Pretty simple.

big G

For those who want to see what the real jest is of the proposal, here is a condensed version.

1/6/2009–Introduced.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 – Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.
Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
Prohibits:
(1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions;
(2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act;
(3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours;
(4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or
(5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
Directs the Attorney General to:
(1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse;
(2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and
(3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.
Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.

big G

Read the very first sentence…

Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 – Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.

The mere mention of “Violence Prevention” should tell you what “They” are after. But they are legislating against normal law abiding folks. Forcing them into another situation where you need a license…once you have a license…it can be “Revoked” for whatever reason “They” see fit. No. No…that is not right! Why can’t this bill read: “Violence Prevention Act of 2009…You commit a crime with a gun, and you get life in prison…no parole.”

Imagine how many legal gun owners would be behind that??? It’s a matter of principle. You do not need a license to practice free speach. You do not need a license to practice your religion. You should not need a license to own a firearm under the guise of crime prevention.

I know it is not part of this conversation…but where are all those crimes that we were told were going to happen when CC became legal here in MN??? The sky was falling then too, huh?

When did I say crime would go up because of CC ? I can put plenty of words in my mouth, I don’t need any help… you should know that by now I guess I really don’t have a problem with registering firearms. I don’t have a problem with having to have a license to own/operate a firearm, just like I don’t have a problem with the requirement to have a license to operate a vehicle. Can you believe they make young hunters take a safety course ??? Kind of infringing on their rights, making them jump through hoops and all. I said it so many times already, but I will say it again, I do have a problem with people claiming bills/proposed legislation contain language and provisions they do not, just to spice up a conversation. I have said all I am going to say on this matter. I would encourage everybody to do their own research of any legislation, as not only do our politicians have agendas…..

big G

Quote:

---

I don’t have a problem with having to have a license to own/operate a firearm, just like I don’t have a problem with the requirement to have a license to operate a vehicle.

---

That has to be the most insulting statement I think I have read in this thread! Who here had a friend, family member, or has personally been in the military? You don’t get it do you big G? Owning a car is NOT guaranteed by the United States Constitution and our friends and neighbors did NOT go to wart and shed blood to give us the right. Never mind the fact that you do NOT need a license to own a car!

I know we’ve danced this dance before but I cannot for the life of me understand why you are so willing to bargain your freedoms away. By allowing them to force registration on you what do you expect you will get in return? Seriously I want to know. Will you feel safer because the thugs are off the streets now? What?

People went before us and will go after us spilling their blood and guts to preserve our freedoms and your willing to give them back because some asinine senator or congressman thinks it is best. Asinine, completely and utterly asinine!

Not only politicians have agendas? I think you owe us an explanation. What might “our” agenda be? Preserve the Second Amendment? Is that some sort of crime? That’s all I know any gun owner is asking for and that’s all I see in this discussion.

US Army Reserves 1985-1993 Honorably Discharged

big G

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I don’t have a problem with having to have a license to own/operate a firearm, just like I don’t have a problem with the requirement to have a license to operate a vehicle.

---

Owning a car is NOT guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Never mind the fact that you do NOT need a license to own a car!

I know we’ve danced this dance before but I cannot for the life of me understand why you are so willing to bargain your freedoms away.

---

No matter how long this debate goes on in any of it’s incarnations…some people will never see it that way. And in my opinion, that is a shame.

Thank you for the service to our country big G, I TRULY mean that! Not having been smart enough to realize I had the opportunity to serve I am a little unsure about what they teach in the military. Do they train people to be servants of governmental whims or servants of the country?

Quote:

---

By allowing them to force registration on you what do you expect you will get in return? Seriously I want to know. Will you feel safer because the thugs are off the streets now? What?

---

Of course I still am curious to get an answer to this question.

Guys, go back and read my posts. I do not condone this legislation, I point out the fact that it does not say you cannot keep and bear arms. Some people I guess will never get the fact, that is what I am saying and they just like to debate. Well, your not getting anymore from this guy. Keep reading legislation and construeing it to fit your agenda. I volunteered for this country, so you can do that to.

big G out

But G you yourself said you’d be ok not only registering your guns but also going so far as to having to get a license to own them. I assume that by giving up the right to bear arms that you now have you feel you will get something in trade. What would that be? As I said above I truly appreciate the fact you volunteered for this country. I’m just unclear what happened since then.

And that is the second time you have suggested we have an agenda. What possible agenda would that be outside of maintaining the freedoms we, for now, have? We are not trying to get something we already have, just maintain it.

I don’t believe I personally have anything to gain by having to register guns and get a license. I do know the difference between licensing/registering and plain old having them taken away. The agenda I see, is all to familiar. I once was a member of the NRA. I was for about 5 years. As they kept sending me the propoganda, I started reading the actual proposals/bills and what the NRA was reporting to me, a dues paying member, quite frankly, caused me to pull out of the NRA. Their tactic was to look at every piece of legislation and then send out a mailer, asking for money to fight it, because it was gonna take our guns away. They have no problem lying/misleading to the thousands of members they have. Now, I have no problem with a organization, standing up to the special interest groups in order to protect our right to keep and bear arms, but don’t try to mislead me, in order to get more $$$ from me under false pretense. I have seen it mentioned several times in these type posts, Join the NRA. I would encourage anyone, to check it out before joining. Their views & tactics, may not exactly line up with yours.

big G

I appreciate the answers. So you don’t feel you have anything to gain then why agree to further restrictions?

I also understand your frustrations about the NRA as I share them as well. However where do you suppose we’d be today if we didn’t have an organization like the NRA taking care of business? I’d asked earlier if anyone seriously thinks our Second Amendment would be the same in two years from now if everyone who defends it suddenly took vacation. What do you feel would happen? For the record I am an NRA member despite the e-mails and mailings and I do choose to support them when possible. Reason being I have yet to find a single entity able to represent us as strongly as the NRA.

Please notice I agreed with your assessment of the title of this thread and I am not speaking of an all out gathering of our arms. But I am speaking specifically of incrementalism, another thing some don’t feel is happening. I say that to hopefully get passed the “they are taking our guns” road block.

Again I appreciate your discussion. I do feel if we are able to communicate openly and as adults we might come to realize we are more on the same page than we may have thought. One, or both, of us might even learn a thing or two as well.

Like it has been said and re-said, and re-said again………any more restrictions, regulations, registrations, etc, will do NOTHING to prevent any crime. Shooting someone is already illegal. It will only serve to INCREMENTALLY remove the law abiding citizens rights. By chipping away at those rights bit by bit, there will NEVER be any change that seems major at the time…….but the cumulative change over time will be GREAT. Too great for me to stomach.

A responsible person like me buying an AR-15 plus all kinds of evil accessories at a gun show is no concern to the publics safety…and is NOBODY’S business but my own.

Slowly let them tighten the laws and restrictions on law abiding people, and the day that the guns become illegal, it will seem like a small step……..a small step that I am unwilling to accept.

Tim

AMEN!
Please pass me another 30 round magazine!!!

Quote:

---

Like it has been said and re-said, and re-said again………any more restrictions, regulations, registrations, etc, will do NOTHING to prevent any crime. Shooting someone is already illegal. It will only serve to INCREMENTALLY remove the law abiding citizens rights. By chipping away at those rights bit by bitTim

---

Saying this, is like saying, we might as well let 14 year olds buy beer, they are gonna get it one way or another….

big G

Your comparison doen’t make any sense. The way I read the post, and agree with by the way. Quit trying to pass laws that infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. You think the criminals are going to worry about regs?

Let me make it simpler. The way to keep kids, being 14 years old from buying beer legally, is to make a law that you have to be 21. Will they still get beer under 21 ? Yes, been happening forever. Does it make it easier for kids to get beer if they can legally buy at 14 ? Yes. I don’t know how much clearer it can be. It is illegal to buy beer for a kid 14, you can be legally held responsible for it, if you do it. Right now, it is not illegal to be selling your unwanted weapons, to anybody with a heartbeat and a couple hundred dollars. Make sense now ? I can’t be any clearer.

big G

Morality, Does that make sense?