Must pass test, be photographed and fingerprinted to print newsletters?

[erps]

This gun control battle has been going on since before the American Revolution when the British tried to disarm the citizens at Concord as someone already mentioned. The strategy was uncovered by George Mason back in those times too:

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that is was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.."

[travler37]

Originally Posted by erps

What if our new government required that you go register, have your picture taken, get fingerprinted and pass a written test before you went out and held up a protest sign, or printed up political handouts? Would that be a concern?

That's what they're proposing with bill H.R. 45 if you own firearms. If they can do it with one right, they can do it with others.

SayUncle » HR 45

Drat,
I have to register, have your picture taken, get fingerprinted and pass a written test to deliver said protest sighns.And have ben concerned about it for years.Your just now concerned?

About Time
Mark

[travler37]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Yup. But in many cities, you'll still have to pay $50-125 per year to keep your weapon registered, or to keep a permit for it.

Legal weapons you mean,
Not saying these laws have made some of us criminals....
Mark

[travler37]

Now wifes family,
They are Adams as in privateer or pirate depending on whose history you read.They sailed and did there thing.....Cannon they had on there ships are currantly against the law here.

Guns that made this country are now outlawed...vote with your feet an leave...nuff said.

Mark

PS...This poast is more about history than government so should it not be moved to off topic?

[xort]

The disturbing thought to me is that this will become public information. Just like you can search govt records for houses, cars, boats, sex offenders; you could search to see if I'm on the list of gun owners. No gun makes me an easier target for criminals. So I'm going to have to go buy a gun just to make sure everybody knows I'm packing.

Gun ownership will go UP!

[jjns]

Please enlighten me, being Canadian, I do not have the same desire to own a gun, but I do have a few questions about the whole HANDGUN issue.
(I do get the argument for a long gun, especially if one has a farm or lives in bear country, but that is a seperate issue)

1) As they are not very accurate, what is the big desire to have one, unless it is to have the ability to KILL a person at close range.
2) As they are not very accurate, it wouldn't make any sense to use it to hunt would it? Personally I don't want to get up close and personal with an angry bear.
3) Back in the day when the 'wild west' was a reality I can somewhat justify the handgun thing, but we have come a little way since then, no?
4) Your constitution mentions the right to bear arms but doesn't specify the type, so theoretically grenade launchers should be legal as well, no?
While I am being silly, what about say cluster bombs?
5) In the last couple of years, the most powerful long gun in the world was invented in the US, the claim to fame I heard at the time, was it was 'able to take down a commercial airliner at 2 miles' . What is the hunting season for airliners? (That way I will know when it is safe to travel)
6) While most gun owners are responsible and learn proper care and control, there will always be those that don't. So should our laws PROTECT the ignorant? Perhaps having a little required training isn't such a bad thing?
We do require people to LEARN how to drive before letting them do it.

For the record, I am NOT a PETA type. While I do not hunt, I do fish, so I get the whole feeding my family/enjoying the hunt, thing.
While I do not require a license to own a fishing rod, if I am in an area of fish habitat and have my equipment but no license, I would be in a world of hurt, if caught.
I do not have a problem with that. Especially if it means that it makes it harder for poachers to operate.
I am not FOR gov't intervention, but as distasteful as it is, it is required sometimes.

OKAY, I have my helmet on and am ready for ENLIGHTENMENT.
Fire away.

[erps]

1) As they are not very accurate, what is the big desire to have one, unless it is to have the ability to KILL a person at close range.

it is the desire to have a small portable tool to stop someone from robbing/raping/killing you. Often, just brandishing the tool to an attacker stops the attack.

2) As they are not very accurate, it wouldn't make any sense to use it to hunt would it? Personally I don't want to get up close and personal with an angry bear.

You're right, hand guns don't make good hunting tools. The right to bear arms isn't about hunting though.

3) Back in the day when the 'wild west' was a reality I can somewhat justify the handgun thing, but we have come a little way since then, no?

I suppose we've made some progress, but police still feel a need to wear sidearms. So I guess we're not there yet.

4) Your constitution mentions the right to bear arms but doesn't specify the type, so theoretically grenade launchers should be legal as well, no?
While I am being silly, what about say cluster bombs?

You're right. We were having this discussion on another thread. I wondered whether there was private ownership of cannons back in the day and another board member indicated that there was.

5) In the last couple of years, the most powerful long gun in the world was invented in the US, the claim to fame I heard at the time, was it was 'able to take down a commercial airliner at 2 miles' . What is the hunting season for airliners?

It's unlawful to shoot down airliners. It's unlawful to hi-jack them with box cutters too. Again, the right to bear arms isn't about hunting.

While most gun owners are responsible and learn proper care and control, there will always be those that don't. So should our laws PROTECT the ignorant?

There are probably many firearm owners that might sign on with something like that if they were sure that's where it would end. I for one don't believe that would be the case. I believe that once we allow the goverment to start testing us, they will test us right out of our right to own a firearm for self defense.

[hellosailor]

jjns-
You're almost right, the purpose of a handgun is not to KILL, but rather, to have the POWER TO KILL As Samuel Colt said, a gun is a great "equalizer".

And every day, someone in the US kicks in a door or breaks a window and forcibly enters a home. Sometimes the homeowners are lucky enough to own a handgun, and then they can try to KILL the attacking criminal. Wounding is enough, usually, but killing an attacker is much safer than debating how much wounding it takes to stop the attack.
These attacks, and others, are documented every day in a thousand small newspapers and other local sources. They are not generally carried by our national press.

A little research would also tell you that simply having handguns out in the general population also serves a deterrent effect. An equalizer. Over a decade ago Florida made big news by legalizing concealed carry handgun licenses, and making ownership in general very simple. You know what happened? Our federal DOJ, and Florida state officials, and variuous private (university) polls all got the same response from convicted felons: "I'm not going to try to rob someone anymore, they might shoot back!" The armed robbers, cowards who relied on the superior force of their illegal weapons (guns, knives, big muscles, whatever) quite literally changed careers to burgle unoccupied homes, etc., because if you know the general population is armed--you can't take the same advantage over them. They MIGHT SHOOT BACK.

Simply having the power is enough. You don't have to use it.

Estimate that were accepted by our Supreme Court in the recent case of gun laws in Washington DC indicate that hand guns are brandished--shown but not used--some two million times per year in the US. That's two million times that someone had the restraint not to kill--but demonstrated the power to do so. Two million assaults, robberies, and other crimes stopped without a shot being fired.

That's what you don't get from the Nooze.

As for the size of weapons, and the limits of weapons...That's a whole other issue. Personal weapon ownership has been curtailed in the US since our Civil War, when illegal paramilitary organizations (that's the official term) claiming to be militias wreaked havoc in large areas. Our federal government has done its best to make "militia" a dirty word, but that's a whole other debate. Don't confuse the two.

We, the American People, are supposed to have the power and training to be a military force when we stand to as a militia. And, we are still mandated by law for both federal and state militia service--which surprises the hell out of most folks, but it is also the legal underpinning of our draft, our "National Guard" and our entire military system. So far, the weasels haven't figured out a way to outlaw one without destroying the other. Not completely, not yet.

[N0NJY]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

See, just this one tidbit is exactly what I'm talking about.

You cited...
"In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately." Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks. Gun politics in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

Along with a stack full of other stuff.
Heres the problem I have with all of the pabulum.
WHY was it was enacted? It had to be as a CONDITION of the
TREATY OF VERSAILLES, (you've heard of it, right? )
they were made to get rid of everything remotely connected to anything going "bang" ok? this makes me NOT want to read the rest of the stuff. at all.

I think that was directed at me. Yes, I do know the treaty of Versailles. However, there were other issues that came up after that which used that treaty as a basis to prevent certain GROUPS from having guns.

The point, since you didn't get it is simple. One bad law leads to more bad laws. If you restrict something which is a right, it gives precedent (and thus people like you say, "well, it's OK because it was OK before...") and thus more and more restrictions are built, one upon the other.

In response to a message previous to the one of yours I just cited, you stated something about "making more laws" to make it a crime to use a gun in a violent act or something along those lines.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but that is ALREADY the case in almost every jurisdiction in the United States. Thus, why make ANOTHER LAW??????????

[N0NJY]

Originally Posted by Boasun

TWIC, Transportation Idenification Card. IS required for all of us who have to work on commerical vessels and to enter the ports where your vessel is moored. The people who work in those ports have to have one also. And at $135 US to me it is another tax. And if you don't have one, you need to be escorted everywhere in that port. And that is not the Escort service you find in the big cities.
Photos, fingerprinted and a computer chipped card. FBI back ground check and so forth...
This is on top of our USCG documents & Licenses... And those fees are $145 US

And we call this country the Land of the Free??? Yeah Right!?

I mentioned this in another thread some time back. Those ID cards are also called Common Access Cards, CACs and are already required by all military and most Federal Buildings for access. I carry one now for my use to various places I have to access... They are the new "National ID card" - and they will eventually be used by everyone. It was simply a matter of time.