U.S. Congress - H.R.17 Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009
H.R.17 - Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009
To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right. view all titles (2)
All Bill Titles
- Short: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009 as introduced.
- Official: To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right. as introduced.
This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.
Bill's Views
- Today: 85
- Past Seven Days: 789
- All-Time: 89,896
97%
Users Support Bill
4983 in favor / 168 opposed
Write Your
Representative
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
Sort By
Comments Feed ?
What's this?
OpenCongress comment boards are an open forum for discussion. Let's build public knowledge about Congress together, so please keep the discussion civil -- no harsh language, subject to our community Comment Policy. Do not post any information here (for example, your name or email) that you do not wish to be public.
Filter Comments to a Rating of at least
What's this?
The Ratings Filter allows you to determine how many user comments to view on pages here on OpenCongress. Setting the filter higher (towards 10) allows you to see only the comments rated "most helpful" by users, while setting the filter lower (towards 0) allows you to see more comments on a page.
Displaying 31-60 of 240 total comments.
quote"why the Fed's have not adopted this yet is beyond me"
because our government is no longer "by the people". Our government is now making laws that THEY think are best for the people. It dosnt make a difference how much we email or call. our laws are still dicided upon by individuals.
You are so right. Every time we let our elected officials know how we feel about an issue, and what we believe, yet they vote opposite to that is another step towards socialism.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for dinner.
A Republic is a well armed Lamb ! !
wish i would have said that
Well, I kinda hate to say this, but our government is much more closely affilitated with a Communistic type than either a Socialist or a Republic type of government. Over time, and you can check with older dictionaries yourself, people, change the definitions of words, or use words inappropriately until the meaning is changed. A true Socialist government, as I was taught in school, and by the older definitions in the older dictionaries, IS more for the people. A Republic type government, is more controlling like a monarchy. Is the Republic of China a well armed Lamb as you say here?, or the Republic of Georgia for that matter? No!!! Republics are more closely defined as dictatorships with a controlling body or small group of leaders! This country, if you do the research you'll see for yourself, was set up NOT as a Republic! It didn't become a Republic until Lincoln who led us into our own civil war.
Shootest, I believe that you and I may agree on many things. This, being one of them. I once heared the saying that a politition's first job was to get elected. A polititions second job was to get re-elected! I have to disagree with one thing you said. What you said is not a step towords socialism, it's a step towords Fascism! The constitution couldn't be any more clear; The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Too many voters in this country want the government to govern thier lives so they don't have any personal accountability. Funny how, as I age, I drift further away from the republican party (but not to the left). The libertarians are making more sense to me every day They are the TRUE constitutionally focused party.
Exactly, that is why we need to get involved in making sure we take names and kick out the ones that go against what the American people want. Let people know about this web site and how they can follow the bills and see how their elected officials have voted on a particular subject. Lets all make a difference this comming election, take back our Country. Take back our freedoms that have been given away to big government throughout the years. How many politicians have gotten rich by selling out America? Thats why they go into little rooms behind closed doors to make deals where the American people can't see what they are doing. They are corrupt and need to be delt with next election!
When the country forgot we were a Republic and started calling America a Democracy is when we gave away the government !! A Republic is a government of the people where the people decide, A democracy is a government where the people give away their rights and let someone else decide what is best for them ! (so they need not bother till they are slaves and it's too late)
While I agree that the government has gone to shit, please pull out a Webster's and look up the definition of democracy and republic.
I think what Shootest45 means is a Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote.
And Democracy (as it exists now in the U.S.) is a form of government in which the supreme power is exercised by elected agents under a free electoral system. Here, the elected agents decide what's best for the electorate (i.e. the people).
Bottom line... Our democracy has allowed government to assume supreme power over us. This happens when too many people think the government is
the answer to our problems. When in fact, the government has caused most of them.
It is not in the unadulterated definition of a republic that any official is elected. A republic is the governmental structure in which there are branches and offices with specific powers and duties.
The fact that our officials are elected by popular vote by citizens is a measure of democracy. Contrast the pure democracy of ancient Athens to the Roman republic.
Yes this is true. But you also need to take into account, that the "Electoral College" here, and NOT the popular vote of the people, decides who the President is! Why do you think so many of the Presidential Candidates go to the states with the largest number of Electoral votes first, then TRY to make it to the states with lesser numbers of Electoral votes after they've first made it to the larger numbered electoral states? It's all lies and deception. Like a bill passing the Senate, then just before it's voted on in the House, somebody attaches some bill that had been shot down by all previously on its own, so it will get through. All these last minute add ons should be considered a Criminal Action no matter who does it, or what their reason is for doing it. That's how our government has STOLEN so much power over all these years since our countries conception.
i agree..and, o' course..have sumthing to add..heh..CENTRAL gov't is perhaps a more basic issue..what about state's rights ..?..i'd rather have em,..closer ta home...they kin feel the heat better...i'm into the states passing resolutions concerning their own soveriegnty...(spell check)..the civil war told us what the feds think of that concept...you want what the constitution says??..sry..guess we'll have ta kill ya..hmm..hope we don't have ta go down that road agin
here in resides our Dilemma: our reps act only in self interest and breach our 1st amendment right to "regress" and only allow "petition" but not actual "redress of grievances". So much for a republic!
Yeah, I agree! He has this all twisted bassackwards.
See, here again you have that backwards Shootest45. It was FOUNDED as a Democracy by The Continental Congress after we broke away from England's tyrannical dictatorship over the colonies. It turned into a Republic afterwards, and THAT'S, when we started loosing control of our own nation. Don't take what I'm telling you as truth. Do the historical research yourself and study over how it's all been changed yourself. Lincoln sold us out to be a Republic to big money and Wall Street and Corporate America with Englands pursuasive help and backing during his campaigns. Think about it, who supported and backed the North during our own civil war? England! See for yourself.
apache01 and you are an idiot the south was supported by england because they wanted cheap cotton and tobacco until they realized that a victory with the south was not possible then they withdrew support. You are the one that needs to research history bud because you must have forgotten when and why the 10 amendment was put into the bill of rights, that the powers not delegated expressly to the federal government by the constitution was given to the individual states with supreme power left to the people to determine if the government and its laws were right for them. Now, we lost a lot of power when the the great depression hit in the 30's because Roosevelt was passing his alphabet soup bills that made a lot of state responsibilities federal ones.
I'm all for this one, although how many ways do you have to spell out the right we already have.....The 2nd Admendment. Let us all hope that all the states will adopt the "Castle Doctrine".
No where in the Bill of Rights does it say the right to protect ourselves from bad people, what it does say is:
We the people have the right to bear arms to defend ourselves and our country from foreign or domestic tyrannical governments.
It also states that:
Having said arms we need to be come proficient with them. And that being capable we are to belong to a well regulated non regimented militia, no uniforms, no meetings, no drills. Minute men so to speak.
Well, Thomas Jefferson did not believe this because he was a devout christian and would not sign it to be ratified so a last paragraph was added:
If firearms and war was against your christian belief, you could be a conscientious objector and not have to comply?
What the 2nd amendment dose is provide a way to guarantee the previsions of the 1st amendment. It is incumbent that the people stand ready to form a new government for themselves if our government fails to "redress" the peoples "grievances". It is reaffirmation of the Declaration of Independence in which the people took to arms against a government that had become tyrannical and give the right to the people to do the same should a time arise. The final straw of a tyrannical government is the confiscation of our arms that's why it is stated "shall not be infringed". The king 1st sought to remove arm to hold his power. 1st your rights then how to guarantee them.
Thomas Jefferson was a devout 'diest' who belived God's only role was in the creation of the universe. He did not believe in the myth of Jesus or it's cult following.
Thomas Jefferson was the first architect to keep a chapel away from the central plan of a university, since he held that religion's place in higher learning was not critical to the object of learning. Religion is the problem, not the cure.
Well anonymous, very brave and bold of you to speak your peace yet hide your identity! Religion, if you want to go there, AND, if you actually do some fact finding, is NOT the problem! Each and every law in this country at it's beginning, was drawn up from the Bible if you want to actually get some education as to what you are addressing here! They've been changed over the years from what they were originally by people like you and our tyrannical government to be more obscure and gray so that more loopholes could be placed in all the hogwash and hide the truths of them from the beginning! Just, so the government could become more politicly correct and accomodate those who didn't like the origianl ones set up at this countries conception. Check back thru history yourself. Don't take my word, or anyone else's for that matter.
It's about time I see some legislation that preserves rights rather than limit them and take them away.
to all...address HR45 with your congressmen and tell them to attack it with a patriotic vigor not seen in some time. this bill is the opening salvo of what will become endless attacks upon our second amendment rights during the next four years. we need bills like hr17, not gun licensing b.s. like hr45!!! deo vindice
So many people in this country think this issue is about Democrats opposing gun ownership. Need I remind you here, that it was a Republican led government, not Democratic led, who set up the Brady Bill in the first place after the assasination attempt on Repulican President Ronald Reagan back in the 80's! Read more of these bills before you go urging your states leaders to back them also. Some have bills attached, that we DON'T want passed! So by urging the passing of one, you might also be getting another that we don't want passed as well!
This bill upholds the Constitution, HR-45 does not. IF our President is to keep his oath of office, this is one he should support. Let's see if he will.
This bill won't even make it to the floor of the House. It's sponsor and co-sponsors are pandering to your irrational fears.
But READ the Bill people!!!! Damn!! HR17 DOES have HR45 attached to it!!! We DO want HR17, but not HR45. But pushing for the passage of HR17 as it is right now, you would also be pushing HR45 thru and not even be aware because you haven't taken the time to actually read the whole Bill of HR17. Open your eyes for God's sake!!! It's right there on the General Description of the Bill on the first page when you click on Bill HR17 on this very website!!!
simple when a thief breaks into your house or business you should be abe to defend it with any means you have. when they break in to steal they have no rights.
I agree, This is crazy that we have to have the government tell us that it is okay to defend ourselves or our families from those who will do use wrong a criminal or the government (Same Thing). This should be a given to all humans on the earth.