The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
On the final presentation of the bill, Biden voted "yea"; the important Firearm Owners Protection Act was passed by the Senate and eventually signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on May 19, 1986.Senator Joe Biden, July 9, 1985 wrote: I give credit to Senator Hatch and the National Rifle Association for their willingness to compromise and develop a revised bill that would strike a fair balance between unnecessary restrictions and regulations on lawful ownership of rifles and handguns and the legitimate interests of law enforcement in carrying out their responsibilities. I believe the compromises that are now a part of this bill have resulted in a balanced piece of legislation that protects the rights of private gun owners while not infringing on law enforcement's ability to deal with those who misuse guns or violate laws.
During my 12 1/2 years as a Member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or Federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control. In my opinion a national register or ban of handguns would be impossible to carry out and may not result in reductions in crime.
There will be several amendments offered today that warrant close attention and I will listen to the authors' argument very carefully before deciding how I will vote. However, on the whole, I am satisfied with the revisions to the bill made in committee, and I believe this bill makes improvements to existing law.
An article by Stephen P. Halbrook, entitled "To Keep and Bear Their Private Arms: The Adoption of the Second Amendment, 1787-1791," appearing in the Northern Kentucky Law Review (1982), was introduced and printed in the record.Senator Jesse Helms wrote: Mr. President, the right to keep and bear arms has a long and honorable history in the United States. It is, of course, enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution and was reckoned as fundamental by our Founding Fathers--both Federalist and anti-Federalist.
It is important that we who serve in the Senate in 1985 pause to remember why the founders of our country viewed the right to own guns as fundamental. Of course, they knew the importance of firearms for hunting--not just for sport but for supplying food for the family. They also knew that, in a largely frontier society, guns were vital for self-defense against common criminals who were a constant threat to the safety and survival of innocent law-abiding citizens.
Today, these same arguments are presented in support of preserving the rights of gun ownership, and properly so because they are valid arguments.
However, for the Founding Fathers, neither of these arguments was the overriding reason in favor of an armed citizenry. For them, the most important reason for gun ownership was political--that is, armed citizens constituted an effective hedge against tyrants. Fresh from their victory over the British, they had indelibly impressed on their minds the political importance of citizens who owned and knew how to use guns.
Mr. President, many in Washington today do not want to be reminded of this political function of gun ownership. After saddling the American people with nearly $2 trillion in Federal debt, failing to act effectively to stop the spread of Communist tyranny around the world, and presiding over the destruction of fundamental American values such as innocent human life in the womb, religious liberty, the institution of the family, the neighborhood school, and public morality in general, it is small wonder that the Washington establishment would prefer to ignore the political reasons for the right to bear arms.
But we should not ignore these reasons, and we especially should not ignore them at a time when the Government seems incapable of protecting its citizens against international terrorism. Surely it takes no great wisdom to see that American citizens--with the full freedom to buy, sell, and own firearms--will be safer in their persons and possessions against terrorism than citizens without such freedom.
Very good post. i'm as guilty as anyone forgetting history, life tends to get in the way. But if one's job is to generate legislation, part of that job should be to educate oneself as to the origin of current legislation. My .o2.Rafe wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 7:23 pm Grayling813 posted on Saturday in the meme topic a quotation attributed to Joe Biden in 1985, before he became cognitively diminished and a puppet for radical Democrats. I wanted a definitive source for that quotation, so I looked it up.
It was from the floor of the Senate on July 9, 1985, in discussion of the Firearm Owners Protection Act.
This link is to a large, 48MB PDF file; it is the official Congressional Record for that date. The PDF looks like it's only a compilation of images, but it's actually text-searchable.
This may be no better time for us, and more importantly for our present legislators, to read the entire exchange and information submitted. It starts on page 12 of the PDF; the page number in the document is 18155. But the quotation is taken from Biden's statement on PDF page 86 (document page 18229) in the center column:
On the final presentation of the bill, Biden voted "yea"; the important Firearm Owners Protection Act was passed by the Senate and eventually signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on May 19, 1986.Senator Joe Biden, July 9, 1985 wrote: I give credit to Senator Hatch and the National Rifle Association for their willingness to compromise and develop a revised bill that would strike a fair balance between unnecessary restrictions and regulations on lawful ownership of rifles and handguns and the legitimate interests of law enforcement in carrying out their responsibilities. I believe the compromises that are now a part of this bill have resulted in a balanced piece of legislation that protects the rights of private gun owners while not infringing on law enforcement's ability to deal with those who misuse guns or violate laws.
During my 12 1/2 years as a Member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or Federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control. In my opinion a national register or ban of handguns would be impossible to carry out and may not result in reductions in crime.
There will be several amendments offered today that warrant close attention and I will listen to the authors' argument very carefully before deciding how I will vote. However, on the whole, I am satisfied with the revisions to the bill made in committee, and I believe this bill makes improvements to existing law.
During the discussion that day in the Senate, the late Jesse Helms also made some salient points. One of which, I believe, leads straight to the heart of the far-left's constant desire to destroy--or legislate the guts out of--the Second Amendment:
An article by Stephen P. Halbrook, entitled "To Keep and Bear Their Private Arms: The Adoption of the Second Amendment, 1787-1791," appearing in the Northern Kentucky Law Review (1982), was introduced and printed in the record.Senator Jesse Helms wrote: Mr. President, the right to keep and bear arms has a long and honorable history in the United States. It is, of course, enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution and was reckoned as fundamental by our Founding Fathers--both Federalist and anti-Federalist.
It is important that we who serve in the Senate in 1985 pause to remember why the founders of our country viewed the right to own guns as fundamental. Of course, they knew the importance of firearms for hunting--not just for sport but for supplying food for the family. They also knew that, in a largely frontier society, guns were vital for self-defense against common criminals who were a constant threat to the safety and survival of innocent law-abiding citizens.
Today, these same arguments are presented in support of preserving the rights of gun ownership, and properly so because they are valid arguments.
However, for the Founding Fathers, neither of these arguments was the overriding reason in favor of an armed citizenry. For them, the most important reason for gun ownership was political--that is, armed citizens constituted an effective hedge against tyrants. Fresh from their victory over the British, they had indelibly impressed on their minds the political importance of citizens who owned and knew how to use guns.
Mr. President, many in Washington today do not want to be reminded of this political function of gun ownership. After saddling the American people with nearly $2 trillion in Federal debt, failing to act effectively to stop the spread of Communist tyranny around the world, and presiding over the destruction of fundamental American values such as innocent human life in the womb, religious liberty, the institution of the family, the neighborhood school, and public morality in general, it is small wonder that the Washington establishment would prefer to ignore the political reasons for the right to bear arms.
But we should not ignore these reasons, and we especially should not ignore them at a time when the Government seems incapable of protecting its citizens against international terrorism. Surely it takes no great wisdom to see that American citizens--with the full freedom to buy, sell, and own firearms--will be safer in their persons and possessions against terrorism than citizens without such freedom.
And if any of our current crop of ban-everything zealots wants to take the time to research their history, at the time of this Senate discussion the civilian, semi-automatic, not-an-assault-weapon, AR-15 sporting rifle had already been available for individual sale for 22 years. It was introduced by Colt in 1963, and when Colt's patents expired in 1977 the popularity of the modular, utilitarian rifle grew exponentially after other manufacturers started making their own variants.
Is The Second Amendment Absolute?At the same time, the Second Amendment, like all other rights, is not absolute. - Joe Biden, June 2, 2022
RTWTIs the Second Amendment absolute? Does it have any exceptions? Could the Second Amendment be repealed? What would happen if it were?
The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I don’t see how it could be any more absolute. The only exceptions have been invented by judges and legislators.
The Second Amendment does not grant to any American the positive right to keep and bear arms. It recognizes a preexisting natural right. The Second Amendment is an additional limitation on federal power to infringe upon gun rights besides the fact that no authority is granted to the federal government in its limited, enumerated powers to infringe upon them in the first place.
philip964 wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 6:59 pm https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -plan.html
Biden Energy Dept proposes energy efficient furnace plan.
Hey hey we all get to buy new furnaces.
Something called a condensing furnace which must run the burnt gasses through a second time to get more heat out.
If it made economic sense the market would have already adopted it.
They should make it a law! LOL 
I just paid $125 a pound for R22 is that now the price.03Lightningrocks wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 6:27 amphilip964 wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 6:59 pm https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -plan.html
Biden Energy Dept proposes energy efficient furnace plan.
Hey hey we all get to buy new furnaces.
Something called a condensing furnace which must run the burnt gasses through a second time to get more heat out.
If it made economic sense the market would have already adopted it.
I kind of like that idea!
I actually have two condensing furnaces. They are 93% efficient and mine are at least 20 years old. I own an HVAC company and was a Lennox Dealer at the time so they were given to me. They are VERY expensive so the additional cost to go from an 80-85% typical furnace to a condensing furnace is very hard to justify in an area most of us live in with maybe 4-6 weeks of winter, if we add all the cold days up together. The cool part is most of them come with a lifetime warranty on the heat exchanger and condensing coils.
They average 1500-2500 dollars more than the basic furnace at 80% efficient. If you have an extra 1500 to spend and live in Texas, it makes far more sense to put that money into more efficient air conditioning.
That is actually in the right range. 125-150 per pound. Our cost on 410 has gone up by 500% in just under two years. I have no idea why either.philip964 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 11:23 pmI just paid $125 a pound for R22 is that now the price.03Lightningrocks wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 6:27 amphilip964 wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 6:59 pm https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -plan.html
Biden Energy Dept proposes energy efficient furnace plan.
Hey hey we all get to buy new furnaces.
Something called a condensing furnace which must run the burnt gasses through a second time to get more heat out.
If it made economic sense the market would have already adopted it.
I kind of like that idea!
I actually have two condensing furnaces. They are 93% efficient and mine are at least 20 years old. I own an HVAC company and was a Lennox Dealer at the time so they were given to me. They are VERY expensive so the additional cost to go from an 80-85% typical furnace to a condensing furnace is very hard to justify in an area most of us live in with maybe 4-6 weeks of winter, if we add all the cold days up together. The cool part is most of them come with a lifetime warranty on the heat exchanger and condensing coils.
They average 1500-2500 dollars more than the basic furnace at 80% efficient. If you have an extra 1500 to spend and live in Texas, it makes far more sense to put that money into more efficient air conditioning.
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/ ... aturina%2F
Biden, 79, and first lady Jill Biden were wrapping up a morning ride [Saturday at Cape Henlopen State Park near his beach home in Delaware] when the president decided to pedal over to a crowd of well-wishers standing by the bike trail. Biden, who was wearing a helmet, tumbled when he tried to dismount....
"I'm good," he told reporters after U.S. Secret Service Agents quickly helped him up. "I got my foot caught."
I wonder what happened to this woman after...Rafe wrote: Sat Jun 18, 2022 12:48 pm Biden falls while getting off bike after beach ride near his Delaware home
https://abc13.com/biden-bike-fall-bicycle/11973629/
Biden, 79, and first lady Jill Biden were wrapping up a morning ride [Saturday at Cape Henlopen State Park near his beach home in Delaware] when the president decided to pedal over to a crowd of well-wishers standing by the bike trail. Biden, who was wearing a helmet, tumbled when he tried to dismount....
"I'm good," he told reporters after U.S. Secret Service Agents quickly helped him up. "I got my foot caught."
Teddy Roosevelt boxed with sparring partners while in the White House, once being hit so hard that it blinded him in his left eye, a fact not made public until many years later. He did some training in jiu-jitsu with Yoshitsugu Yamashita and after, concerned that the U.S. would lose some military advantage in hand-to-hand fighting, Roosevelt began to advocate for jiu-jitsu training for American soldiers.
And now we have Joe Biden. Who can't reliably navigate the stairs of Air Force One, who can't extemporaneously speak in complete sentences, and who can't get off his own bicycle.
The world and all its leaders have deep respect and admiration for the current leader of the United States.
