New Gun Control Act in Congress
Posted by Larry (+154) 12 years ago
I got a call today from the NRA and they explained that a house bill is being rushed through congress. This bill require that all weapons with clips including rifles and shotguns be registered with the federal government. Then you have to go through a training course and a background check to qualify. If you do you will get a card stating what guns you can have. Another thing is that if you move and not notify the Feds, you can go to jail and a hefty fine. I forgot to get the house bill number so if anyone wants to do research on this to get the right info. Just thought i would let you know what is happening under the carpet in Washington.
Top
Posted by K. D. (+360) 12 years ago
Possibly HR 45 The Blair - Holt Act.
http://www.govtrack.us/co...ll=h111-45
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6175) 12 years ago
The sky it falling! The sky is falling!

This bill doesn't have any sponsors and will most likely die in committee. It's highly unlikely that the Dems would try to get this very restrictive bill through Congree. Not that I wouldn't mind.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14947) 12 years ago
"it's highly unlikely that the Dems would try to get this very restrictive bill through Congree"

Really? Are you aware that last week they federalized the college student loan program. I think they will try and pass absolutely everything they can before the 2010 election.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9181) 12 years ago
they federalized the college student loan program

Good. When I went to MSU, it was part of a pilot program for direct student lending. It was cheaper for me and for the government to cut the middleman out of the student aid process.

Unfortunately, the powers that be deemed it necessary that Bank Of America and Wells Fargo get a cut of the action, and the program was killed.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (9/21/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14947) 12 years ago
Maybe. It also puts the government in charge of who qualifies to go to college and what they can study.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9181) 12 years ago
You are insane. Seek help or change your tinfoil.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (9/21/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6024) 12 years ago
Maybe. It also puts the government in charge of who qualifies to go to college and what they can study.

Please.

You're only 50 years behind the times.

http://febp.newamerica.ne...ms-history

Student loans originally were federalized. It's not some plot concocted by Muslim pirates, Richard.

1958 - First federal student loan program established by the National Defense Education Act. Loans are direct loans capitalized by U.S. Treasury funds.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (9/21/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14947) 12 years ago
No, I am not behind the times.

http://www.rules.house.go...21_txt.pdf

http://www.redstate.com/e...-czar-too/

While we are all focusing on H.R. 3200, the House Democrats' health care plan, we should at least glance at H.R. 3221, the House Democrats' plan to kill off higher education access. (PDF)

The legislation is opposed by many major universities including Notre Dame, among others. Basically, the bill would shut down all private providers of student loans, drive up costs for universities, and become a bureaucratic nightmare for institutions of higher learning. The professors may be leftists, but the administrators have to pay attention to the bottom line.

The Director of Student Financial Strategies at University of Notre Dame warns in a letter to Congressman Miller, "Any legislation that eliminates choice and competition and mandates that all institutions adopt an all-government run program for the 2010/11 academic year is filled with immense risk and would create massive confusion."

Get that? The Democrats want an "all-government run program" to provide people access to money to pay for college. And if they do that, then they can force universities to comply with lots of new rules or deny students the right to use federal student loans to go to particular colleges.

But it gets better. Boy does it ever get better.

§ 343 of the plan creates a Green Schools Czar. No kidding. A Green Schools Czar (and committee naturally) would examine the impact of more environmentally friendly universities and find ways to create even more environmentally friendly universities. Oh . . . I have an idea . . . if students need financial assistance and they are forced to go through the feds, the feds can simply tell universities to become compliant or they won't let students use their student loans to go there.

What is so funny is that §312 of Obama's stimulus plan also sent money to schools to become more environmentally friendly. That was the carrot. Well, this new law will become the stick.


http://www.redstate.com/e...ent-loans/
If you want an indication of just how radical the Democrats in Congress have become, consider the vote on H.R. 3221. The legislation, which I wrote about yesterday, shuts down all private lenders for higher education student loans, requires that colleges and universities adhere to a new federal bureaucracy, creates a new Green Schools Czar, and hints that any school not complying will see its students denied federal student loans.

Last year, Congress passed the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act (ECASLA). The bill passed in the House 388-21, including 221-0 among Democrats. The Senate passed it by unanimous consent. President Bush signed it. The legislation was a bi-partisan piece of legislation that allowed private sector involvement in student loans without a new federal bureaucracy.

This year, the Republican substitute to HR 3221 would extend ECASLA programs through 2014 and create a commission to develop a new private sector model for student lending. The amendment failed 165-265. 257 Democrats unanimously voted no.

Final passage of HR 3221 was 253-171. 4 Democrats voted no, 6 Republicans vote aye.

The Democrats have now rejected the same legislation they unanimously supported last year in favor of a new, expansive federal bureaucracy.

Moderate Democrats in the Senate need to consider this. The legislation is opposed by many major colleges and universities. Senators Johnson, Nelson, Casey, and Gillibrand are on notice. And hopefully Charlie Crist's errand boy, George LeMieux, is paying attention.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (9/21/2009)]
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+597) 12 years ago
Redstate.com? Wow what a accurate, unbiased source..... NOT

Please do better with the Chicken Little act
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+582) 12 years ago
And Notre Dame opposes HR 3221? Now that's a real bastion of affordable, public education for you!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 12 years ago
Ricardo:

NOOOOOOOOOOOO

The Muslim pirates are gonna take all your guns away!!!!

And they're not gonna let Ricardo Jr. go to college unless he converts to ISLAM!

NOOOOOOOOOOOO

You better go overthrow the government now, before it's too late!!!!!
Top
Posted by ABE (+419) 12 years ago
Wouldn't matter anyway, would it?

HOUSE BILL NO. 246
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11732) 12 years ago
The "radical" Democrats want to remove a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy, save money. stop using tax dollars to fatten bankers' wallets and make the government student loan program more efficient. Certainly a terrible idea if I ever heard of one.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4942) 12 years ago
LOL, Amorette...
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14947) 12 years ago
"The "radical" Democrats want to remove a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy, save money. stop using tax dollars to fatten bankers' wallets and make the government student loan program more efficient. Certainly a terrible idea if I ever heard of one."

Yeah, the government hates competition... why let a bank make a buck when the government could get that dollar? Despite all of the "good intentions" such programs never seem to save any money and usually cost a lot more than the original projections. But then I keep forgetting that liberals should be judged on their intentions, not on their results.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4942) 12 years ago
Banks always charge more interest, and the students get stuck paying for, in some cases, extremely high interest rates...so Richard, you are saying that banks should be allowed to charge these higher interest rates regardless if it poses more of a hardship on the students?? what a nice guy you are!!!! NOT!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14947) 12 years ago
And the government won't charge high interest rates? Right. I guess if it is a loan and the student doesn't like the terms, they shouldn't sign the paperwork.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (9/22/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4942) 12 years ago
Well, Richard, I know for a fact that a loan at the local credit union is fully 3% cheaper than a privately owned bank down the street because it is a federal credit union and they have their guidelines...3% interest difference can be a lot of money...
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4462) 12 years ago
Banks always charge more interest, and the students get stuck paying for, in some cases, extremely high interest rates...so Richard, you are saying that banks should be allowed to charge these higher interest rates regardless if it poses more of a hardship on the students?? what a nice guy you are!!!! NOT!!!

This is the same thinking that brought us the housing crisis. Lending shouldn't be a matter of setting a price poor students can afford. It should be a matter of covering the expenses involved in loaning the money, along with the risk that some will not repay said money and all the headaches that go along with it, as well as a layer of profit (eeevil eeevil profit)
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4462) 12 years ago
Evil Bankseses. We don't need 'em.

http://www.nytimes.com/20...ilout.html

Ok, maybe we do. Anything more ironic than our Government going to the banks for a bailout?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14947) 12 years ago
"Well, Richard, I know for a fact that a loan at the local credit union is fully 3% cheaper than a privately owned bank down the street because it is a federal credit union and they have their guidelines...3% interest difference can be a lot of money..."

Yup. Three percent difference can be a lot of money. And the reason they can lend the money for less interest is because they don't have to provide the same level of financial backing (think more risky) that the bank does. Everything program like this that the government has become involved has require a bailout.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1903) 12 years ago
Hey! Let's get back to the f*ck*ng guns!
Top
Posted by cardiocasey (+16) 12 years ago
I agree. I was looking on the NRA website are you sure this is going through? I didnt see it. could you send me a link.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 12 years ago
Yup. Three percent difference can be a lot of money. And the reason they can lend the money for less interest is because they don't have to provide the same level of financial backing (think more risky) that the bank does.

------------

Wow. You're a financial wizard. Not.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9181) 12 years ago
Everything program like this that the government has become involved has require a bailout.

Now, I was but a callow youth when the Savings & Loan bailout occurred - but (and please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), wasn't that problem caused by deregulation of the S&L industry?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 12 years ago
You are correct, my friend.
Top