Bill HR45 - could it pass the house?? [Archive]

Doggie_Wood

Feb 22, 2009, 7:04 PM

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009. We just learned yesterday about this on the Peter Boyles radio program.
Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because it is flying under the radar. To find out about this - go to any government website and type inHR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of
2009. You will get all the information.

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

*It is registered.
*You are fingerprinted.
*You supply a current Driver's License.
*You supply your Social Security #.
*You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any
time of their choosing.
*Each update - change or ownership through private or
public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to
do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm
and are subject up to a year in jail.
*There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305
stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked
and inaccessible to any child under 18.

They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your
pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family - pass this along.

Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on KHOW 630 a.m. in the morning. He suggests the best way to fight this is to tell all your friends about it and "spring into action". Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association, hunting associations,gun clubs and especially the NRA.

This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not. If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me.

HR 45 only makes me/us less safe. After working with convicts for 26 years I know this bill, if passed, would make them happy and in less danger from their victims.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill..xpd?bill=h111-45

vittoria

Feb 22, 2009, 7:31 PM

:eek:

We could use George Orwell's grave to power several countries from all the turbine spinning he's probably doing right now!!!!

aisuhi

Feb 22, 2009, 7:39 PM

More and more freedoms are being taken in the name of "safety" & "health". It is in the words of Daffy Duck "Indespicable" (probably didn't spell it right). Create a coalition to end coalitions, to many people are minding my business and not minding their own and thats whats wrong with our society. I better stop there or I will add more stuff that pisses me off.

Next thing ya know they'll wanna stamp out ducks.

Cheers

Chris

proseros

Feb 22, 2009, 7:47 PM

Well it seems the chickens have finally come around the bend...

Heh. This is all very interesting and thank you for posting this! I used to go crazy screaming at people NOT to give up thier guns, legally owned or not.
This was more than 10 years ago.

The whole point of any of this-as was said then-is to DISARM YOU and whittle away the 2nd amandment-whichis designed to protect and arm YOU against tyranny.

But Noooooo...

We're all scared of the terrorist trolls. So scared that we are willing to give any liberty, any right that we are born with and let the government do all our thinking for us.

Whatever. Don't mind me, I'm a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
Just keep in mind what I said about them chips. Today it's your car-tomorrow it'll be you. And there won't be a damned thing you can do about it as long as you've got LRAD (http://www.atcsd.com/site/content/view/37/47/) and ADS (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/v-mads.htm) pointed at you you aint gonna do shit [for a demonstration of how these weapons work, go HERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myWxwNQfo-8&feature=PlayList&p=7EA095EEA3765E0B&playnext=1&index=10) and HERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpjxjLRKqw8)]

And what makes me think that any government would use this kind of thing against its own citizens?
Well-
Take a look at THIS! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EUU0BpQego&feature=PlayList&p=7EA095EEA3765E0B&playnext=1&index=12)
--------------------------------------
While I'm being a paranoid conspiracy theorist I might as well ask whether or not anyone has any clue at all about the "Open skies treaties"?
http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/openski1.html
[That's what given every allied nation unanimous approval to spray everybody with barium salts and particulate aluminum mixed with ethylene dibromide [CHEMTRAILS]
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=aerosol+crimes&emb=0&aq=f#
Or
HR 2977
http://fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hr2977.html
which was not passed by the house but was later revised until it became
HR 3616
Which doesn't mention CHEMTRAILS..But in that case doesn't prohibit use of this as a weapon either.
--------------------------------------------

IsDa L00minATTee doinnat shit! N00w0rLD OrdAin EffeCT! :mad:

FalconAngel

Feb 22, 2009, 8:00 PM

Those who surrender essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Lonestar_Northstar

Feb 22, 2009, 8:46 PM

There are TONS of bills that never see the light of day, much less become law, every year. I'm sure this will go by the wayside eventually.

Doggie_Wood

Feb 22, 2009, 10:28 PM

There are TONS of bills that never see the light of day, much less become law, every year. I'm sure this will go by the wayside eventually.

The only way to make sure this bill does not go through is to be actively HEARD!!

Doggie :doggie:

hudson9

Feb 22, 2009, 11:10 PM

*It is registered.
*You are fingerprinted.
*You supply a current Driver's License.
*You supply your Social Security #.
*You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any
time of their choosing.
*Each update - change or ownership through private or
public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to
do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm
and are subject up to a year in jail.
*There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305
stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked
and inaccessible to any child under 18.

These provisions don't seem particularly draconian to me. My car has to be registered. I have to have a driver's license, with my photo on it. They already have my Social Security # (heck, they gave it to me). Perhaps a mental evaluation would have kept a gun out of the hands of Mark David Chapman (for just one example).

So, yes it's true -- guns don't kill people, people kill people. Mentally unbalanced people with unregistered, untraced handguns that have never been deer hunting. Oh, and children who find a neat toy, loaded in daddy's sock drawer.
:2cents:

_Joe_

Feb 22, 2009, 11:35 PM

Guns dont kill people.

Husbands that come home early though....

DeShawn2

Feb 23, 2009, 1:07 AM

Physical and mental evaluation?

That ought to be good. It could take years to identify if someone's too psycho to own a gun, but leave it America to apply our patented "quick easy fix" to everything.

I couldn't care less about this bill passing. In all honesty, I would hope that at least some of these clauses are already a part of federal law.

pasco_lol_cpl

Feb 23, 2009, 1:16 AM

Guns? What guns? We lost all of ours on a tragic boating accident :cool:

Personally We love the fact that folks will gleefully cheer this one while not realizing for a moment that a right is being abridged, and then will carp and cry that their rights arent being respected.

Toad82

Feb 23, 2009, 1:58 AM

*It is registered.
*You are fingerprinted.
*You supply a current Driver's License.
*You supply your Social Security #.
*You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any
time of their choosing.
*Each update - change or ownership through private or
public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to
do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm
and are subject up to a year in jail.
*There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305
stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked
and inaccessible to any child under 18.

Maybe it’s the liberal thinking in me, but I don’t understand why you are against it. Are you for children having guns? Are you for letting guns getting passed around without keeping track of them? Do you feel you or your friends might not be able to pass physical and mental evaluations? Do you want people with mental problems and guns around you?

The rest is fairly basic. The only people I can think of that would have a problem with the rest, would be the ones that would take part in a standoff or take over a government. I doubt most of them would make it pass the mental evaluations, I know at least that’s my hope.

RJ:lokai:

trubipoly

Feb 23, 2009, 2:08 AM

hmmm I own a gun, I have been figerprinted, I keep it secured at all times and Wished the Man that Killed My mother when I was a teen would have had a mental exam before owning the 14 guns he had. He claimed mental incompetance.and got only 4 years of which he did 2.5 .

no problem with this law in my opinion

wanderingrichard

Feb 23, 2009, 2:37 AM

apparently, it has already been forgotten that the biggest reason we are allowed firearms in the 1st place is so that we may REMOVE a government by force of arms if need be.

sorry, NYC, but your much touted Sullivan act is a farce that has removed your ability to ;

-defend yourselves by force as needed.

-uphold and defend your rights under the constitution as part of your duties as a citizen, which may include forcible removal, by armed citizens, of the criminals and politicians etc.

-band together to uphold and enforce the law when the system of government breaks down.

too bad big money from wall street has kept the US Supreme court cowed enough to keep ruling this legal every time it gets challenged in court.. it really is a crime against your rights..

but, my fellow site members, remember, the reason we are here is to explore and discuss our sexuality. politics we should discuss in other fora.

thank You Dogwood for posting this. i'll make certain to pass this along to family members.

ben_butterman

Feb 23, 2009, 3:12 AM

To some my question is what part of the constitution do you think we should keep , and what should we get rid of , you could end up with

the right to be told what trade you will work
the right to live where you are told
the right to what and how much you can eat
the right of driving what you are told
the right to do mandatory community service (already suggested )

you have the right to be a sheep if you choose ,

I chose the WOLF

proseros

Feb 23, 2009, 4:48 AM

Well yeah I guess people do kill people.
Hmmm--

Y'know I just randomly observed something here. And I know its off topic at least its a little to the side, but I started thinking about guns and then I started thinking about police officers and then-

It dawned on me that there isn't - or doesn't seem to be any mention at all
of Oscar Grant being murdered by a police officer, shot in the back, face down, handcuffed-In this forum.

No mention of it at all. I mean the story rung in the New Year, and people tore up shit for almost a week. I'm wondering like, did anybody think that story was important at the time or was worth mentioning at all?

I'm saying I just find it peculiar that this story carried no weight at all on this forum. It wasbn't- "news". I mean Britney Spears is news on this forum; Star Trek is news on this forum; Patrick Swayze was news on this forum, Heath Ledger-all of that ws important shit on this forum.

I'm just wondering like where did everybody go when this shit happened?
Where was everybody's opinions, and feelings, and concerns about that-then?

And I'll do the favor of not letting my little troLLL character answer the question before anyone else has a chance to. Because YOU KNOW the trolll will definately answer that question WHY there is no mention of that incident in this forum.

ben_butterman

Feb 23, 2009, 9:20 AM

just when i thought hmmm this guy isn't quite as i thought , here ya go and pop a gasket

GreenEyedLady(GEL)

Feb 23, 2009, 10:02 AM

NWO ( New World Order )

It's coming people !

vittoria

Feb 23, 2009, 10:05 AM

vittoria

Feb 23, 2009, 10:14 AM

These provisions don't seem particularly draconian to me. My car has to be registered. I have to have a driver's license, with my photo on it. They already have my Social Security # (heck, they gave it to me). Perhaps a mental evaluation would have kept a gun out of the hands of Mark David Chapman (for just one example).

So, yes it's true -- guns don't kill people, people kill people. Mentally unbalanced people with unregistered, untraced handguns that have never been deer hunting. Oh, and children who find a neat toy, loaded in daddy's sock drawer.
:2cents:

Anyone you know that goes through a physical and mental evaluation to drive... OTHER than the vision test? How about being fingerprinted for a license? Its not the same, and we all know it. Read a book. (1984) Watch a movie.( 1984, V for Vendetta, Gattaca) Its coming soon to a neighborhood near you. All in the name of security. Wont be able to move without their knowledge. And who knows? Probably wont be long, regardless of our hopes, before sexual discourse will be outlawed as well, let alone intercourse. Give an inch.. take a yard.

Lets pause on that one.

Well yeah I guess people do kill people.
Hmmm--

Y'know I just randomly observed something here. And I know its off topic at least its a little to the side, but I started thinking about guns and then I started thinking about police officers and then-

It dawned on me that there isn't - or doesn't seem to be any mention at all
of Oscar Grant being murdered by a police officer, shot in the back, face down, handcuffed-In this forum.

No mention of it at all. I mean the story rung in the New Year, and people tore up shit for almost a week. I'm wondering like, did anybody think that story was important at the time or was worth mentioning at all?

I'm saying I just find it peculiar that this story carried no weight at all on this forum. It wasbn't- "news". I mean Britney Spears is news on this forum; Star Trek is news on this forum; Patrick Swayze was news on this forum, Heath Ledger-all of that ws important shit on this forum.

I'm just wondering like where did everybody go when this shit happened?
Where was everybody's opinions, and feelings, and concerns about that-then?

And I'll do the favor of not letting my little troLLL character answer the question before anyone else has a chance to. Because YOU KNOW the trolll will definately answer that question WHY there is no mention of that incident in this forum.

The answer is easy...

People would rather be entertained than informed. There's nothing that can bring a bunch of folks down quicker than a dose of reality... regardless of the topic. Before anyone goes on a sine, cosine, or tangent ( even cotangent) about how this is supposedly only a sex site... it's a site where we can address any if not all issues or topics, of a sexual nature or not. ( At least that's what I gleaned.) Especially about our rights. Once one right is attacked, its not long before ALL rights are.

For example... The Gov't intends on knowingly testing their war stuff on its citizens, and have no intention of letting us know... sabotage? Check THIS out.... (http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showpost.php?p=123571&postcount=1)

As David Bowie says: " I'm afraid of Americans... "

PolyLoveTriad

Feb 23, 2009, 11:19 AM

I come from a family of hunters. I hunt myself. My entire family owns more than one gun, rifle, bow. My family is also FULL of kids under the age of 18.

Now I cant see a problem with ANY of these rules with exception to

*There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305
stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked
and inaccessible to any child under 18.

As most of the children in my family know how to handle guns from an extremely young age and most of them do hunt every season. They all understand what guns do and they could kill someone if they dont handle them right. Goes along also with them taking hunter safety, a law to make kids learn about handling guns properly before they can get their hunting license which they can get now at age 14 I think? Yes ALL guns should be KEPT LOCKED and out of reach of young children. There needs to be exceptions to that I think.

I kind of doubt they will be asking the guy who owns one or two guns to take a psych evaluation. Im pretty sure it will be the guy who owns 15 guns and is stock piling ammunition.

I fully understand you dont want someone to take away our rights to own a gun. For my family it would be devastating. They get most of the meat they eat each year from hunting. But I just dont see any of these laws they want to pass as taking away rights or being harmful to anyone.

Who knows, my hubby might kick my butt about my views on this one lol I usually just keep my mouth shut when it comes to this type of stuff, but i just dont see a need for panic here.

TaylorMade

Feb 23, 2009, 11:26 AM

Maybe it’s the liberal thinking in me, but I don’t understand why you are against it. Are you for children having guns? Are you for letting guns getting passed around without keeping track of them? Do you feel you or your friends might not be able to pass physical and mental evaluations? Do you want people with mental problems and guns around you?

The rest is fairly basic. The only people I can think of that would have a problem with the rest, would be the ones that would take part in a standoff or take over a government. I doubt most of them would make it pass the mental evaluations, I know at least that’s my hope.

RJ:lokai:

It could be used to keep a trans person from owning a gun. Many people across the political spectrum have a low opinion of transpeople, or at the very least, think they are mentally unfit. . .and to me, they are they people that need defense or access to a means of defense the most.

That's a good reason to step back and be against HR 45, IMO.

*Taylor*

PolyLoveTriad

Feb 23, 2009, 11:28 AM

Anyone you know that goes through a physical and mental evaluation to drive... OTHER than the vision test? How about being fingerprinted for a license? Its not the same, and we all know it. "

OK I have to say YES on these! lol

ALL truck drivers have to take physical exams to obtain a license which does include the doctor taking note of your mental abilities during. Not only this but MOST to us also have to be finger printed to obtain a license.

Truck drivers are the most goverment controlled drivers in the US with their licensing, driving, sleeping, eating, time off... lets not go here lol I cant tell you how many times I have said, I wish they had to go through MORE to get a license! The gen public, not truckers. Maybe a mental exam would keep people who road rage and run people off the road, OFF THE ROAD. But this is not about drivers licenses. This is about gun rights.

pasco_lol_cpl

Feb 23, 2009, 1:10 PM

Since when did we have to be licensed and registered to exercise our rights? What part of "Shall not be infringed" dont they get? Registration is an infringement the same as if they allowed journalists practice their trade only after registering with the government and taking governmental approved courses as to how to practice their vocation and with the understanding that the government would from time to time be inspecting their work to ensure it met the governments high standards. When they consider that staring them in the face, they usually go silent and then say something about "but newspapers don't kill people." To which I remind them of Fox News ginning up support for the Iraq War, which really confounds them.

And consider this gem that a poster at another board came up with

Regarding the Freedom from Domestic Terrorism act, passed by Congress in January, 2017, President Smith made the following address to the people of the United States:

The purpose of this bill, as has been stated before, is to protect the freedoms of the great American people, not to limit those freedoms. Registration is not intended to prevent law-abiding citizens from fully enjoying their First-Amendment rights, but to prevent those who would subvert the freedoms that made America great to their own ends.

Registration is not restriction, contrary to what the insurgents have been claiming. All the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are still fully protected by the American government:

No restrictions have been attached to churchs and the great American tradition of freedom of religion. All the Freedom from Domestic Terrorism act requires is that churches be registered with the newly-created General Information Department, and that those who attend them be registered members. This very reasonable precaution does not prevent people from practicing the religion of their choice, but is intended only to allow the GID to do the appropriate background checks, in order to weed out those lawless elements of society which, under pretense of founding a "church," have been setting up private societies where they continue to plot the subversion of the American way of life.

No restrictions have been attached to the right of law-abiding citizens to assemble peaceably, either. The necessity of registering in advance the time, place and intended order of business of any assembly of three or more people, along with the names and necessary identification information on those who will be attending, in fact protects those exercizing that right. Since federal agents can be dispatched to verify the national registration cards of those attending, it will become impossible for insurgents to intervene and detract the meeting from its intended purpose. The same federal agents will be able to aid those directing the assembly to prevent it being maliciously deviated from its announced intent by unlawful elements who, so many times, have attempted to stir up hate and unrest among the citizenry of this great country.

Even the right to criticize the actions of the government is still fully protected under the Freedom from Domestic Terrorism act. By registering with the GID and requesting a "Speak your mind" licence, stating the nature of the grievance you want to air and the time and place of the protest to be made, thorough background checks can be made to ensure that insurgents who advocate unlawful actions against representatives of the American people, the very government that exists solely to guarantee your freedoms, will no longer be able to pursue their agenda of disrupting American society. When the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, that does not include or imply the right to incite unlawful elements of society to commit crimes against law-abiding representatives of the goverment. Insurgents have been allowed for too long, under presence of "freedom of speech," to encourage the citizenry of our great nation to civil disobedience with their calls to "march on Washington" and their claims that the government is "confiscating their rights."

Registration is not confiscation. If the government begins to take away your rights, then yes, you should defend those rights. I will be the first to register as a participant in a law-abiding, peaceable assembly aimed at voicing disagreement with a government that deprives the citizens of this nation of their constitutional rights. But you have no need to worry about resistration. The Freedom from Domestic Terrorism act, and the creation of the General Information Department, do not limit your freedoms. They guarantee your freedoms. Registration, background checks, and the denying of those rights to those found to be unlawful in their actions or intentions, only makes it safer for those whose intentions are honorable to enjoy those freedoms in total security.

Rest assured, my fellow Americans, that I, the Congress, and the Domestic Terrorism Police that we are putting in place, are making sure that your freedoms are maintained, despite the threat from unlawful elements of our society. If any of you have any genuine concerns about the nature of these reforms, do not hesitate to register with the General Information Department, and request a licence to address a letter of inquirty to your representative in Congress. After your letter has been registered with the GID, a date will be set at which it can be communicated to your Congressman.

America has more freedom now than ever, because she can enjoy those freedoms in total security! Freedom through registration! Law-abiding people have never feared registration, because they know registration does not limit their freedoms in any way. Only those lawless elements who have no love for the American way of life are worried about registration. The so-called "Patriots" are the ones who limit your freedom, not registration. You have no need to be worried about registration.

PolyLoveTriad

Feb 23, 2009, 1:16 PM

I like that guy :)

chook

Feb 23, 2009, 2:26 PM

As I've said in an earlier post, this is only the thin edge of the wedge for you people and I'm afraid that no amount of screaming protesting or carrying on will change whats about to happen to your gun laws, trust me we in Australia have already gone through this line of bullshit, and in the end that's all it is. Even here they used the catch cry that it would make Australia a safer place but in actual fact handgun crime is out of control here but the government can rest assured that any crime that is commited isn't done by the gun owners that were made to give up certain firearms but by criminals that have easy access to illegal firearms...My advice is to unite and stand your ground then at least you can say that you have tried. Btw I own 8 rifles all registerd and legal I was also forced to join a gun club which now makes me visit the rifle range 6 times a year to justify a legitimate excuse to own my firearms........Good Luck!!!

Cheers Chook :bigrin:

darkeyes

Feb 23, 2009, 7:42 PM

Ho hum...'ere we go gain...peeps all hot an bothad bout big boys (lethal)toys... me wud melt the effin lot down an recyle the metal inta summat bloody useful..... but ther ya r... o well...

vittoria

Feb 23, 2009, 8:22 PM

Guns dont kill people.

Husbands that come home early though....
Joe... I mean it dOOd... WHERE DID YOU FIND THAT PIC OF THAT GUY?!?!?!?! funny fkkn shit!!!! ROFL!!!!! Everytime I see you post I fall out laughing I swear! :impleased

pasco_lol_cpl

Feb 23, 2009, 9:27 PM

Ho hum...'ere we go gain...peeps all hot an bothad bout big boys (lethal)toys... me wud melt the effin lot down an recyle the metal inta summat bloody useful..... but ther ya r... o well...
The bigger principle is the abridgment of rights under our constitutions. Whats next? I understand you live under a government that does not have a constitution and whose rights that it decrees you can have can and do change at the governments whim and that you are happy with that. Good for you. We in the US however take a different view. Democracy in the US has a completely different source than it does in Europe. In Europe it rose about from the people, who were already used to having a monarch or lord take care of their needs (I.e. the Feudal system), demanding to be cared for in a different way. In the US our democracy was founded in telling the government to piss off and leave us the hell alone and we would take care of ourselves. So we do tend to be a tad protective of the rights we have told the government it has no justification for abridging.

So tell you what, we wont comment on the absolute absurdity of things like ABSOs and the nanny state and people that gave rise to them and you might want to leave us and our laws, which affect you in no way, alone. Doubt it could happen but who knows.

Toad82

Feb 23, 2009, 10:06 PM

It could be used to keep a trans person from owning a gun. Many people across the political spectrum have a low opinion of transpeople, or at the very least, think they are mentally unfit. . .and to me, they are they people that need defense or access to a means of defense the most.

That's a good reason to step back and be against HR 45, IMO.

*Taylor*

You look at it that way, I look at it as maybe they won’t need to defend themselves to begin with. If this law was already enacted maybe the Lawrence King’s of the world still might be alive. Yes it may keep some that should have a gun from getting one because of bias, but it may keep a dozen from getting hurt in the first place.

chook

Feb 23, 2009, 10:53 PM

Ho hum...'ere we go gain...peeps all hot an bothad bout big boys (lethal)toys... me wud melt the effin lot down an recyle the metal inta summat bloody useful..... but ther ya r... o well...

I'd love to be there to see Frans performance if they ever wanted to put a total ban on dildoes, vibrators or that other industrial fucking machine that she has fallen in love with......what would you for sport then hun????? :smilies15

Cheers Chook :bigrin:

pasco_lol_cpl

Feb 24, 2009, 12:09 AM

You look at it that way, I look at it as maybe they won’t need to defend themselves to begin with. If this law was already enacted maybe the Lawrence King’s of the world still might be alive. Yes it may keep some that should have a gun from getting one because of bias, but it may keep a dozen from getting hurt in the first place.
Considering the rate of gun rime in Oz, no it wouldnt. Or we could be like the UK and switch to a combination of escalating gun use by criminals and stabbings. Even a complete ban coupled with confiscation in the US would only ensure that law abiding citizens would be disarmed and the criminals would still have access to firearm. That's life. It sucks and may not be nice, but that's how it is and no one will ever be able to change it.

Toad82

Feb 24, 2009, 12:24 AM

Considering the rate of gun rime in Oz, no it wouldnt. Or we could be like the UK and switch to a combination of escalating gun use by criminals and stabbings. Even a complete ban coupled with confiscation in the US would only ensure that law abiding citizens would be disarmed and the criminals would still have access to firearm. That's life. It sucks and may not be nice, but that's how it is and no one will ever be able to change it.

I was talking just about the instances that TM brought up. The people that tend to hurt or kill transpeople are not usually run of the mill criminals. They are the ones that lose it when they find out the pretty woman they are talking too, was born with a penis. They normally don’t have a gun on them just because, its not the old west any more. Those that do have a gun on them and happen to lose it, probably should be checked out. And as you said the criminals will have one no matter what.

Personally I don’t care one way or another, but I do take the second amendment as other liberals do.

THEPLAYER

Feb 24, 2009, 12:29 AM

amercia is so lame they cant even get bin laden ! but they wanna rob and rape there own people with shit like this What a great country NOT. A comunist country pretty Soon

TaylorMade

Feb 24, 2009, 12:36 AM

You look at it that way, I look at it as maybe they won’t need to defend themselves to begin with. If this law was already enacted maybe the Lawrence King’s of the world still might be alive. Yes it may keep some that should have a gun from getting one because of bias, but it may keep a dozen from getting hurt in the first place.

Criminals don't follow gun laws. A transgirl trying to go stealth and/or make good on her new life probably does.

And the "old west" thing is known as open carry, which is illegal in most states. . .so the average armed citizen AND criminal is armed by stealth, so don't say so quick that they wouldn't have a gun at hand.

If the criminals will have guns no matter what, why should we be stripped of the right to arm ourselves?

*Taylor*

Toad82

Feb 24, 2009, 3:19 AM

Criminals don't follow gun laws. A transgirl trying to go stealth and/or make good on her new life probably does.

And the "old west" thing is known as open carry, which is illegal in most states. . .so the average armed citizen AND criminal is armed by stealth, so don't say so quick that they wouldn't have a gun at hand.

If the criminals will have guns no matter what, why should we be stripped of the right to arm ourselves?

*Taylor*

The reason I am so quick to say that they wouldn’t have a gun at hand is because of all the research I do. My AS interest is sexuality, but unlike most people with AS my interest is very broad. Researching crimes against GLBT people, points out that fact that most crimes against transpeople are emotional responses. If they are attacked with a weapon it is usually what is at hand. Not to be morbid, but that is why so many are strangled and beat to death, there is no gun at hand.

Why do you believe those that attack transpeople have a gun, but don’t usually use them? When people have an emotional response they usually don’t think forth dimensionally, caring about their actions. My point is I don’t see gun crimes against transpeople going up if the law is passed.

As for your last question, as I wrote in another post I personally don’t care one way or another. I just happen to take a liberal view to the second amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We’re not talking about “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”, we’re talking about people that just like guns. It comes down to semantics in thinking. You believe it is a right and I don’t. I am a Constitutionalist. I believe every word that is in the U. S. Constitution is there for a reason and every word that is not is not there for a reason. But as I said before I have better things to care about, unless I am being shot at.

Doggie_Wood

Feb 24, 2009, 6:01 AM

Joe... I mean it dOOd... WHERE DID YOU FIND THAT PIC OF THAT GUY?!?!?!?! funny fkkn shit!!!! ROFL!!!!! Everytime I see you post I fall out laughing I swear! :impleased

Me thinks it is a clip of him in his previous life :eek: :tongue:

:doggie:

ben_butterman

Feb 24, 2009, 7:51 AM

Toad82

Feb 24, 2009, 8:14 AM

FACT:In 2005 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S:

12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths),
789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent (5% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2008.

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

Since the beginning of the HIV and AIDS epidemic more than half a million people have died of AIDS in America1 – the equivalent of the entire population of Las Vegas. There are currently more than one million people living with HIV and AIDS in America and around a fifth of these are unaware of their infection,2 posing a high risk of onward transmission.

America’s response to the AIDS epidemic has produced mixed results. HIV prevention efforts have not always been successful and every year approximately 56,000 Americans are infected with HIV.3

http://www.avert.org/america.htm

so what I'm hearing is unprotected sex ,, should be banned also as it is causing more deaths

and people should go to jail if they are infected or infect someone else ,

it makes just as much sense to ban sex as it dose to ban guns ,,

if you look at the facts and the number of deaths caused by the ACT

both are shooting dangerous loads

whats the difference they both kill people weather intentional or unintentionally ,

Your reaching.

For gun deaths you use a year. For HIV/AIDS you use since the outbreak of the epidemic started. You don’t even take in account there was a time the government didn’t warn or tell people what they knew. Everyone has a pretty good idea what a gun is used for.

Also there is a huge difference between a person and a inanimate object. You can’t ban a person as easy as you can an object. And banning an act would be against a few amendments. As for banning sex and likening it to banning guns, that is really reaching. Without sex the species dies. Without guns another weapon will take its place. Big difference.

ben_butterman

Feb 24, 2009, 8:36 AM

and you don't think they are reaching

i have a constitutional right to own a gun called 2nd amendment

i don't see a Constitution stating you have the right to infect some one ,

or are you using dogs will be dogs theory

so the main point is some people don't like guns some people don't like gays

where do any of them think they have the right to take away any of it ,

if you take out any one of the constitutions , so suit some who don't like the law , then any law some one don't like will not mater ,

as for Without sex the species dies. have you seen some of the kids today , its the time out kids the gang bangers the criminals if they use the laws we have they would weed out most of it , but they don't , the gov don't enforce any law until it suits them , look at the Illegals crossing our boarders , look at them paying the people who caused the recession we have now , look at the government as it stands its corrupt , tax cheat no prob you can be ahead of the IRS , it's like putting the fox to watch the hen house

Toad82

Feb 24, 2009, 8:46 AM

ben_butterman

Feb 24, 2009, 10:21 AM

ben_butterman

Feb 24, 2009, 10:49 AM

Before you answered you should have read my other posts. And I never said those that infect others on purpose should not be jailed.

I went back and read your posts , your right you never said

( those that infect others on purpose should not be jailed )

and at the same point ,,you never said it either ,

but that falls into accidental shooting , did they know the gun was loaded ? maybe maybe not , did they know they have the virus , maybe maybe not , but it all ends the same way , taking responsibility to find out in both cases , in both cases they are equally responsible for the out come

Toad82

Feb 24, 2009, 11:29 AM

we could take sex out of the equation ,,

and replace it with alcohol

Alcohol related deaths way out number the gun related deaths ,

where is the ban on alcohol , i say this and the ones who DO drink responsible and take care to fallow the laws , should they be denied there right to have a drink to suit the ones who don't ?

people who get caught killing some one whether its with a gun or a car they both go to jail ,

so at what point do you stop , any thing some one used as a weapon should be banned ?

So if some one dose a home evasion on your house and tries to rape your 12 year old daughter , and they have a knife , do you want a gun or a knife at that point ?

so are you the sheep or the wolf ( be fed or feed your self )

First off to your other post, that is not what I meant by reading my other posts. There was a lot I didn’t write, do you want to use that in your agreement too? I meant we agreed on something. You are right, it comes down to taking responsibility, but passing the law won’t make that harder, it will make it easier.

Secondly you have gone from restricting gun use to outlawing it. The thread was only about restricting it. You want to leave out sex and replace it with alcohol, fine. But realize that alcohol does have restrictions on it. So now we are back to where we were. This could go on for days, so I will stop now, but as a word advice you should not compare stats using two different time periods. Especially when one time period is years and the other is decades.

AFTER9

Feb 24, 2009, 12:22 PM

With some of these guns laws the intent doesn't seem to be hassling responsible hunter/target shooter types but just for the authorities to use against people who use guns for crimes or threats.
If you look at it from a slippery slope,stripping our rights POV it's kind of scary. Looking at it form the other side it almost makes sense.It,s a tricky proposition jugging individual freedoms vs obligations to public safety.I guess I'd make no friends in either the NRA or the BanAllGuns crowds being in the murky middle.

TaylorMade

Feb 24, 2009, 12:32 PM

The reason I am so quick to say that they wouldn’t have a gun at hand is because of all the research I do. My AS interest is sexuality, but unlike most people with AS my interest is very broad. Researching crimes against GLBT people, points out that fact that most crimes against transpeople are emotional responses. If they are attacked with a weapon it is usually what is at hand. Not to be morbid, but that is why so many are strangled and beat to death, there is no gun at hand.

Why do you believe those that attack transpeople have a gun, but don’t usually use them? When people have an emotional response they usually don’t think forth dimensionally, caring about their actions. My point is I don’t see gun crimes against transpeople going up if the law is passed.

As for your last question, as I wrote in another post I personally don’t care one way or another. I just happen to take a liberal view to the second amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We’re not talking about “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”, we’re talking about people that just like guns. It comes down to semantics in thinking. You believe it is a right and I don’t. I am a Constitutionalist. I believe every word that is in the U. S. Constitution is there for a reason and every word that is not is not there for a reason. But as I said before I have better things to care about, unless I am being shot at.

I didn't say it would go up either. But I am saying that this law will keep guns out of the hands of law abiding people whom others would consider unfit.

If you are a Constitutionalist, don't ignore the second part of the statement...

"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" . . . the statement shifts focus from the militia to the population at large. I don't know about you, but I believe the second part of the statement is there to officially give the right to self defense outside the bounds of the militia.

I think people should be concerned about this right. . .because when someone is shooting at you, it's too late.

*Taylor*

Toad82

Feb 24, 2009, 12:44 PM

I didn't say it would go up either. But I am saying that this law will keep guns out of the hands of law abiding people whom others would consider unfit.

If you are a Constitutionalist, don't ignore the second part of the statement...

"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" . . . the statement shifts focus from the militia to the population at large. I don't know about you, but I believe the second part of the statement is there to officially give the right to self defense outside the bounds of the militia.

I think people should be concerned about this right. . .because when someone is shooting at you, it's too late.

*Taylor*

I guess my thing is I don’t see how it will stop law abiding people, they just have to do a little more to abide by the law. If you can’t pass those tests, I don’t feel you should have a gun. There will always be the assholes that hold back others though, so I do see your point. As for me being a Constitutionalist I believe “the people” is the “well regulated Militia”. There for I did not forget about the second part, I just don’t believe the first part was met yet.

RJ:lokai:

allbimyself

Feb 24, 2009, 1:55 PM

I guess my thing is I don’t see how it will stop law abiding people, they just have to do a little more to abide by the law. If you can’t pass those tests, I don’t feel you should have a gun. There will always be the assholes that hold back others though, so I do see your point. As for me being a Constitutionalist I believe “the people” is the “well regulated Militia”. There for I did not forget about the second part, I just don’t believe the first part was met yet.

RJ:lokai:
Only problem is WHO decides who is unfit?

Currently, felons, the mentally unstable and (in the case of handguns) minors cannot own firearms.

I am all for requiring anyone that wants to own a firearm to take an approved safety course. I have nothing against licensing. I have nothing against registration.

I DO have a problem with requiring anyone to take a physical and/or psych test at any time of the government's choosing. I DO have a problem with fingerprinting. I DO have a problem with them entering my home at any time to verify ANYTHING whatsoever.

I understand the need and desire to protect children, but NO ONE THING is worth creating a situation where the privacy of every citizen becomes something that can be trampled for any reason.

If you allow unannounced, forced inspections to verify child safety locks or other method of securing firearms, will you allow the government to inspect homes with small children to verify cabinet locks, pot handles all turned in on the stove, safety plugs in electrical outlets, etc.?

These are all dangers children face in the home. We better start inspecting every home! And YES these types of inspections do occur... when families want to adopt or become foster parents OR when the parents have been proven to put their children in danger thru negligence. That's fine. They've lost certain rights through their own actions or inactions. But that's the point isn't it? Random inspections of the homes of ANY gun owner whether or not they have proven themselves to be irresponsible is a clear violation of the constitution. Unreasonable search and seizure anyone?

vittoria

Feb 24, 2009, 1:59 PM

Only problem is WHO decides who is unfit?

Currently, felons, the mentally unstable and (in the case of handguns) minors cannot own firearms.

I am all for requiring anyone that wants to own a firearm to take an approved safety course. I have nothing against licensing. I have nothing against registration.

I DO have a problem with requiring anyone to take a physical and/or psych test at any time of the government's choosing. I DO have a problem with fingerprinting. I DO have a problem with them entering my home at any time to verify ANYTHING whatsoever.

I understand the need and desire to protect children, but NO ONE THING is worth creating a situation where the privacy of every citizen becomes something that can be trampled for any reason.

If you allow unannounced, forced inspections to verify child safety locks or other method of securing firearms, will you allow the government to inspect homes with small children to verify cabinet locks, pot handles all turned in on the stove, safety plugs in electrical outlets, etc.?

These are all dangers children face in the home. We better start inspecting every home! And YES these types of inspections do occur... when families want to adopt or become foster parents OR when the parents have been proven to put their children in danger thru negligence. That's fine. They've lost certain rights through their own actions or inactions. But that's the point isn't it? Random inspections of the homes of ANY gun owner whether or not they have proven themselves to be irresponsible is a clear violation of the constitution. Unreasonable search and seizure anyone?

At the risk of offending someone ( which happens alot around here :impleased):

AMEN brother, AMEN!

12voltman59

Feb 24, 2009, 2:44 PM

I went and checked out this topic--I had not heard of this----from what I have found---I don't know if you have to get your knickers in a knot about the legislation as yet----according to the latest I found--the potential piece of legislation has gone "to committee,"

The bill has no co-sponsor and like most bills that "go to committee"--it very likely will not see the light of day----the fact the legislation came from a minor level Rep with no cosponsor-----this thing is most likely a dead duck.

While I would like to see certain reasonable firearms restrictions imposed---this bill does seem to go pretty damn far--and it sure would cost a lot to enforce---and with the current economy----I can't see it going any further just based on that fact alone.

The thing to do--keep track of it---send letters to your Senators and Congressional Reps expressing your objections to it----if it does go further down the line to passage.

Here is what one website says about the potential legislation:

http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=5654.0

darkeyes

Feb 24, 2009, 2:49 PM

I'd love to be there to see Frans performance if they ever wanted to put a total ban on dildoes, vibrators or that other industrial fucking machine that she has fallen in love with......what would you for sport then hun????? :smilies15

Cheers Chook :bigrin:
Sybina takes me 2 heaven Chookie... not bloody oblivion...:tong::bigrin:

darkeyes

Feb 24, 2009, 2:56 PM

The bigger principle is the abridgment of rights under our constitutions. Whats next? I understand you live under a government that does not have a constitution and whose rights that it decrees you can have can and do change at the governments whim and that you are happy with that. Good for you. We in the US however take a different view. Democracy in the US has a completely different source than it does in Europe. In Europe it rose about from the people, who were already used to having a monarch or lord take care of their needs (I.e. the Feudal system), demanding to be cared for in a different way. In the US our democracy was founded in telling the government to piss off and leave us the hell alone and we would take care of ourselves. So we do tend to be a tad protective of the rights we have told the government it has no justification for abridging.

So tell you what, we wont comment on the absolute absurdity of things like ABSOs and the nanny state and people that gave rise to them and you might want to leave us and our laws, which affect you in no way, alone. Doubt it could happen but who knows.
Nope rong.. but wy let the truth stand in way of a gud rant.. an spose u lot don hav absurd things.. like incredible poverty... an oppression at the whim a govt? Dus luff peeps who kno nowt an open ther gob an let ther bellies rumble..:eek:

Doggie_Wood

Feb 24, 2009, 7:28 PM

'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'

~ Thomas Jefferson

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

canuckotter

Feb 24, 2009, 10:58 PM

Democracy in the US has a completely different source than it does in Europe.

Actually, no. America borrowed heavily from British and other European tradition, although a lot of the organisational details came from ancient Greece. British democracy in particular can be seen as a succession of lower and lower castes telling their superiors to stuff it (politely). Obviously there are differences... The Brits enjoy a lot fewer protections than you yanks, for example. But Canada also follows (roughly) the British system and aside from firearms, we enjoy greater freedoms in almost all ways than you guys do, with equally strong Constitutional protections.

As for firearms... Canada has very few problems with guns, except for guns smuggled across the border after being stolen from average Americans. Losing the 2nd Amendment wouldn't lead to some sudden explosion of lawlessness, whatever the NRA cranks might think. There might be a short adjustment period where violent crime did go up, but within a few years, a lot of the criminals' guns would be gone too. Besides, the 2nd Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting yourselves from criminals, and everything to do with protecting you from your government.

As for your rights being eroded... last I heard, the Supreme Court was making it very clear that the 2nd Amendment was protected to the same degree as the 1st. Free speech is not absolute and inviolable -- hate speech, inciting people to commit a crime, and speech that is considered an action such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, those aren't protected -- and the Supreme Court has ruled that yes, reasonable limits can indeed be placed on gun rights, but that overall, gun rights are protected by the Constitution.

When it comes to the initial post, there are a couple things that are iffy. Fingerprinting... Dunno. Might stand up in court, might not. Fingerprinting as a form of biometric identification simply to weed out people known to be barred from gun ownership, with the fingerprint records destroyed immediately after and not admissible in court... That would stand up for sure. If they're going to store the fingerprint and make it admissible in unrelated court cases, that's hard to say. I think the Supreme Court is likely to rule that such a law would have a chilling effect on gun rights beyond the level of reasonable restriction.
Supplying proof of identity? Seriously folks, this should be a no-brainer. If you have problems with people needing to present some minimal form of identification before buying a gun, you're nuts. (Storing a record that Person X purchased Gun Y on such-and-such a date, that's a different matter.)
"You will submit to a mental or physical examination at a time of their choosing" will never stand up in court. Period. For Christ's sake people, remember that there's more than one Amendment, OK? Something like this definitely violates 2 and 4. Same goes for the "right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely". Go read the rest of the damn Amendments, would you? (I have, and I'm not even American.)

Now, for the last two, there's a slim possibility they could stand up if they were basically an entrance requirement... In other words, before buying a gun you have to pass a physical/mental exam, and prove that you have some safe method of storage. The safe storage requirement shouldn't even give any government agent the right to come into your house -- you should be able to just bring in proof that you own a FTA-approved gun safe. That may not be what the law starts as, but the second that law hits the courts, it'll get knocked down all over the place.

Now that I've probably convinced everyone I'm pro-gun-control... I think the worst thing you guys could do is gut the 2nd Amendment. Like the Supreme Court, I believe there's room for reasonable restrictions, just as there is on any other Constitutionally protected right. But in the end, as has been pointed out, the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to give you guys the chance to forcibly remove an authoritarian regime. I never saw the point until Dubya was in power, but the more rights he trampled (with nary a squawk from the same folks who make up the majority of the gun-rights crowd, I'll hasten to add) the more important I realised the 2nd Amendment really is.

FalconAngel

Feb 24, 2009, 11:24 PM

There are TONS of bills that never see the light of day, much less become law, every year. I'm sure this will go by the wayside eventually.

I used to be an NRA member, a lifetime ago, and back then there were a number of idiotic laws being proposed that never got out of committee.

The NRA actually tried proposing a bill that would have interconnected gun shops and federal databases, using existing systems, that would have kept violent offenders from one state from getting weapons "legally" in another state. It also would have prevented them from getting weapons through a system over-burdeoned with paperwork.

It would have been immediate, electronic and negated a possibility of handing weapons to criminals and the mentally unstable.

It was completely shot down by Congress as, get this, being "too invasive of our civil rights".

This will also get shot down in favor of something far worse.

curious44

Feb 25, 2009, 8:41 AM

I still am and always will be an NRA member, currently at the Patron level. Here's what the NRA has to say about this.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=12117

pasco_lol_cpl

Feb 25, 2009, 10:12 AM

Im of mixed minds about the NRA and its efforts. Still a member, but some times I think they are too selective as to what they will or wont do. I also belong to the GOA and if there were a pink pistols chapter locally Id join there as well.

FalconAngel

Feb 25, 2009, 11:53 AM

Here's an interesting fact, though, on gun control laws designed to get guns out of th hands of criminals;

Less than 2% of all violent crime, involving guns, happens with a lawfully owned firearm. The guns used in the other 98+% of cases are either stolen or illegally purchased on the "black market".

Many legitimate gun owners are former military or taught by former military, or other properly trained instructors, so they are aquainted with the proper use, care, safety and handling of firearms. Gun accidents occur when someone does not get the proper training and, due to that, fails to secure the weapon and ammunition properly, mixes alcohol/drugs with hunting or just gets complacent about handling their weapon.

Training is more important than people give it credit for; would any of us get into an airplane with someone who was not trained in it's operation?
Would we let a doctor operate on us if he had not gone to medical school to learn how to do the operation properly?

I wouldn't. And I am willing to bet that no one else here would either.

Many organizations, the NRA leading them, have pushed for mandatory training for new gun owners, with provisions for military and former military, as well as police personnel.

Instead, laws have been passed that simply make access to weapons easier for criminals and harder for honest citizens that just want to protect themselves, or go hunting or, like me, just want to go to the range and fire off a few hundred rounds.

Many of us, me in particular, love quoting the US Constitution to make our points, but most people do not understand why it was written the way that it was. In order to stay on topic, let's use the 2nd amendment as the example.

"Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

There is a very important part in that one simple statement that is core to both sides of the "gun control/2nd Amendment" argument. It is the following;

"...being necessary to the security of a free state..."

How are we interpreting that? Are we thinking like the folks that just fought a war for liberty or are we seeing it as people who have had that liberty all our lives?

I see it in it's historical context. That we need arms to insure that the government is too afraid to try to take our rights away. Not because we will rise up in revolt against a fair and just government, but to prevent becoming subjects of a despotic government.

Others see it in a different manner. They focus on "A well regulated militia...", presuming, only partially correctly, that it refers to what has become the National Guard and Reserves.

That is one of the reasons that the Second Amendment exists. Not just to insure that the nation has a militia in place to defend against an invasion, but to insure that the government does not remove our other rights through force of arms.

Both parts are important, to be sure, but the real reason those parts are there is to insure that the population, made up of free people, could never be brought to subjugation by a government bent on tyrrany.

And even the military has an obligation to stand against the government if they fail to protect our rights. This is demonstrated in the Oath of Enlistment that all military personnel take when they join the military.

Oath recited when enlisting into the United States Armed Forces.

"I, ______________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Note that it does not require anyone to defend the nation, but it does require the enlistee to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States...".
Also note the part where it says "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice". The UCMJ has rules in place that prevent a soldier from having to obey an order which is unlawful or unconstitutional. It allows a soldier to disobey orders that are contrary to law and to Constitutional directive. This includes orders from even the President himself.

For example, if the President personally goes to a soldier and orders him to commit an act which is unlawful or unconstitutional, he may, within the law, refuse to obey that order.

But we cannot forget that all rights come with responsibilities. For example;

It is our right to vote for whomever we wish to, but we have the responsibility to vote responsibly and intelligently.

It is our right to practice our religions freely, without interference from others, but it is our responsibility to not infringe upon the religious rights of others.

And it is our right to keep and bear arms, but it is our responsibility to handle those arms in a lawful and safe manner.

This is the price we pay to maintain freedom. The vigilance to maintain our responsibilities towards those freedoms.
Too many of our people, and in particular our politicians, have long forgotten that one simple thing.....responsibility to protect the rights by using those rights responsibly.