Text Released for HR 127 To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the posse

[jamil]

If I could eat my popcorn like that. It would get cold.

 

[jamil]

It's all just different means to the same end, total ban/confiscation. They can sugar coat it, say it's for the children, blame it on whomever or whatever they choose but it is and always will be the final nail in the coffin.

I pose a threat to no one who poses no threat to me or my family. Therefor it should concern no one as to what I own. The only reason it would is a desire to force things upon me which I do not agree with.

I think my SIL subscribes to "moms demand" because she often uses exactly the same language. Like, "no one's trying to take your guns!" But then when you talk about her feelings about guns, she makes it clear that she believes civilized societies do not own guns. A question that has yet to be answered is, "if there were a national referendum on the ballot to ban "assault rifles" would you vote for that?" Of course she would. But then it's hard to say no one wants to take your guns when she admits she wants to take them.

 

[phylodog]

Which demonstrates the reason for my intense dislike for the left. Support for near any of their position requires accepting things which are not true. The best of intentions are at best meaningless and at worst sinister when they're clothed in falsehoods.

 

[JTScribe]

You have missed the mark again.

I spent 16 years in the Marines so you all back here could make poor decisions in a FREE COUNTRY.

I've never been in politics, never held an elected position.

Rant all you want to, but (collective) YOUR position is entirely (collective) YOUR own fault, from (collective) YOUR own decisions.

I didn't make the decisions over the past 40+ years that got everyone into this mess.
Ranting at me makes no sense at all.

Anger comes from confusion,
In this case, confusion comes from lack of education.
I'm NOT your father, it's not my job to solve your problems now you are an adult...

 

[jamil]

2A) Mandatory training to own and purchase.
2B) Mandatory psychological exam to own and purchase a firearm.

And do the States with required training have safer rates?
Psychological exam? Has science become witchcraft? Do you think a doc wants to say ANYONE is okay?

It's difficult to accurately calculate correlation between gun restrictions and gun crime. Gun crime is easy, because those are just counts of stuff. But you can't really make a proportional count of gun laws. So I took a different tack. All of these measures seem to be designed to reduce gun ownership. I mean, they even say the quite parts out loud as we've all heard legislators say that stuff.

Okay, so we can quantify gun ownership in a way that's useful for correlation with gun crime. I found statistics of gun ownership by state, and gun crime by state, and calculated the correlation. It's almost nonexistent.

I don't even think laws that supposedly target restrictions to certain individuals because in every case, it throws a fairly broad blanket. Is everyone who has ever committed a felony an actual risk to society if they own guns? No. And not just no, but rarely is that the case. Someone convicted of white-color felonies rarely proves to be violent. I would consider it a victory for gun rights if we modified the law to consider only violent felonies. It would be a bigger victory if we modified the law so that only upon conviction, as part of sentencing, could someone be stripped of their future gun rights. That is due process.

The idea that we should prohibit certain people because they might become violent is problematic. It's less problematic as it becomes more evident that the criteria does predict the behavior. So, a conviction for a violent armed robbery is more predictive of future harm than, say, a conviction for forging a check. But the current background check doesn't make the distinction. So people are being denied a right based on ********.

 

[actaeon277]

View attachment 123880

Exactly!

 

[2A_Tom]

I don't even think laws that supposedly target restrictions to certain individuals because in every case, it throws a fairly broad blanket. Is everyone who has ever committed a felony an actual risk to society if they own guns? No. And not just no, but rarely is that the case. Someone convicted of white-color felonies rarely proves to be violent. I would consider it a victory for gun rights if we modified the law to consider only violent felonies. It would be a bigger victory if we modified the law so that only upon conviction, as part of sentencing, could someone be stripped of their future gun rights. That is due process.

The idea that we should prohibit certain people because they might become violent is problematic. It's less problematic as it becomes more evident that the criteria does predict the behavior. So, a conviction for a violent armed robbery is more predictive of future harm than, say, a conviction for forging a check. But the current background check doesn't make the distinction. So people are being denied a right based on ********.

I think there needs to be a breakdown in the names of offenses.

Once upon a time a felony was a crime punnishable by hanging, eg. pick pocketing. We need a distinction (a middle ground) between murder, rape, manstealing &AL = felonies and serious crimes above what would be called misdemeanors.

 

[mstrmstr]

First of all it is RACIST as hell. Prevents the BLACK, Hispanic(Latino) and poor populations from owning self protection/sporting/hunting firearms. Yet criminals by definition do not have to follow law.. It will become the Wild Wild West everywhere. The Government would take several decades to finalize the Bill if it becomes law due to the sheer numbers. States that depend on firearms uses like hunting competition , collecting and manufacturing plus licenses for hunting will be at a financial disadvantage. Expect higher taxes everywhere.
IT IS A SHITPOT FULL OF PROBLEMS FROM THE GETGO.

 

[mstrmstr]

Who the hell elected this A hole anyway? He said in October that a president that rules with Executive orders is a dictator yet he has 36 EO in the first few days -- Other POTUS had 1-3 or so.. even Obama.

Note in the first day he put 60,000 UNION workers out of jobs by cancelling the pipeline.
( pipefiters,teamsters,manufacturing,warehousing etc.) Not to mention the thousands of Canadians out of work- Note they no longer love us. Hey even income taxes will suffer..

I did find that the oil is still coming in but on trucks owned by several of his cronies at 25 buck more a barrel.. whodathunkit.
If you notice fuel has increased 35% already..

 

[phylodog]

Who the hell elected this A hole anyway? He said in October that a president that rules with Executive orders is a dictator yet he has 36 EO in the first few days -- Other POTUS had 1-3 or so.. even Obama.

A significant minority

 

[Amishman44]

Sounds like a liberal or socialist's dream...
Their pure hatred of the United States,it's true citizens, it's freedoms, and for what it truly stands for (it's freedoms) is astounding!

 

[MCgrease08]

Who the hell elected this A hole anyway? He said in October that a president that rules with Executive orders is a dictator yet he has 36 EO in the first few days -- Other POTUS had 1-3 or so.. even Obama

What do Biden and executive orders have to do with a bill introduced by an idiot congresswoman?

 

[AtTheMurph]

Introduced by Shelia Jackson Lee, one of the least bright members of the house, and that's saying a lot.

There is so much here to break down. Everyone will need to read the text of this disaster of a bill. Just a few pages in and the number of encroachments is too numerous to count.


You all know the exact date that everyone of your guns came into your possession, right?

Not to mention applicants must undergo a screening by a licensed psychologist. Mandatory training totalling at least 24 hours.

Whoo boy.

To be fair, Sheila has never read this bill she introduced. She does whatever the Bolsheviks tell her to do. So why spend time reading?

 

[churchmouse]

View attachment 123880

Well done sir.

 

[AtTheMurph]

What do Biden and executive orders have to do with a bill introduced by an idiot congresswoman?

A hell of a lot actually. They are all working in conjunction for the good of the PARTY.

Their PARTY is no different than the PARTY in CHINA, the old SOVIET UNION, etc.

If you ain't in the party you ain't bringing this stuff to the floor. And Joe and Sheila most certainly are PARTY MEMBERS. They are working their coordinated plan just as millions of people predicted.

 

[actaeon277]

To be fair, Sheila has never read this bill she introduced. She does whatever the Bolsheviks tell her to do. So why spend time reading?

Nothing new in the bill to read.
It's all stuff they've recycled over the years.
They just blow the dust off, change the title, change the date, and they have a "new" bill.

 

[Bennettjh]

Here is the response from my Rep.

February 3, 2021 Dear Mr. Bennett, Thank you for contacting my office regarding H.R. 127, the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views on this important matter, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. Our founding fathers could not have been clearer: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As a firearm owner and lifetime member of the National Rifle Association, I am passionate about safeguarding the fundamental right of all Hoosiers to protect themselves and the people they love. The United States Constitution sets forth that gun ownership is not a special privilege reserved for a select few, but it is a protected freedom for all law-abiding citizens. As you may know, the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act would impose new regulations on the ownership of firearms and ammunition. Specifically, this bill would require gun owners to register their firearms in a national database, create a national firearms license, mandate caliber size, and outlaw large capacity magazines. The Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Should this bill come to the House floor for a vote, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. You can rest assured that I will never support legislation that infringes upon your right to keep and bear arms. In fact, last Congress I voted against two extreme bills, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112, that would diminish our Second Amendment rights while doing nothing to keep our country safe. For example, H.R. 8—legislation to require a background check for every firearm sale—might sound like common sense, but current law already requires a background check on every commercial gun purchase in America. As your representative in Congress, I will always vote to protect our Second Amendment Rights. It is an honor to represent Hoosiers of Indiana’s 6th District. You can visit my website at www.pence.house.gov to learn more about how I am representing you in Congress. Sincerely, Greg Pence Member of Congress

 

[jamil]

I think there needs to be a breakdown in the names of offenses.

Once upon a time a felony was a crime punnishable by hanging, eg. pick pocketing. We need a distinction (a middle ground) between murder, rape, manstealing &AL = felonies and serious crimes above what would be called misdemeanors.

I agree. As I said earlier, I think it should be up to the court to decide on an individual basis if the person should be prohibited from future firearms possession. And then, that option should only be available for crimes that are classified as violent. And when the person has paid the debt to society there is a path to regain the right.

 

[DFacres]

The psych eval is even worse than I thought. It includes other members of the family, even ex-spouses.



Clearly the goal is to ensure no one is able to legally own firearms. **** this lady.

Your concept of being a “lady” is a far cry from mine. Woman, sure but not a lady.

 

[Dan35]

Who the hell elected this A hole anyway? He said in October that a president that rules with Executive orders is a dictator yet he has 36 EO in the first few days -- Other POTUS had 1-3 or so.. even Obama.

Note in the first day he put 60,000 UNION workers out of jobs by cancelling the pipeline.
( pipefiters,teamsters,manufacturing,warehousing etc.) Not to mention the thousands of Canadians out of work- Note they no longer love us. Hey even income taxes will suffer..

I did find that the oil is still coming in but on trucks owned by several of his cronies at 25 buck more a barrel.. whodathunkit.
If you notice fuel has increased 35% already..

YES, he put those people out of their jobs because that is priority 1. Now he will permit them to look for any new jobs of which he approves. That sounds like a good plan doesn't it?