HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » HR 127 - DOA

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 12:09 PM

HR 127 - DOA

or fuel for the "They are coming for your guns" crowd?

The Bill proposes requiring

- Registration
- Psychological exam
- Renewal every 5 years
- Must have insurance.
- No "military" weapons
- No "large capacity ammunition feeding devices"

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

21 replies, 2631 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply HR 127 - DOA (Original post)
melm00se Jan 2021 OP
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2021 #1
PirateRo Jan 2021 #2
melm00se Jan 2021 #3
PirateRo Jan 2021 #5
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2021 #8
PirateRo Feb 2021 #9
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2021 #11
PirateRo Feb 2021 #14
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2021 #16
PirateRo Feb 2021 #18
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2021 #19
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2021 #20
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2021 #12
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2021 #10
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2021 #4
krispos42 Jan 2021 #6
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2021 #7
ManiacJoe Feb 2021 #13
discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2021 #15
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2021 #17
Rick Rolle Feb 2021 #21

Response to melm00se (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 12:34 PM

1. Hmm

There's this word. It means "to provide gratification for others' desires".
I can't remember the word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 12:39 PM

2. I have no problem with the bill for the same reason I don't have a problem with registering or...

...insuring my car.

Most of these people have no business owning a weapon. Certainly, I don’t feel safe with they have such a device when they consistently fail to show proper judgement in appearing with the weapon. A political rally? Bad call. A school? Bad call. A movie house or theater or restaurant? Bad fucking call.

If they clearly show they cannot be trusted to show proper judgement, they should not have a weapon.

I have no problem with the bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PirateRo (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 02:43 PM

3. I am going to guess you didn't read the propose bill.

Let me help:

You need to see into the future:

a notice specifying the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to the person

You give up any sense of privacy:

The Attorney General shall make the contents of the database accessible to all members of the public...

If you are under 21 you have no rights under this law

...has attained 21 years of age;

Have psychological screening

undergoes a psychological evaluation conducted in accordance with paragraph (2), and the evaluation does not indicate that the individual is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm;

Live with someone who owns a gun?

the evaluation included a psychological evaluation of other members of the household in which the individual resides

and

the licensed psychologist interviewed any spouse of the individual, any former spouse of the individual, and at least 2 other persons who are a member of the family of, or an associate of, the individual to further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.

Smoke dope? Medical or otherwise?

No license for you if you are addicted to a controlled substance (within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act)

Now, lets get into the poll tax equivalent

has successfully completed a training course
(which you have to pay for)
undergoes a psychological evaluation
(which you have to pay for)
the individual will have in effect an insurance policy
(which you have to pay for)

back to the accessibility to the information:
What you own
Where you store
All entered into a database, accessible by anyone.

Now, of course seeing the Attorney General determines
The people who are authorized to train
The people who are authorized to do the psych eval
there is no chance, whatsoever, under any possible circumstance that there could be so few people certified to perform either the authorization or evaluation that it becomes de facto impossible to obtain either within a reasonable time frame ::

I hope no one comes for any of the civil rights you hold dear with the same level of obstruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 03:41 PM

5. Oh, i read it

I have no problem with it. If fact, any reasonable person would have no problem with it. And if this serves to stop people of poor judgement from owning a weapon, then it fulfills my requirement for the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PirateRo (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 2, 2021, 09:42 PM

8. "(A)ny reasonable person" in this case means "agrees with me"

 

See: Fallacy of prejudicial language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 2, 2021, 09:54 PM

9. Hardly. I couldn't care less on agreement on this topic.

It means that if you care about this right you suitably curate that right to preserve it. That means following a reasonable set of metrics assuring that those who shouldn’t have a weapon don’t get one. This is the essence of responsible gun ownership.

It is an independent metric by adults for adults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PirateRo (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 2, 2021, 10:05 PM

11. Again, you're using *your* standards as synonymous with 'reasonable'. Your schtick is not new, btw:

 

From 2012:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/117283228#post1

The problem is people like you...

...who lead gun owners to the correct conclusion that those who favor "reasonable, common-sense" gun laws are merely pursuing an incremental strategy towards complete registration, prohibition, and confiscation. There is no interest in balancing safety with freedom -- the entire focus is on restriction, and putting gun owners into a smaller and smaller pen.
The past success of this movement relied almost solely on white fear of blacks, but racial fear is giving way. We value our right to keep and bear arms more than we value keeping blacks helpless now, and we've seen what happens when you trust a controller to do what he says. He divides and conquers, he breaks every promise, he lies and distorts and tries to spread ignorance and fear. It's not going to work again.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 3, 2021, 08:29 AM

14. Yeah, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PirateRo (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 3, 2021, 04:02 PM

16. It's not new just because you personally haven't used it before

 

Plenty of antigun demagogues have used the same (or similar) tactics here at DU and elsewhere over the years-
the disinterested reader is invited to peruse the following thread from 2013:

"NRA talking points"? How about anti-gun talking points?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665

There's a response of mine in there that's germane to the discussion we've been having:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665#post29

29. I'm all in favor of sensible gun laws. That's only reasonable, after all.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that every gun law I support is sensible. It's only
common sense, after all.

What was that quote from the OP again? Oh, yeah:

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.

#3: CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 3, 2021, 05:31 PM

18. Oh, this has nothing to do with me

It has to do with responsible gun ownership and the application of an independent standard to ensure the 2nd Amendment far into the future. That bill is an excellent start to this process.

Also, a demagogue will want you to bring your own gun, it’s a cheaper solution for the accounting people. Just look at the events of January 6th. There is a very big difference in people who want to shove a gun into your hands - or worse - repeatedly hammer into you through fear and intimidation until you yourself accept the lie - but fail to train your critical thinking skills. When I was younger, I could count on the NRA to teach this difference. Not any longer, and certainly not since they’ve started taking Russian dollars.

My last word on this is a video. I strongly recommend supporting the bill with your representatives.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PirateRo (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 3, 2021, 07:39 PM

19. You offer little more than glittering generalities and superlatives in defense of HR 127

 

Generalities such as:

It has to do with responsible gun ownership and the application of an independent standard to ensure the 2nd Amendment far into the future. That bill is an excellent start to this process...


https://propagandacritic.com/index.php/how-to-decode-propaganda/glittering-generalities/

These are all glittering generalities. These words sound great, but they mean different things to different people...

...Alert readers will recognize that glittering generalities are the mirror image of name-calling words. One technique encourages us to reject ideas or people without considering the evidence; the other hopes we will approve of ideas or people without considering the evidence...

...Propagandists don’t want us focusing on specific details. They hope to see us bathing in these words’ positive emotional glow.

It is also important to consider a close cousin of the glittering generality: the superlative. Superlatives are adjectives used to describe something of the very highest quality. Words like amazing, beautiful, best, fabulous, phenomenal, strong, and tremendous are all such words. But what do these words really mean in the context of the speaker’s claims? What, specifically, makes the speaker’s idea so tremendous?...


Then there's the following passage from Orwell's ""Politics and the English Language" :


"The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like "Marshal Pétain was a true patriot," "The Soviet press is the freest in the world," "The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution," are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, liberal, reactionary, equality..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 3, 2021, 09:13 PM

20. In general, I support a vigorous debate of proposed restrictionist laws.

IMHO, debate with those where no common ground exists is more like giving singing lessons to...
...Well, you get the idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 2, 2021, 10:21 PM

12. I didn't read anything about...

...3D printers or making them illegal. Maybe I'm wrong but I also haven't seen anything anything about certain tools and 80% items either. I think some of these relationships between laws, control and people can be expressed by saying the that tighter regulations may greatly reduce prevalence but any knowledge about the possession items in actual circulation becomes completely obscured.

I read about Mr. Heisenberg long ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 2, 2021, 09:56 PM

10. The antigun want to treat gun ownership the way the GOP treats voting

 

It's the very same mindset, albeit applied to a differnt cause:

Loudly claim it's for "safety" reasons, when it's really designed to restrict "those people"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 03:10 PM

4. I've been toying with ideas for...

...a firearm that has a feed system that accepts more than one magazine.

"...has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Original post)

Sun Jan 31, 2021, 04:46 PM

6. Well, there goes 2022

Goddammit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2021, 02:28 PM

7. BTW, H.R. 125 was introduced on 4 January...

...and basically bans all private sales.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Original post)

Wed Feb 3, 2021, 06:06 AM

13. What is the intended point of this insurance?

Insurance never covers criminal acts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 3, 2021, 09:27 AM

15. Registration

“(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.”.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 3, 2021, 04:17 PM

17. Effectively an $800 poll tax on what *all* the Supremes have held to be an individual right

 

If this isn't buried in commitee, it *will* be used against Dems in 2022.

As krispos42 alluded to, marginal seats in purple districts will be lost.
And, once again, it will be demonstrated that gun controllers prefer no loaf at all to half a loaf...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Original post)

Sat Feb 6, 2021, 02:43 AM

21. The bill, or subsequent law, is irrelevant.

 

It will do nothing to stop criminals from obtaining firearms.
It will do nothing to prevent criminals from using firearms to commit crimes.
It will never get enough votes, in either chamber, to pass.
It will do nothing except fuel further firearms sales and give credence to the "They're comin' for our guns" crowd.
The bill might generate some support from anti-gun rights people, but it is, as melm00se stated, essentially DOA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread