TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › US Gun Owners Rights
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US Gun Owners Rights

post #1 of 89
2/17/09 at 12:23pm
Thread Starter 
Here we go. Another new legislative season, another assault on the Second Amendment.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...:h45ih.txt.pdf

from Bobby Rush (D-IL)

The measure calls for all handgun owners to submit to the federal government an application that shall include, among many other things: a photo; an address; a thumbprint; a completed, written firearm safety test; private mental health records; and a fee. And those are only some of the requirements to be licensed!

The bill would further require the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner's address in America.


and the State Legislature in IL is busy as well

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bill...76&LegID=41158

Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.

A million dollars in insurance??? What are they smoking?
Reply
post #2 of 89
2/17/09 at 12:36pm
More useless legislation that will do nothing to deter crime. Here's a novel concept: How about enforcing the laws currently on the books instead of trying to make it more difficult for law abidding gun owners?

Wait, that would make too much sense.

Look at the much larger picture. If they are allowed to mess with the Second Amendment to the point where it's done away with or no longer effective, what is to keep them from chipping away at the rest of our rights?
Reply
post #3 of 89
2/17/09 at 1:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
More useless legislation that will do nothing to deter crime. Here's a novel concept: How about enforcing the laws currently on the books instead of trying to make it more difficult for law abidding gun owners?

Wait, that would make too much sense.

Look at the much larger picture. If they are allowed to mess with the Second Amendment to the point where it's done away with or no longer effective, what is to keep them from chipping away at the rest of our rights?
Politics as usual! Funding additional enforcement to laws already in existence costs money, and spending isn't popular and costs votes.

Sponsoring stupid legislation makes one look "active", satisfies some people and attracts votes.

Simple political math. If there's votes or money, it doesn't have to make sense
Reply
post #4 of 89
2/17/09 at 1:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
More useless legislation that will do nothing to deter crime. Here's a novel concept: How about enforcing the laws currently on the books instead of trying to make it more difficult for law abidding gun owners?

Wait, that would make too much sense.

Look at the much larger picture. If they are allowed to mess with the Second Amendment to the point where it's done away with or no longer effective, what is to keep them from chipping away at the rest of our rights?
They have and continue to do this. My rights to animal ownership are being taken away already. Smoking has been banned in many places, what other rights will we loose now?? Makes me sick.
Reply
post #5 of 89
2/17/09 at 2:41pm
I would start worrying about them making ammunition very hard to get also.

They are already chipping away at your rights. This has been going on for a long time.
Reply
post #6 of 89
2/17/09 at 2:49pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by abbycats View Post
I would start worrying about them making ammunition very hard to get also.

They are already chipping away at your rights. This has been going on for a long time.
Was it you who posted before that you worked for an ammo supplier and it was getting hard to fill orders?? I forget who it was....
Reply
post #7 of 89
2/17/09 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Was it you who posted before that you worked for an ammo supplier and it was getting hard to fill orders?? I forget who it was....
Yes, it was me!
Reply
post #8 of 89
2/17/09 at 3:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by abbycats View Post
Yes, it was me!
Well, at least I'm less senile that some would think!

I'm wishing I could forget some of this crazy legislation that's being brought up.
Reply
post #9 of 89
2/17/09 at 6:13pm
What a crock that is.

What if a person doesn't have any "personal mental health records"?
I know I don't have any.
Moronic far left, they just don't get it that people will not give up their right to bear arms. They can pass a million laws, people are going to keep their guns.
Reply
post #10 of 89
2/17/09 at 8:48pm
While I think it's as Skippy says it is -- political posturing to constituents to prove you're doing something and get votes for next election -- I'm concerned all the same as one of these times, they're actually going to get something through if people start taking it as routine politics every time and let up on their guard.

What's really bizarre is the bill's author, Bobby Rush, is a founder of the Black Panther Party and spent time in prison on firearms charges. (Sorry if that little nugget has already been posted)
Reply
post #11 of 89
2/18/09 at 4:06pm
Just a question of curiosity: Since states no longer have a need to maintain a militia, is the Second Amendment still relevant?
Reply
post #12 of 89
2/18/09 at 5:27pm
According to a recent Supreme Court decision, it is. In fact, by just taking the case for a ruling the Court was saying it is. And it upheld the ammendment in a fairly strict constructionist interpretation.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html
Reply
post #13 of 89
2/19/09 at 7:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Politics as usual!

Simple political math. If there's votes or money, it doesn't have to make sense
I'm glad that so far, the people see the sense in it. Harsh enforcement of the laws on the books should suffice; otherwise, only cops & criminals will have guns, and I don't trust either one of those with such power over my own life
Reply
post #14 of 89
2/20/09 at 4:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsknowme View Post
I'm glad that so far, the people see the sense in it. Harsh enforcement of the laws on the books should suffice; otherwise, only cops & criminals will have guns, and I don't trust either one of those with such power over my own life
If civilian firearms were heavily restricted or banned, I'm quite sure that our devout fans, such as al-Qaeda and Hamas, would be more than happy to offer up some of their "wares" to "importers" in order to keep our more ambitions criminals supplied with the tools of their trade.

If you think the average home intruder armed with a Jennings .22 is bad, imagine him showing up armed with a Vz-61 or a Stechkin APS.
Reply
post #15 of 89
2/21/09 at 12:25pm
I have a question(s) for our UK friends on this forum.

Is it still against the law to own handguns there? Do the police carry them? [I know they didn't use to]. Do many people travel to other countries in the EU to purchase handguns? By what means are most homicides committed? Is there a big underground trade in firearms? What are the laws re. rifles or shotguns?

[Just really curious].
Reply
post #16 of 89
2/23/09 at 11:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Here we go. Another new legislative season, another assault on the Second Amendment.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...:h45ih.txt.pdf

from Bobby Rush (D-IL)

The measure calls for all handgun owners to submit to the federal government an application that shall include, among many other things: a photo; an address; a thumbprint; a completed, written firearm safety test; private mental health records; and a fee. And those are only some of the requirements to be licensed!

The bill would further require the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner's address in America.


and the State Legislature in IL is busy as well

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bill...76&LegID=41158
Well, I'm cool with that. We form our opinions from our experiences. Not including the military, I personally knew 4 people who are dead and none who are alive because they had access to guns. I am not saying that guns should be illegal, but I agree with the new requirements.
My ex husband easily purchased a gun, which I hid from him (in my wedding dress LOL!). Among many other things, he had injested 17 Librium one night after we had a fight. I don't think he was stable enough to handle a gun. If he had access to one that night, maybe I would know 5 dead. It could have gone the other way too. Maybe I wouldn't be here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.

A million dollars in insurance??? What are they smoking?
Yeah, a million might be overkill.
Reply
post #17 of 89
2/23/09 at 11:54am
Well, not to worry too much - a large number of those guns are going to be smuggled into Canada for our crooks so you US folks won't have as many to worry about.
Reply
post #18 of 89
2/23/09 at 11:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmberThe Bobcat View Post
They have and continue to do this. My rights to animal ownership are being taken away already. Smoking has been banned in many places, what other rights will we loose now?? Makes me sick.
I don't know what smoking has to do with it. Is it really a right? Personally, I think, the more non smoking places there are, the better. I'm tired of having to move away from the smoke or not go somewhere because I can't breathe comfortably. It would be nice to breathe wherever I want. I want the right to do that.

Long ago, when I waitressed and the non smoking law didn't exist in my state, customers would sometimes blow smoke right at me while I was taking the order.

I'm sure you are a considerate smoker. Lots of people aren't. If all smokers were considerate, laws like this wouldn't be necessary.
Reply
post #19 of 89
2/23/09 at 12:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
I don't know what smoking has to do with it. Is it really a right? Personally, I think, the more non smoking places there are, the better. I'm tired of having to move away from the smoke or not go somewhere because I can't breathe comfortably. It would be nice to breathe wherever I want. I want the right to do that.

Long ago, when I waitressed and the non smoking law didn't exist in my state, customers would sometimes blow smoke right at me while I was taking the order.

I'm sure you are a considerate smoker. Lots of people aren't. If all smokers were considerate, laws like this wouldn't be necessary.
This really is off-topic but I agree with you. I have only been smoke-free for a month but I have to say that even when I smoked, I hated having to walk into the building next door where some folks were standing around smoking. The smell was terrible to me even as a smoker so I can only imagine what it must be like for a non-smoker. I also thought the numerous cigarette butts in the flower beds beside the container for butts was an eyesore. At least if you smoke have the decency to put your butts in the container instead of just throwing them on the ground.
Reply
post #20 of 89
2/23/09 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
This really is off-topic but I agree with you. I have only been smoke-free for a month but I have to say that even when I smoked, I hated having to walk into the building next door where some folks were standing around smoking. The smell was terrible to me even as a smoker so I can only imagine what it must be like for a non-smoker. I also thought the numerous cigarette butts in the flower beds beside the container for butts was an eyesore. At least if you smoke have the decency to put your butts in the container instead of just throwing them on the ground.
Congratulations on your 1st month! I love the dancing banana.
Reply
post #21 of 89
2/23/09 at 1:12pm
Let's get back on topic, folks.
Reply
post #22 of 89
2/23/09 at 7:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
....smuggled into Canada for our crooks ....
There are crooks in Canada????? Naaaaaaaaaa.......well, Montreal cabbies, maybe (if you don't speak French)
Reply
post #23 of 89
2/24/09 at 6:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
There are crooks in Canada????? Naaaaaaaaaa.......well, Montreal cabbies, maybe (if you don't speak French)
Even the police will give you a bum steer (bad directions) if you don't speak French. I learned to just take the directions they give me and reverse them, i.e., if they say turn left, I go right - gets me to my destination exactly right.

Yes, sadly we have crooks in Canada - amazing isn't it?

I'm not a fan of hand guns but I did grow up in a house with rifles as dad was a hunter. We were taught at a very early age not to touch the guns. They were not locked away but the ammunition was put away by my dad. I was taught to shoot by my dad when I was a young woman. I only shot at targets because I certainly could not shoot a living creature.

Handguns have a place I suppose but I'm not sure that place is in private homes. But then I don't live in the US or in a big city in the US so I don't know what kind of protection one needs to live there.
Reply
post #24 of 89
2/24/09 at 8:22am
While the case for handguns as a deterrent has some statistical basis, I think it works somewhat like MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) from the Cold War -- it's the possibility that a handgun might be in the home that serves as the actual protection, not the gun itself. To conclude from that that it's the gun itself that provides protection is probably stretching the statistics beyond the point where they're really saying anything. Because to the statistics about protection against crime, I think you also have to add the statistics about handgun accidents in the home before you can really come to any conclusions about whether or not handguns really serve the end goal of any protection, and that's protection against harm, regardless of what form it may come in.
Reply
post #25 of 89
2/24/09 at 10:29am
Thread Starter 
Not about whether we actually need them or not, its our Constitutional right to own them. Whether you choose to exercise that right is up to the individual.
Reply
post #26 of 89
2/24/09 at 1:03pm
I am a sports shooter. I love shooting trap! I was properly taught how to safely use a firearm shotgun, rifles and handguns. For home defense a shotgun would be my gun of choice. In a situation of home defense it would be my last source of defense if somebody were to break into my home. I don't want to take a life. I am not hunter either.
Reply
post #27 of 89
2/24/09 at 1:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by abbycats View Post
I am a sports shooter. I love shooting trap! I was properly taught how to safely use a firearm shotgun, rifles and handguns. For home defense a shotgun would be my gun of choice. In a situation of home defense it would be my last source of defense if somebody were to break into my home. I don't want to take a life. I am not hunter either.
I certainly don't know the statistics but with what I have heard over the years, my understanding is that most personally owned handguns are used more often in domestic killings or accidental shootings in the home, or are stolen from the owners and used in street killings. Handguns therefore are not really used to protect one's home and family as much as they are toted to be so I question whether one really needs them. Now I can understand having a rifle but just not handguns.

And just because you have a "right" doesn't mean you should have one. Some people obviously shouldn't be allowed to drive, or some shouldn't be allowed to have children, so having a "right" doesn't necessary justify it IMO.
Reply
post #28 of 89
2/24/09 at 2:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I certainly don't know the statistics but with what I have heard over the years, my understanding is that most personally owned handguns are used more often in domestic killings or accidental shootings in the home, or are stolen from the owners and used in street killings. Handguns therefore are not really used to protect one's home and family as much as they are toted to be so I question whether one really needs them. Now I can understand having a rifle but just not handguns.

And just because you have a "right" doesn't mean you should have one. Some people obviously shouldn't be allowed to drive, or some shouldn't be allowed to have children, so having a "right" doesn't necessary justify it IMO.

Don't know if this is a Canadian thing but couldn't have said it better myself. No idea why so many people are so obsessed with owning guns and their 'right' to own guns, especially handguns, all they were invented to do was injure and kill other humans. I know people who enjoy shooting at targets for sport or whatever, that's fine if you gun only goes to and from the shooting range, then comes home and gets LOCKED up where it isn't easily accessible in the heat of the moment, by children or by theives....... I guess in that case I can see the desire to own a handgun.
Reply
post #29 of 89
2/24/09 at 4:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I certainly don't know the statistics but with what I have heard over the years, my understanding is that most personally owned handguns are used more often in domestic killings or accidental shootings in the home, or are stolen from the owners and used in street killings. Handguns therefore are not really used to protect one's home and family as much as they are toted to be so I question whether one really needs them. Now I can understand having a rifle but just not handguns.

And just because you have a "right" doesn't mean you should have one. Some people obviously shouldn't be allowed to drive, or some shouldn't be allowed to have children, so having a "right" doesn't necessary justify it IMO.
Ok, just to say, I do think there should be VERY strict criteria to owning guns. I have no problem going and being checked out...I think the only thing I have against me is a few bounced checks a few years ago. I do think the $1,000,000.00 insurance is extreme though.

Now, Linda...have you ever tried to put a rifle in a drawer in the bedroom in case someone breaks in? It's not easy. I think you, or someone else stated that you didn't live in a big city so didn't know what it was like. I don't like in a big city, but my uncle (who is now around 90) moved to Baltimore in the 60's and lived there until he had a stroke about 8 years ago. He had a hand gun (registered) with a laser pointer taped on it. It was the only way he could feel safe.

What the US has to do is crack down on the people that are found with guns illegally. If criminals still have guns, honestly citizens have to have something to protect themselves with.
Reply
post #30 of 89
2/25/09 at 8:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmunsie View Post
: No idea why so many people are so obsessed with owning guns and their 'right' to own guns, especially handguns
I'm going to say something that even many people in the U.S. aren't getting (I know neetanddave will get this):

it isn't about guns

People in the U.S. aren't obsessed with owning guns and the right to own guns. What we ARE obsessed with (at least those of us who have any sense) is our rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and what we see as a continuing assault on those rights under various disguises, such as gun control in the name of safety. We're obsessed with maintaining our Consitutional rights because we know that once a right guaranteed by the Constitution is lost, it's never regained. And why the line in the sand on the Second Ammendment is so important is because if we give up even one ammendment's rights, all the others are in jeopardy. And I'm so glad that the current U.S. Supreme Court recognizes this and recently upheld the Second Ammendment with a "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Ammendment in a ruling against Washington DC's handgun laws, a city where, of any place else in the nation, you'd think handgun control could be most justified.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › US Gun Owners Rights