HR1022 has 12 new Co sponsors. err now 18

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by MrApathy, Mar 11, 2007.

  1. MrApathy

    MrApathy Active Member

    1,085
    5
    38
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... o1022:mad:@@P

    looks like it may get out of committee and come to a vote. now they just need a convenient terrorist event to bring in the votes.
    maybe have the media play some more of if it bleeds it leads for all that time they skipped it either by design or fault.
     
  2. fryeg7

    fryeg7 Guest

    34
    0
    0
    or a school shooting. or someting else crazy like a luby's massacre or north hollywood bank robbery. the gun-grabbing weinies would milk that for all its worth and beat the cow for more :roll: :evil: .


    keep your fingers crossed, talk to everyone you can and buy what you think you want from 'the list' along with plent y of magazines. and get a reloading set with the dies and raw materials of all the calibers you like to shoot/would want to shoot in an emergency.

    i really don't think it will happen, at least not this time around. hopefully bush will have the cajones to veto it if it makes it that far, but we know what he's said in the past regarding the last AWB . . . . he's also a very poor example of a conservative or constitutionalist. he has a very poor track record.

    it's not always the democraps who screw us either. bush I and reagan both inked some pretty unfriendly laws regarding firearms. i certainly don't trust W to honor or preserve the constitution. in fact, i expect him and his croniesto continue trashing the bill of rights, just like they've been doing since 9/11.

    just to clear up any doubts and before the insults may fly for bush bashing, i'm a libertarian, but will probably change my registration from independent to republican so i can vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. he's a libertarian in republican's clothing :D . i'm very, very far from a liberal in areas i feel gov't should have any authority or intervention.

    if you haven't heard of ron paul, please googol him, i think you'll like what you see. the link in my sigline is liberty-minded discussion board. stop in sometime.

    frye
     

  3. MrApathy

    MrApathy Active Member

    1,085
    5
    38
    I would consider that a terrorist event. doesnt have to be Al Qaeda to terrorist event. dont have to belong to a terrorist organization. it can be random. can be perpetrated by people foreign and domestic.

    it has been going on longer than 9/11 try Oklahoma city bombing and 93 WTC bombing.
    both of which FBI was conducting sting operations.
    Oklahoma city reports of a unexploded bomb then a third bigger than the first.
    http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=o ... a=N&tab=wv
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk
    latest news is pointing to FBI involvement and calls for new investigations into it.
    FBI was conducting sting operation during the 93 WTC bombing
    one of the pawns involved asked why the FBI gave him real explosives if its a sting.
    http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=93+wtc+bombing
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs

    Ron Paul definitely looks like the only choice in my book. but to each his own.
    multiple paradigms of knowledge and methods of thinking acceptable. I dont like to bash bush
    tend to hit partisan emotions fast and rational thought can go out the window.

    the rest of candidates look like puppets and not the kind of puppets we need.
     
  4. fryeg7

    fryeg7 Guest

    34
    0
    0
    terrorism is violence designed to produce a political effect or send a message. someone 'going postal' and shooting up a school or restaurant isn't a terrorist. usually these people are insane or have very specific 'issues' that aren't political. that is crime, not terrorism. it's important we make a distintion between the two. the sheeple are already 'terrified' enough . . . .

    and the north hollywood bank robbers? terrorists? no, they were simple criminals, thieves, who messed up and decided to go down shooting. that's not terrorism. terrifying? maybe, but not terrorism.

    i agree that OK city and the 93 WTC bombings are terrorists incidents, but school shooting and other bizarre mass shootings are not . . . .

    frye
     
  5. fryeg7

    fryeg7 Guest

    34
    0
    0
    that's why i posted my 'libertarian disclaimer'. i didn't feel like listening to the usual responses.

    the modern republicans (neocons) are socialist liberals just like the democrats. two sides of the same coin, and i don't want anything to do with either of them.

    frye
     
  6. MrApathy

    MrApathy Active Member

    1,085
    5
    38
    ah but you still have an indirect terrorism interpretation if not by all a few. the few just happen to be gungrabbers that will paint the room red of all guns and owners.

    can capitalism be political?
    why are banks protected by the government heavily?
    Federal Reserve?
    FDIC?
    why the big fuss for politician financing ? corporation payoffs to what benefit?
    generally economy but politics encompasses it all.
    how often do you here political talk about "The Haves" and "Have not" entitlement programs?

    banks used to hold money for every account with the bank. clear the bank out with robbery and everyone one would then be broke.
    ever hear of a failed bank? it happens even today.

    getting sidetracked here.

    I dont like the term neocon or the missuse of the word liberal. it spawns divisive arguement where people supportive of both parties engage in a war that ultimately can bring about there destruction. call them what they truely are. Globalist. we have a horrible mixing of the parties and need an official outing.

    http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_a ... age/0.html
    check George Orwells essay politics and the english language
     
  7. fryeg7

    fryeg7 Guest

    34
    0
    0
    well-said. i also hate the term 'neo-con'. it's very very misleading, as is they were 'conservative' . . . .

    in fact, i can be described as very 'liberal'. i really don't care what people do so long as it doesn't damage my property. i really don't, just don't let it affect mine or others' property. the gov't has no business legislation social norms nor getting involved in civil contracts, such as marraige, etc.

    frye
     
  8. nc_gunner

    nc_gunner Guest

    29
    0
    0
    This bill makes me so mad it makes me want to bash my head against a wall. And I might, if it weren't for the fact that I honestly believe it's got a shot of being passed in at least one house, and even if it failed it'd give the Feinsteins and Schumers of the world the idea that they can ram it through on some other occasion because it's gaining at least some traction in Congress already.

    What I don't know about guns could fill a book. What these politicians don't know about guns could fill the Suez Canal and dribble over. :roll:
     
  9. babj615

    babj615 Premium Member

    4,188
    32
    48

    :? you say it so eloquently :?
     
  10. MrApathy

    MrApathy Active Member

    1,085
    5
    38
    wrong they know plenty about guns. the American Revolution was won with guns and men wielding them.
    they want to take the guns away and stick the people that would yield them into prison camps.

    mean time they can carry out usurpation to all new levels sit back and laugh as mistrust and finger pointing ensues.
    they can sieze a military program that has been collecting information on everyone and everything illegally.
    Total Information Awareness some places named Terrorist Information Awareness

    http://www.eff.org/Privacy/TIA/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatio ... ess_Office
    http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-20-03.html

    which with recent news was not shutdown as people have been misled to believe.
    FBI missusing Patriot Act illegally.

    it happens that gungrabbers often get busted with guns. was a news piece recently from Michigan or Ohio I cant recall correctly the details or state. found with a arsenal I recall that.
     
  11. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    367
    0
    0
    I am a flaming progressivel liberal but "gun control", by and large, is a fools' errand. HR 1022 makes me mad.

    The way I see it, innocent people are killed by guns for mainly three reasons: 1) failure to handle or store them safely 2) stolen weapons used by criminals 3) Sometimes people snap and kill other people.

    I am preaching to the choir, but banning certain weapons and limiting magazine capacity address none of those three problems. A few years ago in my town someone went back to their former work place after being fired and started shooting, killing a least a couple people and injuring several others. He used a shotgun. Not an AR, not an Uzi, not a .50 BMG rifle. In 1998, a police officer in my town was killed. The gun used was a .22 rifle. The killer shot the officer in the head as the officer walked up to his trailer. This is the type of thing that happens. In the exceptional cases, like the infamous LA bank robbers, who used asault rifles and drum magazines, th problem was not that they had assult rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammo, it was that they were almost completely impervious to gun fire because they were armored from head to toe. Yes, their weaponry caused a lot of carnage, but similar results could have been obtained with weapons designed for deer hunting and 10 round magazines.

    There are some good things that have come out of gun control, such as prevented people convicted of domestic violence from having guns, criminalizing straw purchases and forcing pro-gun organziations to emphesize responsible and safe gun handling and storge. I think everyone here would admit that there are just some people who shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms. But restricting the semi-automatic weapons and mag capacity is stupid.
     
  12. nc_gunner

    nc_gunner Guest

    29
    0
    0
    It always comes back to "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". The Hollywood bank robbers certainly didn't go to a local FFL to purchase their nice shiny full auto weapons. I just cannot fathom how it's so difficult for people to understand that criminals by definition don't follow the bleeping law. They don't purchase guns through an FFL or attend CCW classes so they can conceal a gun they plan to use to hold up a convenience store or mug someone. How is this so bleeding hard to understand? Are we really arguing with people whose IQ is roughly equivalent to un-buttered toast? Is it really that bad? They've got some serious kool-aid in the anti-gun lobby. We could learn a lot about brainwashing from these people, they're experts at it.

    The fact that the AG would be able to ban any weapon or family of weapons at his whim in the future is such a slap in the face of due process it's just ludicrous. This bill makes me feel like I'm living in a country without any guarantees on personal property, liberty, speech, anything. It's like a bad dream.
     
  13. babj615

    babj615 Premium Member

    4,188
    32
    48

    ....I just cant believe I am about the say this....

    ....but I think there may be at least ONE liberal out there that I like!!!

    :wink:
     
  14. Angel

    Angel Guest

    70
    0
    0
    Well put! My centiments, exactly.
     
  15. fryeg7

    fryeg7 Guest

    34
    0
    0
    he may be a liberal with a viewpoint you agree with, but his votes put liberals in office who do want to take your guns. they also want your money too, so they can give it out to lazy people :D . ain't socialism grand? :wink: .

    frye
     
  16. babj615

    babj615 Premium Member

    4,188
    32
    48
    :evil: dang!!!! :evil:

    ...guess I was wrong.....

    :shock: :shock: :shock:
     
  17. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    367
    0
    0
    Actually...

    My liberal view point doesn't get people elected because I live in a heavily "red" district in a very "red" state. That said, it goes both ways my friends. Your votes for conservatives got us a prez who starts wars for bad reasons, then executes them poorly, squadering billions of dollars a week, not to mention the thousands of lost lives on boths side. Not to mention his apparent distain for the Constitution. Your votes got us Congress people who weren't willing to do their job of oversight. Wellfare spending didn't destroy the surplus and turn it into a monumental deficit that my kids and future grand kids will still probably be paying for once they start working and paying taxes.

    Truth is, "gun control" is the only issue most everyone here and I agree on. And thats what I am talking about.

    Liberals run the gamut in intellegence just like conservatives. Anti-gun types are not as a rule stupid. They just don't know anything about guns, aren't attracted to guns and see stories about kids getting killed by guns and wonder why the hell citizens have military weapons.

    I actually don't feel strongly about personal defense, for myself. Sometimes I feel only women should be allowed to have guns. It is a much scarier world for women then it is for men. And that is another component of the "gun control" sentiment. Women, who generaly don't have the natural attraction to guns, but do understand that it took 9 months to grow a child, to see children blown away, abstract ideas like the right to bear arms to repell a foreign invasion or overthrow a government grown tyranical or the fun of entering the woods to shoot Babie or the concept of personal protection seem all very far way and not worth the cost and the risk of death to children and innocent people.

    I have not joined the NRA because I am offened by the NRA's practice of coming to town after a school shooting like Columbine to hold a rally. That is monstrous in its insensitivity.

    I consider myself a pragmatist when it comes to guns. As I said, I am not worried about being attacked. I simply, deeply, like guns, enjoy shooting them and learning tactical and defensive use of fire arms. I think guns can be problematic and should have reasonable restrictions put on them. I am not sure we are better off with the 2nd Amendment, but this country wouldn't be America with out our history of firearms. Thats just the way it is, for better or worse. Second Amendment or not, criminals will always find a way to get guns if they are determined enough. Since I have the right to have guns, I am going to take advantage of that right, and I think it is stupid to restrict that right in ways that only make it inconvienent for gun owners while doing nothing to address the problems of gun violence. To me, guns are roughly like cars. They are powerful tools that can be used for good but in the wrong hands they can kill innocent people. Cars are more useful, but guns don't destroy the environment.

    Anyhoo, thats my $0.02 on gun control. I am sure my Congressional Rep., Mark Souder R-IN will do his part to kill HR 1022. I am pretty darn sure its the only issue I agree with him on.
     
  18. fryeg7

    fryeg7 Guest

    34
    0
    0
    what makes you think that i voted for shrubbery just because i'm not a liberal? i also think the war in iraq is the biggest blunder in recent american history, and one we'll be regretting for a long time because the consequences of our actions haven't even fully been realized.

    you confuse rights with priviledges, my friend . . . . you honestly believe you have the right to legislate your morals against common sense, common law and property rights? you don't think human beings have the right to defend themselves inherently, that the gov't has to authorize you to protect your life? . . . that's sad.

    what gives you and your fellow socialists the right to rob me at gunpoint (don't pay your taxes and see what happens) and redistribute my money?

    frye
     
  19. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    367
    0
    0
    rights and priviledges...

    I don't confuse rights and priviledges, its just the reality of guns. If you rob a bank and go to jail, you lose your right to own fire arms when you get out. I can think of only one other right a person can lose besides gun ownership and that is the right to vote (and I think that is wrong). You can kill 20 babies and if you ever get out of jail you still have the right to free speach, the right to due process, the right to privacy, etc., and some of those rights a person still retains even in prison.

    Fact is, people with certain metal illnesses shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. People who abuse their spouse or girlfriend or boyfriend shouldn't be allowed guns. People with histories of violent crimes shouldn't be allowed guns. Gun ownership can not possibly be a universal, unrestricted right.

    People definitely have the inherent right to defend themselves, I don't disagree with that, but a person does not necessarily have the right to any chosen means of defense.

    I, personally, haven't legislated my morals against anyone or anything. As far as I know I have always been represented by people who's views I am opposed to. And I don't feel strongly enough about the issue of taxes to get into an argument with you or anyone else about them. Personally, I like roads and schools are generally good, as are public libraries, municiple water and police and fire services are also very helpful. I hate that my money goes to a bloated, crooked and mostly unnecessary military budget and now a criminal war. That taxes fund "faith-based organizations" and goes to pork barrel projects like bridges to nowhere.

    My apologies for implying you voted for a shrub. You are probably like me in that you consistantly vote for losers.
     
  20. fryeg7

    fryeg7 Guest

    34
    0
    0
    Re: rights and priviledges...

    no worries, and you're right, no one i ever vote for gets elected to anything :D . but the people i vote for are only losers in the sense that they lost the election.

    frye