PDA

View Full Version : This is bogus right



rhineoshott
02-22-2010, 15:48
A friend sent this to me asking if it's real, I'm pretty sure that this is just made up. I just don't want to answer until I'm positive. A little confirmation from yall would be great!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New requirements to 2010 IRS 1040 . . . a must read!

Things may become quite interesting if this all happens . . .

Look what's on the 2010 tax return.
> Verified true on Snopes at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp
> Now ALL GUNS must be listed on your next (2010) tax return!
> Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own.
> It will require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.
> This bill was introduced on February 24, 2009 by the Obama staff. But this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective!
> This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all.
> The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage: www.senate.gov<http://www.senate.gov/>.
> You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number SB-2099. You know who to call. I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.
> Text of H.R..45 as Introduced in House: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009: www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text<http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text>
> Obama's Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.
> It is 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.
> Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar as a “minor” IRS revision. And as usual, the political lawmakers did not read this bill before signing and approving it!
> To find out about this, go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Goggle 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 number.
> • 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 years 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.
> 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.
> <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>
> Please! Copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA , whether you support the right to bear arms or are for gun control. WE ALL SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE!
> This is more change you can believe in!

Irving
02-22-2010, 15:50
I read the first line only. I've seen this passed around a bunch. It is fake. It's been called out on here several times recently.

cowboykjohnson
02-22-2010, 15:54
I read the first line only. I've seen this passed around a bunch. It is fake. It's been called out on here several times recently.
+1[Beer]

Mtn.man
02-22-2010, 15:57
Fake as Dolly's boobs.

Ridge
02-22-2010, 15:58
Its real, but it died before it got to the committee...

Marlin
02-22-2010, 15:58
As real as a three dollar bill....

sabot_round
02-22-2010, 16:25
Tin foil hat!!http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/ManWearingTinFoilHat.jpg/220px-ManWearingTinFoilHat.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ManWearingTinFoilHat.jpg)

pickenup
02-22-2010, 16:43
WHAT, it's NOT real??? :eek:
I just sent them a list, and a blank check.
(figured they would know how much to fill it out for)

[/sarcasm]

rhineoshott
02-22-2010, 16:49
Thank you folks.

TFOGGER
02-22-2010, 16:49
Utter balderdash....

http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/2009-2099.shtml

ronaldrwl
02-22-2010, 16:57
Fake as Dolly's boobs.

No way

Troublco
02-22-2010, 17:34
Fake as Dolly's boobs.

Hey, they may be fake, but they LOOK real!


Isn't it all about appearances?


[ROFL1]

Hoosier
02-22-2010, 17:40
Click the link to Snopes! Snopes is a great resource, and cites sources. Any time you get an email forwarded from someone, pick some unique word sequences and search for those with snopes as the first word.

It basically says the bill was introduced and hasn't gone anywhere.

H.

KevDen2005
02-22-2010, 18:37
I read the first line only. I've seen this passed around a bunch. It is fake. It's been called out on here several times recently.


I seem to have copied everyone else...read the first line only. I have heard rumors like that but nothing in a long while...and I just did my taxes and no where does it state on there that I need to do that.

And how many on here would really put that information on there anyway? They can't arrest us all!

KevDen2005
02-22-2010, 18:38
Fake as Dolly's boobs.


You say that like it's a bad thing!

Birddog1911
02-22-2010, 18:43
This crap comes up every year...kick whoever sent it to you.

RobertB
02-23-2010, 00:14
Here's the simple truth: any email that's alarming and requests that you send it to everyone you know (particularly with CAPS AND EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!) will almost certainly be either completely false or incredibly misleading. Remember panicked emails worried about taxing email, or unbelievably giddy ones about getting $250 for each email forwarded in a test by Microsoft, Intel, and AOL, which has been verified by a lawyer I know and you're guaranteed to make at least several thousand dollars?

Checking out Snopes is a great idea, and there are a few other debunking sites of similar nature. The link is right there, but doesn't claim it's true. It's partially true, but since the bill has no co-sponsors shows that no one thinks it's a good idea at all. Won't even ever make it to a vote.

SAnd
02-23-2010, 01:05
Snopes has a left/liberal bias. Be careful. I put them in the same category as Wikipedia, useful but not totally trustworthy.

FWIW

KevDen2005
02-23-2010, 01:22
Snopes has a left/liberal bias. Be careful. I put them in the same category as Wikipedia, useful but not totally trustworthy.

FWIW

I agree, I always use both as a quick reference just to check and get an immediate answer on something I am curious about. If I really need to know or need serious information, or am doing research then I will certainly use more trustworthy sources and leave snopes and wikipedia out of it.

Irving
02-23-2010, 01:31
Snopes has a left/liberal bias.


I've never noticed this before. Any examples you remember off the top of your head?

SAnd
02-23-2010, 10:03
One I remember is the Blackwell editorial entry. I can't be specific but at the time Snopes posted there were several webpages that deconstructed it. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/blackwell.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/blackwell.asp)

Another is http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/forthood.asp (http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/forthood.asp) about G Bushes visit to Ft. Hood. Why bring up Obama to defend? It had nothing to do with Bushes visit.

I can't cite more examples off the top of my head. Sorry but I tend to remember conclusions and "file and forget" mentally the reasons behind my conclusions. I know it makes it hard back up my opinions but that's the way I am.

I am conservative / libertarian. I see thing from that point of view although I try my best to be objective.

I went to the Snopes website this morning and cruised around. The way they write raises alarm flags and makes me question the accuracy. It's just their style. An example is they will cite a source for one quote but then not cite a source the next until the bottom of the page.

The Snopes people are subtle in the way they do things. They present opinion as facts.

Why don't they have anything on environment? That makes me suspicious. I can't believe they aren't getting stuff to investigate about global warming.

Barbara & David P. Mikkelson run Snopes. A quote from the Snopes webpage, "Barbara's a Canadian citizen who couldn't possibly have an affiliation with a U.S. political party, and I'm officially registered as an independent. Neither of us has ever made a donation to a political party or candidate, worked on behalf of a political campaign (either on a paid or volunteer basis), or publicly endorsed or supported any party, candidate, or political cause (not even to the extent of displaying a bumper sticker, putting up a yard sign, or wearing a campaign button)." I won't trust anybody that claims to be apolitical. If they admitted their views and stated they tried to be fair and balance I would tend to believe them more.

Hoosier
02-23-2010, 10:29
Another is http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/forthood.asp (http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/forthood.asp) about G Bushes visit to Ft. Hood. Why bring up Obama to defend? It had nothing to do with Bushes visit.

Because Obama was part of the various forward emails that snopes investigates? There are snippets from the assorted emails which mention that Obama was there just for a game of basketball.


I went to the Snopes website this morning and cruised around. The way they write raises alarm flags and makes me question the accuracy. It's just their style. An example is they will cite a source for one quote but then not cite a source the next until the bottom of the page.

Welcome to the internet, I suppose. It's an excellent reference that cites sources. If you don't like the style of writing, I suggest referencing the sources and going from there. The same thing as Wikipedia. It's an excellent reference, and more importantly if you don't believe the veracity (or bias) of the material, refer back to the sources.


Why don't they have anything on environment? That makes me suspicious. I can't believe they aren't getting stuff to investigate about global warming.

I don't know about you, but I'd stay away from that hot potato, unless you like reading thousands of pages of very dry data. As I see it there's essentially two view points: the UN climate change panel, and the people who have their fingers in their ears going NANANANANA I CANT HEAR YOU.
Oops, was that biased? [Coffee]


If they admitted their views and stated they tried to be fair and balance I would tend to believe them more.


Does saying you're Fair and Balanced convince you that it's true? Alright, so I guess if snopes doesn't live up to your standards for quality reporting, you can either believe those forwards you get are truth, or research them yourself. I'll stick with Snopes.

o7

sniper7
02-23-2010, 13:51
yes, bogus. RMGO and the NRA have both called this out. you should look at joining one or both. if you go for only one I say go for RMGO

rhineoshott
02-23-2010, 14:21
yes, bogus. RMGO and the NRA have both called this out. you should look at joining one or both. if you go for only one I say go for RMGO

I get the RMGO emails and stuff, but I never paid the $20, I should.

I am a member of Gun Owners of America. Do you like them? They've got a lot more backbone than NRA in my opinion.

sniper7
02-23-2010, 15:32
I get the RMGO emails and stuff, but I never paid the $20, I should.

I am a member of Gun Owners of America. Do you like them? They've got a lot more backbone than NRA in my opinion.


yeah they are good as well.

definitely send the $20 or $25 to RMGO. lots of local level help. best money you can spend for you gun rights IMO.

plus you get access to their for sale forums.
you really can't go wrong with it.
and now is the time so they can get some lobbying done so colorado can follow MT and TN with their gun laws. Just need to bide our time so it can be done once that idiot ritter is out of office.

ryanek9freak
02-23-2010, 18:43
I get the RMGO emails and stuff, but I never paid the $20, I should.

I am a member of Gun Owners of America. Do you like them? They've got a lot more backbone than NRA in my opinion.
Then why is Dudley Brown sending me emails warning me about "HR45" and asking that I donate money to the National Association For Gun rights?

Irving
02-23-2010, 18:48
SAnd, you don't really need to justify anything, I was just curious what you ran into that gave you that impression. Thanks for the response.