Be afraid! Very afraid

outrider58 said:

Now I'm Very Afraid!

We all know this will never pass as written. The scary part is even if just one increment of it is passed, it is a victory for the commies. They'll continue to chisel away at our God given rights until there are none left.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "God given rights"?

Here is the full bill incase anyone is looking for it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/127/text

Completely ridiculous!

MossPumper said:

What do you mean by "God given rights"?

Click to expand...

Usually, that's another way of referring to "natural rights." Which is to say, a right (as we usually use that term) to something that objectively exists and can be identified through reason, due to our very existence as sentient human beings. To wit, your right to self defense. Nobody has the right to simply decide to kill you without your obvious right to try to prevent that. Self defense.

The founders recognized that natural right, and knowing (having just lived under a Crown that capriciously reserved the right to life and death for that Crown) that powerful people sometimes want to deny you your right to defend yourself, made sure that their newly chartered country couldn't interfere with that natural right of self defense. Including the keeping and bearing of arms as a natural feature of that right.

Of course you know all of that, so the real question is: what's your rhetorical reason for pretending you didn't get the reference?

Well, like smoking, first it was a special area, than it was a totally separate room and then out side, then down the street five blocks. Hell I feel bad for smokers and I quit years ago. As said, they will keep throwing $hit against the wall until something sticks. Thats what they do. I do now one thing, I feel I've complied with enough bs regulations.

I feel like sleepy J is like king Charles II and our congress is like the Parliament.

They can pass all the ****ing laws they want. When they get to my doorstep to try and force a single one of them there will be a gun fight in more than one person will die it’s his ****ing simple as that people grow some ****ing balls or shut the **** up and go crawl in your basement with a liberal

Kiaju said:

They can pass all the ****ing laws they want. When they get to my doorstep to try and force a single one of them there will be a gun fight in more than one person will die it’s his ****ing simple as that people grow some ****ing balls or shut the **** up and go crawl in your basement with a liberal

Click to expand...

Coming into this forum hot.

Nice 2nd post....

Get kicked from 4chan or something? Take this crap somewhere else.

Kiaju said:

They can pass all the ****ing laws they want. When they get to my doorstep to try and force a single one of them there will be a gun fight in more than one person will die it’s his ****ing simple as that people grow some ****ing balls or shut the **** up and go crawl in your basement with a liberal

Click to expand...

You're suspended. Your internet tough guy ******** doesn't impress us. Every one of your posts has been this same juvenile claptrap. Your suspension will expire, but I'll be shocked if your return trip is a long one. Prove me wrong, please.

SkiPatrolDude said:

Coming into this forum hot.

Nice 2nd post....

Get kicked from 4chan or something? Take this crap somewhere else.

Click to expand...

Something, like Calguns

It won't, and those who introduced it are fully aware of won't. If this even gets sent into committee, which is unlikely at best, it would likely die a slow death before it ever came out. That said, there are little bits and pieces of it which I'm not opposed to, parts I oppose to as point I probably wouldn't comply with absent a threat to imprison, and other parts which are meaningless.

This was written by a far left individual who is either obfuscating their true motives (pacify constituents, satisfy doner committments, trying to build a tangible record to reference back to, etc.), or they are blissfully unaware of the fact that since the Clinton scary rifle ban in the 90's, Federal firearms laws are very difficult to change. And when they do, it sure as hell isn't using a bill as specific as this one. The 2A issue, unlike others like immigration or abortion, cannot be legitimately pegged to a distinct place somewhere along the political spectrum. Yes, it's largely considered a core value of the conservative side, but if that were actually true, we'd look far more like the UK or Australia already.

Think about it, what was the last time anything even close to looking like this actually made it through to law in the US? I'd offer that the aforementioned Clinton era ban is the only I would say. So what happened? What happened is that despite the widely held view that conservatives are the only Americans who own, enjoy, use, and believe in retaining the rights to do so, those opinions, in one form or another, are shared across a far broader swath of the American political construct.

If someone is hell bent on reducing the number of firearms legally owned in the US, this is exactly the wrong way to go about it. First, doing so at the Federal level is an exercise in futility, Clinton blew that load when his 10 year ban on the sale of any new 'assault' rifles, which I'm terms of reducing gun violence or killings amounted to exactly dick. As with many other issues, if a person or group wants to change laws, focusing on State laws is offers an far greater probability of success. We live in Maryland, we are all keenly aware of that.

If they insist on changing the Federal gun laws, they better learn that as with most laws, the more ambiguous the changes in a bill are, the higher chance that bill has to ever become law. This bill gets WAYY to far into the weeds with specifics, and that's a non-starter. At first glance, most would probably say that a law which is specific and allows for no interpretation is preferable to a law which is vague, ambiguous, and requires interpretation by the Executive and Judicial branches. In a few cases they would be correct, but for the vast majority of no kidding Federal statutory laws are ambiguous as hell, and were written that way intentionally.

Why? The most common and significant justifications relate to the fact that what most Americans call 'Federal laws', are not laws, instead they are "Federal regulations". When compared to laws, regulations are infinitely more specific and really get into the topics and industries they were written to regulate. That said, many are written just as vague ass most laws, and again, done so as a regular order of business.

The distinction between laws and regulations are pretty cut and dry, but are often we erroneously used interchangeably in discussions. If something is a law, it started as a bill in whatever legislative body it was introduced to, was likely debated, submitted into at least one, but likely multiple committees and subcommittees, eventually put to some version of a floor vote where it was passed. Then it was sent to that chamber's counterpart, depending on off it started in the upper or lower legislative body and run through the same process. After the second run, it goes back into committee where the two chambers arm wrestle and debate any differences in the two versions, and eventually came out, and was again subject to a floor vote in both chambers. Then, we have a law. Because that process is so difficult, takes so long, bills are generally introduced for a handful of specific issues. 2A, budget, and some military issues are some examples.

So what's a regulation, what's the difference and why have another mechanism? Congress has the sole authority for developing all legislative law in the US, but in many cases don't have any expertise of the industries that need to be legislated. Plus, they can barely do what there Constitution mandates as it is, can you imagine if they were required to also write all the laws needed to regulate even a small industry, say like railroads? So, the forefathers being as brilliant as they were, anticipated this and made provisions in the Constitution to create a legal mechanism which had been used since the first state's ratification. Legislative Delegation of Statutory Authority.

So, Aviation, a highly complex, technical, visible, and critical industry in our nation's economy. The last thing anyone needs is something that big and important being regulated by those without the expertise to understand what they are regulating. Instead, there is a federal law which was passed in Congress which legally delegates all but a handful of the regulatory aspects of this industry to the appropriate Executive Branch Cabinet level Department, in this case the Department of Transportation, which in turn further deligates these authorities to the Department's most appropriate agency, in this case, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Then, with their workforce of 60,000 or so of the smartest aviation nerds you could ever imagine, the FAA goes through what's called the regulatory rule making process, which eventually yields the regulations the industry works under. It's important to note, based on the language used in the delegating Law passed by Congress, these regulations, which were drafted by multiple unelected civil servants, have the force and legal standing of a law passed by Congress. This bothers some people who feel having to live under the laws imposed upon them by unelected people is Unconstitutional, and that Congress is passing the buck. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind, but for what it's worth, trust me when I say we do NOT want Congress meddling in things they are ill equipped to understand or make sound legal arguments for.

The only reason Congress won't deligate the 2A law making in it's entirety to the likes of the ATF is for 2 irrefutable reasons. 1. It relates directly to rights guarenteed but the Constitution, and 2. it's FAR too controversial an issue to be delegated, and they don't want to relinquish the political capital that debating the issue in the legislative halls earns them with the constitutants they represent.

So, basically, I wouldn't sweat it. The truth is, nonsensical partisan bickering aside, 2A rights are something that not only conservatives value, with only the most extreme leftist progressives actually wishing for the blanket gun seizing that many conservative alarmists would have us believe is an ever present threat and easy for the left to impose. It's not and it won't be for a very long time.

Erock said:

It's gut check . There is no more avoiding this. They have pushed us to the edge. Are you going to roll over or rise up?. Do you think our children will be able to fight this battle? No! They will not be able to. If you give one shit About your family and our country you will say enough. They are taking our rights away one Tyranical law at a time . I have lived a pretty long good life. I want my family to be able to have the same. I am telling you right now we cannot let this go. We must organize, rise up and Rid country of these demons. As we speak they are planning a massive False flag event. This event will be the spark they need to relieve us of our freedoms totally!! What say you?

Click to expand...

You have only 4 posts on here. Talking about false flags, would not put it past the powers that be to putting new people on gun forums to look for so called insurrectionists and posting something inflammatory. If your legite well exercising some common sense might be in order if they are.

Occam said:

Usually, that's another way of referring to "natural rights." Which is to say, a right (as we usually use that term) to something that objectively exists and can be identified through reason, due to our very existence as sentient human beings. To wit, your right to self defense. Nobody has the right to simply decide to kill you without your obvious right to try to prevent that. Self defense.

The founders recognized that natural right, and knowing (having just lived under a Crown that capriciously reserved the right to life and death for that Crown) that powerful people sometimes want to deny you your right to defend yourself, made sure that their newly chartered country couldn't interfere with that natural right of self defense. Including the keeping and bearing of arms as a natural feature of that right.

Of course you know all of that, so the real question is: what's your rhetorical reason for pretending you didn't get the reference?

Click to expand...

Thank you. Einstein was sitting this one out...

This is a full blown attack on all those conservatives that insurrected or not. It's all part of their big plan to control dissent. Since we are so F'ing crazy we can't be trusted with weapons. This is bad with the House/Senate/POTUS controlled by Dems. Yeah yeah, SCOTUS and all but that is 15 years before a decision is made.

Gee..... should I sell my gun collection?

tailgunner said:

Gee..... should I sell my gun collection?

Click to expand...

Have you seen prices lately?

Dang BigNuzs I had to go get a sandwich and soda to get me through that read.

More fear mongering, or at least worthless hand ringing by those that don't do any due dilligence. (I don't mean that in a bad way).

She brings up this bill every session, it has no co-sponsors, and it never gets a committee hearing.

I will be concerned about this bill if one of two things happens;
1. Co-sponsors sign on.
2. It gets a committee hearing.

Until one of those two things happens, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this bill.

Brother, just knowing someone read the results of my cognitive vomiting warms my heart!! Am I pushing my luck to all if any part of my US Civics 101 textbook that post turned into? Even if you disagree with some or all, I like that we are able to conduct some good ole fashioned civil discord!

If it wasn't obvious from my chosen example, I worked at the FAA for years in the Air Space Rule Making office on a job that still reigns as the most God awefully boring position I've ever suffered through. Not because of the airspace or rulemaking aspects, I'm quite capable of getting my serious nerd on! No, it sucked because of the specific position I was hired for "Environmental Specialist", and the work that the position entailed. Nevermind that I was hired into the position without as much as an interview, which may have prevented the entire thing based on my absolute lack of qualifications for the job. Most people assume the work involved making sure that the FAA conducts it's business as good environmental stewards, a misconception some of my colleagues regrettably made too. Most people would guess that we make sure the FAA makes decisions and builds procedures and systems only after considering the impacts to the environment. Seems like a noble endeavor if nothing else. But the reality is that the position, the team, and the work we did was all predicated on a single law called the National Environmental Policy Act (notice the term 'policy' is used, not 'protection'), or NEPA (pronounced nee-PAH).

The work I did was centered in it's entirety, on making sure the FAA is able to take the regulatory actions it is determined to take, and does so while remaining in compliance with federal environmental requirements. Basically, my job was to reduce, to the greatest extent possible, any potential litigation liabilities the agency could be exposed to which could results in on a civil legal challenge that the action violates one of many Federal environmental laws (Clean Air, Clean Water, etc.). At it's core, NEPA mandates that before any US Government entity makes a decision, any decision, it must first study and assess whether or not the action will result in any impacts to the natural or human environment. Natural environment is the traditional idea of the term, human environment is anything that disrupts the lives of US citizens. It should come as no surprise to most that our primary focus st the FAA was noise.

Here's the rub, though, and why even if I chose to endure the boredom the everyday tasks represented, the government, in my opinion, is happy to misrepresent the purpose of the law, the benefits it provides everyday citizens, and the regulatory power the law wields. The majority of people who are exposed to the law in one way or the other assume, rightfully so, that the requirements stipulated by NEPA are there to ensure USG agencies don't make decisions which could have catastrophic environmentally damaging effects on neighborhoods, communities, and natural resources they value. This is true, but only on the surface, and it's how the law is used by the agencies that is unethical in my opinion. People would ask "Where in the NEPA Process does the government agency find out that the environmental costs are too great and prevent the initiative from moving forward?". The answer is always the same and always disheartening for them to hear: Never.

The original intention of those who created the law back in 1974 was probably made in good faith, but you wouldn't be the first person to question even that. NEPA MUST be complied with, there are no 'ands', 'ifs', or 'buts' about it. But compliance of NEPA, whilst stupid expensive and frustratingly slow (ask Elon Musk about it!!), is usually just a wicket to get through, one amongst many others. This is because NEPA is in no way a protective law, it is simply a disclosure law. Once the government discloses if significant impacts will be likely, and exactly what those impacts will be, done through mind-numbingly boring thousand-page reports called Environmental Assessments (EA), and the EA's bigger, way more expensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The first is used if no impacts are expected, and can range in costs between $6-$10 Million each taking 12 - 24 months on average, with potential for longer. If during an EA an impact is identified that would be considered "significant", or if the project proponent is already confident that significant impacts are a high probability, then they conduct an EIS, which costs between $10-$25 million each, and can add another 10 years to the process. Avoiding the requirment to complete an EIS is pretty much the prime goal of most proponents, which brings me to the next ethical failure.

NEPA requires that during the EA and EIS process, the proponent of the initiative must hold multiple public forums where the full extent of the project will be available for public inspection, the public can ask questions, but mostly so the public can submit what's called "formal comments" either supporting, opposing, or maintaining a neutral position, and provide written and verbal testimony into the formal record, and which the proponent MUST respond to. This sounds good, but isn't. Those involved are fully aware that NEPA can't, won't, and has no legal power to stop a project or chance it in anyway, something the public is largely oblivious to. The common misconception is that this is their opportunity to present for the record, the negative effects they believe these impacts will have on their lives, livelihood, and communities. Knowing that the public is misinformed, the proponent is thrilled to speak with every single one and read all the testimony provided as a means of determining where the line in the sand falls between no legal standing and a judge seeing merit and issuing an injunction to stop all work. If a person informs then that a project will cause x amount of noise, and they read that noise levels of x-1 is considered "significant", the proponent will ensure that they will modify the proposal to prevent that from happening. And they absolutely will because otherwise that EA turned into an EIS. The problem is how the level considered a significant noise impact is determined. Spoiler alert, it's arbitrary nonsense based on a single study conducted in the 1940's, and makes FAR too many caveats.

So now that the proponent is aware of this, they will study it further to determine validity (people say lots of stuff, after all). If they find it is invalid, that's the end. If they find that it is a valid point, they then modify whatever aspect of the proposal is causing the impact to exceed the arbitrary measure of significance as little as possible, literally adjusting enough to make ensure the impact will fall short of the significant level. I call this: cheating.

In the end, because it's nothing more than a disclosure law, the proponent can spend the money and time to create an EIS that when printed out on standard 8½x11 paper constituents 7-8 fully packed 4" binders. In those binders, they will outline their methodology, details on how they did it did not mitigate each significant impact, pay the contactor who wrote it the $20 million they charged, and they have now complied with NEPA. Here's the deal, if the DoD decided they needed a new test range in Maine for the new Mother of the Mother of All Bombs, took 2 decades and held hundreds of meetings and spent way too much money, presented their fresh of the press EIS, and that EIS outlined in clear terms that every bald eagle for 300 miles would be killed, a small village's water supply would become poisoned and need filtering, and every tree for 400 miles would be cut and burned Rain Forest style, the DoD has complied with NEPA and is fully within their legal rights to move ahead.

Obviously politics would play a tremendous role in preventing that scenario from happening, but trust me that shit happens regularly across the country on a far smaller scale all the time. The amount of money spent on complying with NEPA would make you stroke out, especially if you saw how little they all differ in the end.

I decided to get the hell out, and somehow jumped into the Intel Community where I was privileged enough to be a part of what is a massive machine which was designed to, and with spectacular efficiency succeeds in hunting down those who would do our nation harm, and "removes those individuals from the battlespace". There are no words to describe the difference in job satisfaction I drew from each job, but you can probably imagine.

INCH IT IN

boothdoc said:

Death by a 1000 cuts. And they are good at it.

Click to expand...

Yrs, the Democraps are very good at incrementally take our rights away and never stop until they are all gone.

buckmasterisdon said:

Yrs, the Democraps are very good at incrementally take our rights away and never stop until they are all gone.

Click to expand...

Did you read the actual bill? Did you look at the associated previous bill from the last Congress?

This bill isn't going anywhere, just like the previous ones.