The white house is going to take away your guns
 

according the the bill HR 45
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp
they are going to attach registering your guns to your 2010 tax return, adding a $50 per gun tax and adding to that, according to the bill, they can enter your home and inspect anytime they want to make sure you are compling with the law. They will fingerprint you and issue a permit to own a weapon. Welcome to Germany 1939.
If they want to control crimes with guns, go after people that use them illegally, not those that use them legally

I've tried really hard to give the Obama administration a change, but now I can say a big FUCK YOU!

yet the countries that DO restrict weapons have less crime.....

For the kids, just in time for xmas

http://www.kittyhell.com/wp-content/...ault-rifle.jpg

This is from February and it has almost no support. Check here too (no consoles or popups to block like snopes)

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

Here's a brief excerpt to illustrate:
"Q: Is Congress going to require a federal license to own a handgun?

A: A Chicago congressman’s bill, H.R. 45, would require that, but it has little support. The same bill died quietly in a House subcommittee last year.
"

Which countries are those? Russia? China? Iran? Could you be more specific please?

If you could instantly vaporize all guns at once the same policy might work in the US. Unfortunately any gun control measures won't take guns away from criminals just honest citizens, for the most part.


.

i want one!!!!!!!

Well here in NYC it's almost impossible to get a gun license, but the funny part is the so called administration will be the one profiting from all of this as they do with everything they tax. I never supported what they impose because to me they are no different then the mob, the only difference is they make the laws that they brake.

What does a House bill that has little to no support have to do with the whitehouse? Obama does alot of things I don't agree with, but he's done nothing on gun control and don't think its right to spread false rumors... :upsidedow

You sound just like the rest of the idiot whackos out there. You really need to learn a bit more about how the system works before you go posting falsities like you just did.

1. This isn't the white house, it is congress.

2. This is a bill BEFORE congress, just as there is a bill like this BEFORE congress Every Single Year

3. This bill has little to no backing if there is any.


Seriously, I thought they made everyone watch this video in like 5th grade????

Nobody is profitting from anything. It was a congressmans bill he put up on day 1 of this congress, and the right wingers are still banking off scaring idiots. Case closed.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.


The tougher it is in an area of the us to get a legal firearm, the higher the crime rate, AND by far the higher the rate of gun related violence. (people tend to do less gun waving in areas that other people are likely to shoot back)

Actually no, thats the propaganda machine at work

http://www.gunfacts.info/

everytime a country gets rid of guns for legal use, the use of illegal ownership goes up, I mean criminals love it when they don't hve to worry about someone shooting them while they are stealing from you!

If you're serious, pick up a stripped lower reciver and I'll build you one that is WAY more cool than that POS.

about time. letting americans have guns is like letting a class of slow kids have scissor races.

You seem like a smart dude but damn.....

Get a head start on the next one right here. HR 875.

People on the right are scaring hill folks into thinking Obama wants to prevent them from their backyard garden. Welp, it's not true. It's a bill that the FDA wants in order to track disease ridden crops imported to US supermarket shelves, but some nuts are using it to scare dumb people. It's really shameful. They know full well that it doesnt propose what they say, but they use it anyway as a "tactic".

There are dozens (hundreds?) of youtube video's and such, imploring other dumb people into contacting their representatives and asking them to vote against protecting their health from vegetables and fruits coming in with diseases on them. When will they wake up and get angry with the figures in power that bullshit them?

This is about the only reason I might have wanted Sarah Palin as a V.P.

This is hers.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/w...tual-rifle.jpg

democratic lead house and senate and whitehouse is like a piggy bank just waiting to be busted and it pisses me off that someone even proposed this because they are passing everything they can come up with, like now they are raising the limits on how much the government can borrow.
The new 1.1 trillion budget grows the government by 10%, do you really think thats a good idea?

why do you say that?

After watching the shit that our beloved country is doing right now, do you really think they won't pass stuff like this? Everyone was pissed about Iraq, so we voted in a president that promised we were going to send troops to Aftganistan, whats the difference? And we still have troops in Iraq!

I mean I would be for a healthcare reform if they could explain it, do you think there is one senator that has read and understand the whole thing, remember 2000 pages! Lawyers have read it and they don't understand it!
I would feel better about it if they could work with the GOP and get something that everyone could agree on.

I think we're going to have a bunch of incumbants voted out in 2010, as least I hope

guns are cool

people don't shoot people guns do motherfuckers!

People have to pass a safety class to get a gun now in the US or have a dd214

but now they have a dem controled house and senate and president
there was no way Bush would have signed that
thats whats got me worried

Guns are for idiots.

dude, you know how much pussy i get with my gun...

i just walk up to a chick and pull it out and show them..

they are so impressed the take off all their close just because i ask them to.. :thumbsup

Don't believe everything you see on the internet.

blah blah.. will never happen.





---

So, let me get this straight. You come here and post a thread that makes you look like just another one of the chicken little naysayers who have no understanding of how congress works.

Which is proven, because of your thread title in correlation to it being a bill (ie; bill =/= whitehouse). It's then again proven once we find out this bill is just another one of the same ones that is put before congress every fucking year (yes, I'm serious - there is at least on bill like this put before congress every year). Then ontop of it all, it's a bill with absolutely zero support and would never get passed.

.... After all this. Your rationalization is more fear mongering propaganda that Obama and the Dems are the devil and just trying to get everything they can passed??? The same old rhetoric you just used, which just got put down by facts?

And why are we supposed to consider yourself an knowledgeable and intelligent person to debate this subject with anymore? You've dropped your credibility to below that of a birther at this point and I really don't see how there is anything more to debate with you. Which is why I'm just reiterating the fact this thread and your point is ridiculous, over and over. There is just no reason at all, from here on out, to even dignify any political information you bring to the table with direct response.

Of course they are scared to death :1orglaugh

No they do not. I have never taken any classes and never been in the military.

The dems are so unorganized they can't get shit passed with a dem controlled congress and Obama. All they can do is spend money.

has anyone here who owns a gun ever used it? not for practice or anything like that, but been in a situation (getting robbed, etc) where you have had to use your gun?

I'm going for my special weapons permit in January so I canbuy and AR-15.

Never too early to prepare for the apocalypse. Seriously...

i hope the op has learned a few things from this thread.

i agree, the ar15 is a solid choice for the apocalypse. better to kill em at 500 yards than 5 yards.

The guns used for gun crimes are usually stolen from people who legitimately own them... you think because you own a gun the government won't fuck you right over if they want to? This ain't 1776 dude...

:D

Ok, let me ask you a question
Did you know that lets say you and your girl friend break up and she gets pissed at you, if she goes to the court house and gets a temporary restraining oreder against you, you have 48 hours to either sell your guns or hand them over to the police. This is a constitutional right taken away and you weren't even there!

Do you think this is propaganda? Or are you going to call me names in hopes of scoring debate points against me?

That's my goal in life - to get the ladies to take off their close.

That's ok, my parole officer took my guns away a long time ago.

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#7
you have to pass a safety course, unless you know some cops
And I agree that the dems are unorganized, but they have the rule and they are passing shit on a daily basis. They are looking to tax soda pop, our industry and anything else, how to you think they are going to pay for everything they're passing?

it appears not.

You have a reliance to cite? When did this go into effect?

my guns are in a gun safe

So you think it's right to punish the law abiding to get to the criminals?

Funny, all I did was fill in a form saying my son gave it to me.

the person has to have had a domestic violence charge. the precedent case involved a domestic violence issue, after the restraining order was filed, the restrained went and bought a gun.

There are two separate federal firearms laws which relate to domestic violence. These are the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 which amends the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968.

RESTRAINING ORDERS

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 contains a provision which prohibits the subject of a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms and ammunition. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), anyone subject to a qualifying restraining order cannot possess a firearm or ammunition. Intimate partners include spouses, former spouses or significant others, but do not include significant others with whom the defendant has NOT cohabited. A qualifying court restraining order is one where:

* the court order must include a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the other person OR the order explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the other person.
* the order was issued after a hearing. Minnesota OFPs issued under the no-hearing law provisions Minn. Stat. 518B.01 subd. 7 would NOT qualify.
* the defendant had to have received actual notice of the hearing and have had an opportunity to participate in the hearing.



If a respondent of a qualifying court restraining order possesses firearms or ammunition, then they have committed a federal crime. If the restraining order expires or is dismissed, the respondent can then possess firearms again. The prohibition lasts as long as the restraining order.

A respondent does not need to be told about this prohibition against possessing firearms. They do not need to be ordered to not possess firearms. The penalty for violation of this federal firearm statute is a maximum of 10 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.

Although law enforcement officials are exempt from the restraining order law, the exemption applies only to department-issued firearms. 18 U.S.C. § 925(a). Therefore, a police officer who is the respondent of an OFP could still have their service revolver, even off-duty. That police officer just could not possess other guns.

MISDEMEANOR CRIMES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 amended the Federal Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). Under these provisions, it is unlawful for an individual convicted of a state or federal "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to "ship, transport, possess or receive firearms or ammunition."

A "misdemeanor crime of violence," pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921(33)(a), means an offense that:

has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

Law enforcement officers and governmental employees (such as security guards or military personnel) art not exempt from this law with respect to their receipt or possession of firearms or ammunition. Therefore, law enforcement and other government employees who have been convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor will not be able to lawfully possess or receive firearms or ammunition or any purposes, including performing their official duties.

Furthermore, the law makes it unlawful for any person, including governmental agencies, to sell or otherwise issue firearms or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of violence.

As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However, the prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996. Therefore, as of the effective date, any person who has EVER been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition.

With respect to all persons convicted, the law would NOT apply if the conviction is defective procedurally due to representation or trial issues, such as the person's constitutional rights to counsel and/or a jury trial were not knowingly and intelligently waived. Also, the law would not apply if the conviction has been expunged, set aside, pardoned, or the person has had his or her civil rights restored and the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition.

Not sure when, but I've never had to take the class, I have a DD 214
But yes, the class has been around since before the brady bill I believe.
go into any gun shop, they will tell you the same thing
And I agree that people should take a course.
I can't tell you how many people I've taught how to shoot, great first date believe it or not.
I was trained by my step father, an ex- marine.
I was raised around all kinds of guns, even shot a gattling gun once, now that rocked!

raising my daughter that way, I know that she will can protect herself, she's good with a pistol, but scary good with my AR-15

So, he is exaggerating.

show them or point it at them? LOL

i really don't see the problem with not allowing certain individuals to possess firearms. it's due to their previous actions, therefore, a good thing.