Customer Discussions > Politics forum

SB1813 - Obama moves to ban guns - Boxer proposed the bill after working with the whitehouse.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 87 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 27, 2012 11:47:52 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 27, 2012 11:52:51 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 28, 2012 12:57:52 AM PDT
Mende Mui says:
I thought Obama was also going to ban Bikinis?

Posted on May 28, 2012 1:03:30 AM PDT
John M. Lane says:
When bikinis are banned, only outlaws will have bikinis!

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 1:05:00 AM PDT
Axiomatic!!! says:
That would be grounds for immediate impeachment.

I'd even buy a pitchfork.....

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 2:17:19 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 4:20:07 AM PDT
Intrepid says:
Here is the summary - one hotlink from your citation.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN01813:@@@D&summ2=m&

What guns?!? Bad rumor.

It "Authorizes appropriations out of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) (other than the Mass Transit Account) equal to current federal highway spending levels plus inflation for FY2012 and FY2013 for: (1) certain new and existing core federal-aid highway programs, and (2) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative expenses."

I suggest you see an ophthalmologist and request new glasses before you go shooting if you think this bill pertains to guns...
Also don't read the blogs you read. They mislead you.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 4:05:39 AM PDT
PF says:
To be fair, Intrepid, there is a firearms provision in the version of the bill that passed. However, it's the exact opposite of Mcdougal's assertion. It's a free passage provision such that restrictions on transport of firearms on federal highways cannot be imposed.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1813es/pdf/BILLS-112s1813es.pdf

See page 1320.

Typical Mcdougal, telling us the exact opposite of the content of a piece of legislation and hoping we won't check up on his nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 4:27:01 AM PDT
Intrepid says:
You are right PF. I saw the full text but buried deep it says it does _not_ pertain. So really it is what gun ban? It says nothing of the sort. People should try to avoid being histrionic while waving guns. No one is taking away their guns. There, there...

Specifically: SEC. 34013. SPECIAL PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND EXCLUSIONS. says...
(2) FIREARMS- This chapter and regulations prescribed under this chapter **do not prohibit**--[highlighting mine]

`(A) or regulate transportation of a firearm (as defined in section 232 of title 18), or ammunition for a firearm, by an individual for personal use; or
`(B) transportation of a firearm or ammunition in commerce.

source -- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1813/text

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 4:44:31 AM PDT
When bikinis are banned, only outlaws will have bikinis!
*********************************
Except for those self-apppointed persons of high moral value who will vounteer their valuable time for organized confiscation programs.

Posted on May 28, 2012 4:51:03 AM PDT
The Bill of Rights: the first ten Amendments to the Constitution designed to protect the people from the abuses of a too-powerful governmet.

Number 2: (not 3, not 4, not 5, etc) The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Brief recap of the first 2:
Number 1: You have the right to open your mouth and scream BS
Number 2: When push comes to shove, you have the right to shoot back

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 4:54:20 AM PDT
Intrepid says:
Don, when the information you have read proves 180 degrees wrong - do you go to the blog site and share the corrected information with others? After all they steered you wrong and misled you. Don't you owe it to yourself to improve their accuracy?

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 4:58:04 AM PDT
Intrepid says:
*Not* as a solitary person disagreeing with the continental congress or even King George. Stipulated was a well regulated militia. It was not a call to anarchy.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 5:16:51 AM PDT
Intrepid says:
Welcome back PF - hope your care in Germany went well. Also hope your husband has finally returned stateside.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 5:26:23 AM PDT
PF says:
I delayed my medical tourism for a bit. Work convinced me to pile on extra hours before I retired a couple days ago. I'm leaving in 2 days, and am quite hopeful. I'm up to 23% lung function 6 months out from my most recent bronchoscopy, the highest it's been since the mid-90s. It's back to Okinawa since I'll have more time and can see my regular doctor, so it's all worked out nicely.

Tomeo is still in Pakistan as a contractor, but he flies home fairly often. It's important to him to finish the mission, and it really chapped his cheeks to hit mandatory retirement age. Now that he's no longer active duty, he's pretty far from the hot spots, which bothers him greatly but I say it's high time he let the young ones take over while he advises from a desk. He'll be meeting me in Nagasaki in a couple weeks. We're going to renew our vows in the church where we married.

Thanks for the good wishes. I hope you're doing well.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 5:41:15 AM PDT
Of course not. No legal document is a call to anarchy.

What exactly is a "well regulated militia"?

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 11:19:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 11:29:25 AM PDT
John M. Lane says:
The term "well regulated" was borrowed from Freemasonry. A "well regulated lodge of Masons" is one which meets regularly and is proficient in the work of the order.

Local lodges were/are expected to elect their officers and each officer is expected to be proficient in his duties. They lead the membership of the lodge in fraternal activities and ceremonies.

Historian, Walter Millis, compared "well regulated Militias" to volunteer fire companies. In general, the same people were/are involved in both.

It should be recalled that America was overwhelmingly rural at the time its Constitution was developed. Volunteer fire companies and Masonic Lodges are still active in many rural communities.

If we were invaded, or subjected to some other catastrophe, the Militia would muster. The Founders considered the Militia to be "We the People" acting in our own defense against threats, foreign and domestic. It depended on citizens bearing their own arms and being proficient in their use. This proficiency was evidence of "well regulated" Militia formations.

In some ways, these formations resembled the warrior societies of the Indian tribes they encountered on the frontier. Among the Sioux, the term is "Akicita" for a group of soldiers/warriors, but most other tribes have comparable societies to provide self defense and maintain order.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 12:02:24 PM PDT
Axiomatic!!! says:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Posted on May 28, 2012 12:18:37 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 12:20:54 PM PDT
You need to check out your Bills against this website:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1813

According to this, 1813 is just a bill for road and other infrastructure improvements. Nothing about guns that I could find.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 12:22:00 PM PDT
C. Scanlon says:
originally, only "outlaws" wore bikinis
those outside the accepted moral norms

now people who REALLY REALLY should NOT wear a bikini wear them

as the bikini has become the new norm.

a pain in the eye

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 12:22:15 PM PDT
KING CONAN says:
The Bikini Ban is a dresscode for
The Secret Service, Lampshades
and Long Ranger masks can
still be worn.

Posted on May 28, 2012 12:24:14 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 12:24:44 PM PDT
C. Scanlon says:
really weird living in an open carry state
(not open can of beer carrying, but open to view, pistol in a holster state)

used to be this old white guy at the post office would shove his way between people showing off his gun

yesterday I was in the supermarket and a very young VEGAN with a cloth holster had his pistol

toto we are NOT in KAnsas anymore
nor on the south side of CHIcago

OBama, PLEASE take away these guns!

too late for Trayvon . . .

Posted on May 28, 2012 12:24:59 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 28, 2012 12:32:52 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 12:34:36 PM PDT
C. Scanlon says:
boy george bush shredded it in Dick's offices

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 12:36:08 PM PDT
KING CONAN says:
How could you tell he was VEGAN?

The humanoids from VEGA ,
Usually carry Ray-Guns.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  87
Initial post:  May 27, 2012
Latest post:  May 29, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions