STOP EXTREME GUN CONTROL BILL H.R. 127

[Erik Nelson]

Take the suicides out, and then look at the numbers.

People in gun-restricted countries have no difficulty killing themselves when they want to.

Knives, hammers, clubs, fists all caused more homicides in 2019 than "rifles" (e.g. AR-15)

The super-majority of gun homicides = handguns = 6K = 1/6th of vehicle fatalities

If people were actually sincere, they'd be complaining 6x more about (non-US Constitution-protected) vehicle fatalities & injuries than handguns...and wouldn't even be bothering to talk about "AR-15s" and "assault rifles" which no US Law Enforcement professional considers a primary means of homicide

No credible indication of sincerity being at issue, though. In theory, gun owners and the NRA could plausibly come to some kind of acceptable good faith arrangement, with Law Enforcement, regarding handguns, which might be construable as somewhat less of a "militia" weapon and do cause more problems for (say) small business owners & restaurant proprietors (mostly Trump supporters?) across the country.

2019 FBI Crime Statistics Show Hammers, Clubs Again Outrank Rifle Murders – Personal Defense World

 

[Erik Nelson]

Really? Who?

You were born on stolen land. You have no legitimate basis for rights, and any pretext which strips you of your unfounded protections is "justified"

 

[Desk trauma]

You were born on stolen land. You have no legitimate basis for rights, and any pretext which strips you of your unfounded protections is "justified"

Do pick a position.

 

[A2SG]

They should be treated according to the US Constitution

The End

So all gun owners need to join a "well-regulated militia" then?

-- A2SG, if we're going by the specific wording of the amendment, that is.....

 

[VirOptimus]

You were born on stolen land. You have no legitimate basis for rights, and any pretext which strips you of your unfounded protections is "justified"

Do spell it out, I dont get it.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

If this bill becomes law the DNC will lose control in 2022 and POTUS in 2024.

 

[Arcangl86]

If this bill becomes law the DNC will lose control in 2022 and POTUS in 2024.

Good thing there is no indication it is even being taken seriously by Democratic leadership then.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Do pick a position.

either / or ?

 

[Desk trauma]

either / or ?

That's what one does with mutually exclusive positions.

Also, care to admit the issue with your quote that did not come from Stalin?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Good thing there is no indication it is even being taken seriously by Democratic leadership then.

Thank you for your reply. I needed to hear what you wrote! I'm glad it is just some and mirrors, for several reasons, not the least of which is the protection of our Constitutional rights to bear arms. If you are a Democrat, having witnessed the attack on our Capital, the threats to Governors and state headquarters, and a threat to individual security, you should want the best defense possible for you and especially to protect your family. If you are a Republican, you have different motives but again, you could have a Democrat in the future who takes a similar approach to Trump except for left extremists and a future POTUS who tries to become a dictator and become an enemy of the US Constitution. I was once in the USAF and took the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. Independents and other party members have both right and left-wing extremists to worry about in the future. What transpired on January 6th is a valid reason to maintain our Constitutional right to bear arms. As a smaller, disabled, and now an older man, I want the ability to protect my wife and son when he visits with a credible deterrent to any gangs or street violence that attempts to invade our home.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

 

[rjs330]

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall issue to any person who has applied for a license pursuant to subsection (c) and has paid to the Attorney General the fee specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection a policy that insures the person against liability for losses and damages resulting from the use of any firearm by the person during the 1-year period that begins with the date the policy is issued.


“(2) FEE.—The fee specified in this paragraph is $800.”.


Those in poverty will now find it even more expensive to defend themselves. Meanwhile the wealthy can just hire security that come with their own guns.

The gun black market would just get stronger. This bill in effect will prohibit the poor from owning a gun.

 

[rjs330]

. Your source thinks that a law can "nullify" a constitutional amendment?

Why worry about this bill? If it’s clearly unconstitutional the Supreme Court will strike it down, and the court is conservative to boot.

I'm not particularly worried about THIS bill. But it is an obvious indication what the left wants to do. And we have seen that the left will continue with this effort and never stop until it happens. Pack the supreme court and then try again. Get new states that will generate more democrat representatives and remain in power and eventually you get to do what you want. This kind of bill just demonstrates the lefts strong desire to shred the constitution. And lack of respect for it.

 

[Belk]

I'm not particularly worried about THIS bill. But it is an obvious indication what the left wants to do. And we have seen that the left will continue with this effort and never stop until it happens. Pack the supreme court and then try again. Get new states that will generate more democrat representatives and remain in power and eventually you get to do what you want. This kind of bill just demonstrates the lefts strong desire to shred the constitution. And lack of respect for it.

Oh noes! not "The Left"!(Dun dun dun)


This is not a representation of what the left wants. Should I paint everyone on the right as wanting to storm the capital and kill Nancy Pelosi?

 

[Arcangl86]

I'm not particularly worried about THIS bill. But it is an obvious indication what the left wants to do. And we have seen that the left will continue with this effort and never stop until it happens. Pack the supreme court and then try again. Get new states that will generate more democrat representatives and remain in power and eventually you get to do what you want. This kind of bill just demonstrates the lefts strong desire to shred the constitution. And lack of respect for it.

A single representative supports this bill and that "demonstrates the lefts strong desire to shred the constitution."

Does that mean H.R. 83 demonstrates the right's strong desire to shred the constitution?

 

[Erik Nelson]

your quote that did not come from Stalin?

Why'd a high school have to apologize for using that quote b/c it came from Stalin?

​

High School Apologizes After Yearbook Includes Hitler, Stalin Quotes (nbcnews.com)

mutually exclusive positions.

From your big heart you care so much for the Apache, Blackhawk, and Cherokee?

Your idol Stalin said (1907) he had "no warm feelings for humanity":

 

[Desk trauma]

Why'd a high school have to apologize for using that quote b/c it came from Stalin?

Because it's widely believed to be something he said but there is no contemporary source quoting him as having said it.

From your big heart you care so much for the Apache, Blackhawk, and Cherokee?

I have no idea what you're trying to get at here.

Your idol Stalin...

Really? My idol? Oh that's just darling. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[rjs330]

Oh noes! not "The Left"!(Dun dun dun)


This is not a representation of what the left wants. Should I paint everyone on the right as wanting to storm the capital and kill Nancy Pelosi?

And how many of those provisions in that bill are you opposed to? How many do you support?

You might want to read some of the posts of your colleagues. They like many of these provisions.

creates a national firearm registry that anyone – including every
level of law enforcement and the military – can access.

The registry would require one to tell the government exactly
where one’s firearms are stored.

One would need a license simply to own a firearm.
Mandatory “psychological evaluations” are required receive this license.

One would need to pay $800 for “firearm insurance.”

It would enact extreme ammunition restrictions, including
a ban on magazines more than 10 rounds.

Violating the above provisions could lead to a prison sentence
of up to 40 years and a fine of up to $150,000."

 

[Belk]

And how many of those provisions in that bill are you opposed to? How many do you support?

You might want to read some of the posts of your colleagues. They like many of these provisions.

Oh they do? Quote them.

 

[rjs330]

Yeah too bad there isn't places near Chicago where you can buy guns then go there....dang.

People don't do that. Bad guys don't drive to the nearest Dave's Sporting goods, load up on guns and ammo then drive to Chicago and sell them. Cause guess what, you have to register those legal guns They get the on the black market. Gun smugglers ananymous etc. It's the illegal guns the criminals get.

It's the same old axiom and it's true. Good guys rarely commit crimes with guns. Bad guys usually commit crimes with illegal guns. Most of the murders in Chicago are committed by guns gained by illegal means.