POLITICS - NRA backed Gun Control goes to the President

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Jeeps
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: New York :-(

Post by Jeeps »

"laws against felons having firearms"?????????

Ask ANY cop how easy it is for a felon to get his hands on a gun :shock:

Then ask him to guess a percentage of felons who have guns :shock:

They are all feel-good laws and a good way to keep the flock in control.

If people in prison can make and receive weapons and drugs in such a controlled area.

WHAT IN GODS NAME MAKES YOU THINK LAWS CAN CONTROL THE LAWLESS OUTSIDE OF PRISON.

I am firmly against any and all gun laws because they don't work and we were promised by our founding fathers that our God given right to protect ourselves and other by arming ourselves "shall not be infringed"!
Jeeps

Image

Semper Fidelis

Pay attention to YOUR Bill of Rights, in this day and age it is all we have.
Leverdude
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:25 pm
Location: Norwalk CT

Post by Leverdude »

.And stop advertising out loud, for pete's sake Crying or Very sad
Thats sound advice I think.
Leverdude
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:25 pm
Location: Norwalk CT

Post by Leverdude »

I tend to believe if someones still a threat they ought not be released but I can deal with laws banning them from haveing guns as long as theres a method of differentiating from real criminals & someone charged with a newfangled feel good victimless felony.
The watters have been clouded by things. Once a felon was a clearly violent criminal. These days he mighta just stored a gun improperly, or got caught with his kids bag of dope, or done some white collar stuff.
pshort
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:43 am
Location: Central Minnesota

Post by pshort »

Leverdude wrote:.......as long as theres a method of differentiating from real criminals & someone charged with a newfangled feel good victimless felony..
Howdy,
That's exactly the whole problem. A slight mistake in storage could make you a felon. Some of the GG's wanna take it down to the misdemeanor level. A couple of traffic tickets could do you in... The line should have been drawn long ago!

Paul
User avatar
Blackhawk
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 627
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Arkansas

Post by Blackhawk »

I know a lady that takes Welbutrin(sp) to help her quit smoking, prescribed by a doctor. She and her husband are good people, with children and grand children. Both hunt deer but under this new law they would both be criminals? Don't make sense to me. Lots of people take different meds for various reasons. I got a friend whos a worry wart so he takes Prozac, very nice guy with two small kids, very nice to everyone, always smiling and a deer hunter. So he would be doing something illegal buy owning guns and taking meds? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but it doesn't make sense if that is the case. I tried to read everything but maybe I missed something.

Johnny
Idahoser

Post by Idahoser »

The point is, under any circumstances, regardless who's running things, another new gun law (perceive it any way you like, they can't possibly be "pro-gun" if they modify on the 2A) is always a good thing. Twist the meanings of everything. Another way to f@@# you if you come into their notice for some reason. Add it to some other innocuous law making this post a crime, and now I'm not only a criminal but a GUN CRIMINAL.

They know exactly what they're doing.

I will not comment on the NRA out of respect for people here who will not see.
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

Blackhawk wrote:I know a lady that takes Welbutrin(sp) to help her quit smoking, prescribed by a doctor. She and her husband are good people, with children and grand children. Both hunt deer but under this new law they would both be criminals? Don't make sense to me. Lots of people take different meds for various reasons. I got a friend whos a worry wart so he takes Prozac, very nice guy with two small kids, very nice to everyone, always smiling and a deer hunter. So he would be doing something illegal buy owning guns and taking meds? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but it doesn't make sense if that is the case. I tried to read everything but maybe I missed something.

Johnny
It's not the drung being taken but whether or not some Judge has decided to "commit" you.

Once that's done, it's all over.

JWG: I gues you wouldnt be at all concerned to discover that your wife was going to be Officially equated with child rapists and your family put on the Official "Politically Dangerous/Undesireable" list? Naah. No reason at all for me to be upset.

BlaineG: Shhhh. I promise not to scream or fight back as the The Government shoves another big corncob up my .... NOT.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

"To me, this is the best Christmas present I could ever receive" -- Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), CBS News, December 20, 2007

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

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Gun Owners of America and its supporters took a knife in the back yesterday, as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) out-smarted his congressional opposition into agreeing on a so-called "compromise" on HR 2640 -- a bill which now goes to the President's desk.

The bill -- known as the Veterans Disarmament Act to its opponents -- is being praised by the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign.

The Brady Bunch crowed "Victory! U.S. Congress Strengthens Brady Background Check System." The NRA stated that last minute changes to the McCarthy bill made a "good bill even better [and that] the end product is a win for American gun owners."

But Gun Owners of America has issued public statements decrying this legislation.

The core of the bill's problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes you a "prohibited person" on the basis of a "medical finding of disability," so long as a veteran had an "opportunity" for some sort of "hearing" before some "lawful authority" (other than a court). Presumably, this "lawful authority" could even be the psychiatrist himself.

Note that unlike with an accused murderer, the hearing doesn't have to occur. The "lawful authority" doesn't have to be unbiased. The veteran is not necessarily entitled to an attorney -- much less an attorney financed by the government.

So what do the proponents have to say about this?

ARGUMENT: The Veterans Disarmament Act creates new avenues for prohibited persons to seek restoration of their gun rights.

ANSWER: What the bill does is to lock in -- statutorily -- huge numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied the right to own a firearm.

And then it "graciously" allows these newly disarmed Americans to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot chance to regain the gun rights this very bill takes away from them.

More to the point, what minimal gains were granted by the "right hand" are taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides a process for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur only if "the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST." (Emphasis added.)

Um, doesn't this language sound similar to those state codes (like California's) that have "may issue" concealed carry laws -- where citizens "technically" have the right to carry, but state law only says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry? When given such leeway, those sheriffs usually don't grant the permits!

Prediction: liberal states -- the same states that took these people's rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that granting relief would be "contrary to the public interest."

Let's make one thing clear: the efforts begun during the Clinton Presidency to disarm battle-scarred veterans -- promoted by the Brady Anti-Gun Campaign -- is illegal and morally reprehensible.

But section 101(c)(1)(C) of HR 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily barred from possessing firearms.

True, they can hire a lawyer and beg the agency that took their rights away to voluntarily give them back. But the agency doesn't have to do anything but sit on its hands. And, after 365 days of inaction, guess what happens? The newly disarmed veteran can spend thousands of additional dollars to sue. And, as the plaintiff, the wrongly disarmed veteran has the burden of proof.

Language proposed by GOA would have automatically restored a veteran's gun rights if the agency sat on its hands for a year.
Unfortunately, the GOA amendment was not included.

The Veterans Disarmament Act passed the Senate and the House yesterday -- both times WITHOUT A RECORDED VOTE. That is, the bill passed by Unanimous Consent, and was then transmitted to the White House.

Long-time GOA activists will remember that a similar "compromise" deal helped the original Brady Law get passed. In 1993, there were only two or three senators on the floor of that chamber who used a Unanimous Consent agreement (with no recorded vote) to send the Brady bill to President Clinton -- at a time when most legislators had already left town for their Thanksgiving Break.

Gun owners can go to http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9402.htm to read about how this betrayal occurred 14 years ago.

With your help, Gun Owners of America has done a yeoman's job of fighting gun control over the years, considering the limited resources that we have. Together, we were able to buck the Brady Campaign/NRA coalition in 1999 (after the Columbine massacre) and were able to defeat the gun control that was proposed in the wake of that shooting.

Yesterday, we were not so lucky. But we are not going to go away.
GOA wants to repeal the gun-free zones that disarm law-abiding Americans and repeal the other gun restrictions that are on the books. That is the answer to Virginia Tech. Unfortunately, the House and Senate chose the path of imposing more gun control.
Last edited by Old Ironsights on Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Post by Blaine »

BlaineG: Shhhh. I promise not to scream or fight back as the The Government shoves another big corncob up my .... NOT.
I'm on your side, Bro......talking about it don't make me a bad guy :P
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
alnitak
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1775
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:13 am
Location: Virginia

Post by alnitak »

From GOA:

"To me, this is the best Christmas present I could ever receive" --
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), CBS News, December 20, 2007

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

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Gun Owners of America and its supporters took a knife in the back
yesterday, as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) out-smarted his
congressional opposition into agreeing on a so-called "compromise" on
HR 2640 -- a bill which now goes to the President's desk.

The bill -- known as the Veterans Disarmament Act to its opponents --
is being praised by the National Rifle Association and the Brady
Campaign.

The Brady Bunch crowed "Victory! U.S. Congress Strengthens Brady
Background Check System." The NRA stated that last minute changes to
the McCarthy bill made a "good bill even better [and that] the end
product is a win for American gun owners."

But Gun Owners of America has issued public statements decrying this
legislation.

The core of the bill's problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes
you a "prohibited person" on the basis of a "medical finding of
disability," so long as a veteran had an "opportunity" for some sort
of "hearing" before some "lawful authority" (other than a court).
Presumably, this "lawful authority" could even be the psychiatrist
himself.

Note that unlike with an accused murderer, the hearing doesn't have
to occur. The "lawful authority" doesn't have to be unbiased. The
veteran is not necessarily entitled to an attorney -- much less an
attorney financed by the government.

So what do the proponents have to say about this?

ARGUMENT: The Veterans Disarmament Act creates new avenues for
prohibited persons to seek restoration of their gun rights.

ANSWER: What the bill does is to lock in -- statutorily -- huge
numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied
the right to own a firearm.

And then it "graciously" allows these newly disarmed Americans to
spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot chance to regain
the gun rights this very bill takes away from them.

More to the point, what minimal gains were granted by the "right
hand" are taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides a process
for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to
get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in
subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur
only if "the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous
to public safety and that the GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE
CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST." (Emphasis added.)

Um, doesn't this language sound similar to those state codes (like
California's) that have "may issue" concealed carry laws -- where
citizens "technically" have the right to carry, but state law only
says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry? When given such
leeway, those sheriffs usually don't grant the permits!

Prediction: liberal states -- the same states that took these
people's rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been
illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that granting
relief would be "contrary to the public interest."

Let's make one thing clear: the efforts begun during the Clinton
Presidency to disarm battle-scarred veterans -- promoted by the Brady
Anti-Gun Campaign -- is illegal and morally reprehensible.

But section 101(c)(1)(C) of HR 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal
actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily
barred from possessing firearms.

True, they can hire a lawyer and beg the agency that took their
rights away to voluntarily give them back. But the agency doesn't
have to do anything but sit on its hands. And, after 365 days of
inaction, guess what happens? The newly disarmed veteran can spend
thousands of additional dollars to sue. And, as the plaintiff, the
wrongly disarmed veteran has the burden of proof.

Language proposed by GOA would have automatically restored a
veteran's gun rights if the agency sat on its hands for a year.
Unfortunately, the GOA amendment was not included.

The Veterans Disarmament Act passed the Senate and the House
yesterday -- both times WITHOUT A RECORDED VOTE. That is, the bill
passed by Unanimous Consent, and was then transmitted to the White
House.

Long-time GOA activists will remember that a similar "compromise"
deal helped the original Brady Law get passed. In 1993, there were
only two or three senators on the floor of that chamber who used a
Unanimous Consent agreement (with no recorded vote) to send the Brady
bill to President Clinton -- at a time when most legislators had
already left town for their Thanksgiving Break.

Gun owners can go to http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9402.htm to
read about how this betrayal occurred 14 years ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I keep seeing on this thread that a Judge has to rule that you are are a danger -- WRONG! Any "official" can do that...on a whim with no collaboration or proof!

This bill is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!
"From birth 'til death...we travel between the eternities." -- Print Ritter in Broken Trail
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

Swampman wrote:Personally I believe anyone who needs medication to maintain their mental health, shouldn't have acess to firearms or weapons of any sort. I think they should be kept away from the general population because the second they decide they don't need meds anymore and quit taking them they kill or injure someone.

Medication isn't good enough to prevent the constant danger these people present to me and my family.
I'm only going to say this once:

Neurochemical Disorders are no more or less dangerous than Diabetes.

They are treatable, and the people recieving that treatment don't deserve to be treated like the violent criminal scum you want to think they are.

There are millions of people under treatment for neurochemical disorders. They commit crimes at rates LOWER than that of the general population - largely because they ARE under treatment - and most of them have never been a danger to ANYONE - much less you.

But hey. Prejudice against the "Mentally Ill" is perfectly acceptable - but then, it used to be acceptable to call some folks "Boy" and "N*gger" too.

If you are afraid of violence, carry a gun and defend yourself when necessary.

But I seem to remember people fighting a tiny little war against people who thought that "mental defectives", among others, should be shoved into boxcars to keep them away from the Pure Race... :evil:
Last edited by Old Ironsights on Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
User avatar
Blackhawk
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 627
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Arkansas

Post by Blackhawk »

This is why we need a Preisdent that will not allow this to happen. We need someone who understands that "Shall not be infringed" is just that. Its not open to debate, period.

Johnny
Image

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
sore shoulder
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2611
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:51 pm
Location: 9000ft in the Rockies

Post by sore shoulder »

Banning felons from having guns is unConsitutional. If they have payed their debt to society and have been released into the public, then their rights should be restored. If they are such a danger that they cannot be trusted with a gun, then why the hell would you want them in public? Getting upset about them having guns is the least of the problem and avoids the real issue which is their threat to the safety of society. So we lock up potheads, and turn dangerous people loose. So much for common sense.

I'm also tired of this whole hang together or hang seperately deal being aimed at thos of us who will not compromise. It's the compromisers who are hanging us all, slowly. Any and all acceptance of infringements on our rights are compromise.

If you don't want to hang seperately, then quite compromising. I can't believe the outright tyranny grown intelligent men are willing to accept just because the NRA says it's ok. Think for yourself, examine it by the intent of the framers of the 2A. Otherwise your just a part of the problem.
Idahoser

Post by Idahoser »

Sore:

You put some words together that let me get my thoughts straight, this might help:

When you have the attitude that compromise is a good thing, you are tempted to continue that even when the choices offered to you are all to the enemy's benefit, you "must compromise" and so the one that's least offensive to you is the one you get behind as "the right thing".

I'm sorry but that's suicidal, regardless if you're backed by an organization with lots of members.
Jeeps
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: New York :-(

Post by Jeeps »

Don't forget that this will make people scared to seek treatment for minor depression and other things.
Jeeps

Image

Semper Fidelis

Pay attention to YOUR Bill of Rights, in this day and age it is all we have.
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

The National Rifle Association has done it.

Again.

Having advertised itself for more than a century as the nation's foremost defender of the Second Amendment, the NRA has once again given aid and comfort to politicians -- all of the "usual suspects":
Carolyn McCarthy, Charles Schumer, Patrick Leahy, Harry Reid, and that perennial Judas goat John Dingell -- as well as to pressure groups like the Brady Campaign, who are determined to destroy that right, by assisting passage of a law with the potential to strip hundreds of thousands of military veterans of their basic right to own and carry weapons.

This latest slap in the gun owner's face by the overstuffed suits at the NRA -- the same gang who eagerly signed off on the Gun Control Act of 1968, despite its origins in Hitler's Germany -- establishes the "principle" that individuals with the slightest of mental health "problem" (anyone, for instance, who ever sought professional help for mild depression or difficulty sleeping) have no inalienable right to self-defense.

(For more information on the Nazi roots of the 1968 Gun Control Act, be sure to see _Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny_, available at:
http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=24 )

For politicians, it's a payoff: precisely the response they wished for, to the latest series of what more and more observers now believe (however reluctantly) are purposely contrived incidents in which armed criminals feel free to attack crowds of people they know are unarmed and helpless because the law -- and some corporate policies -- demand it.

For the psychiatric profession, it enshrines their practitioners as powerful arbiters of who may or may not exercise their individual rights.

For America's gun owners, it's just another aspect of the long, continuous, cruel hoax perpetrated by the NRA, which collects millions of dollars in membership money under the false pretense of defending rights that they have proven willing to bargain away on the slightest excuse.

In doing so, they have empowered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to commit larger and more frequent atrocities of the kind we've become so familiar with over the years. Given past behavior, it would not be above them to pay informants, including those psychiatrists, who will attest to anybody's mental instability, trusting to the increasingly crooked court system to back the Bureau up.

(To learn more about BATFE history, strategy, and tactics, see the JPFO documentary _The Gang_. Go to: http://www.TheGangMovie.com )

Don't let the NRA suits put a fancy spin on it, it's really very
straightforward: first, there was no extra gun law; then there was one
-- thanks to the NRA. The last thing this country needs is another gun law. It already has 25,000. It needs to start repealing them. All of them.

There's no way to avoid a simple but apalling truth: the NRA's crawling into bed with the Brady Campaign is _exactly_ like the Anti-Defamation League endorsing the American Nazi Party, unthinkable, unspeakable, and disgusting. And, given the vital role that privately owned arms have played historically and currently in reducing violent crime and deterring foreign aggression, it is probably treason, as well.

Weak, submissive behavior of this kind is not the way for Second Amendment defenders to enter an era of liberal Democratic political dominance.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership calls upon NRA President John C. Sigler, Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action Chris W. Cox (and any of the 75-member board of directors who approves their reprehensible actions) to resign their positions, forfeiting all pensions or "golden parachutes". Not for the first time, by helping to pass yet another infringement of our rights, these people have brought shame upon themselves, their organization, on gun owners everywhere, and especially their country and the Constitution that is its highest law.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
User avatar
sore shoulder
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2611
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:51 pm
Location: 9000ft in the Rockies

Post by sore shoulder »

Old Iron, I predict your going to be labeled an extremist and conspiracy nut. However thats usually what people who blindly cling to an ideal that is proven wrong will do, instead of admitting they were wrong.

Reminds me of religious fanatics.
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

sore shoulder wrote:Old Iron, I predict your going to be labeled an extremist and conspiracy nut. However thats usually what people who blindly cling to an ideal that is proven wrong will do, instead of admitting they were wrong.

Reminds me of religious fanatics.
Yeah, I know where you are coming from. Silly me for holding to the Oath I swore to "Uphold THE CONSTITUTION of the United States against ALL enemies - Foreign and domestic.

Some people believe in Government. I believe in the Bill of Rights.

But I can sure swing a "Conspiracy Theory" if some folks think I need one to be one.

Isn't it interesting that this bill got fast tracked, was almost killed, then all of a sudden came back and got passed - just weeks after the SCOTUS decided to rule on the 2nd Amendment?

I mean, if/as soon as SCOTUS says that RKBA is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT and throws out the DC Handgun ban, the Anti's in Government have got to have another way of keeping guns out of the hands of "The People".

And boy does this bill hold the ticket.
Last edited by Old Ironsights on Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
http://www.gunlaws.com/books.htm


The swift passage of a gun-ban bill in the U.S. House, without committee hearings, floor debate or a recorded vote and possibly without even a quorum present, has NRA members nationwide asking what happened.

In a nationally released memo addressing the confusion, the NRA said this is "nothing unusual," further confusing their members. Swiftly adopting a gun-control measure on a voice vote has not occurred in at least fifteen years, if ever, according to Bloomfield Press, the largest publisher of gun-law books in the country.
http://www.gunlaws.com

The NRA, long considered a feared and powerful gun-rights lobby, allied itself with the most ardent anti-gun-rights forces in the House to quickly push through a bill that would massively increase the NICS Index -- the database of people who cannot pass an FBI background check for purchase of a firearm.

Psychiatrists and doctors would have an increased role in determining who gets on or off the list. The medical community has in the past exhibited pronounced anti-gun behaviors, bordering in some cases on hoplophobia, a morbid fear of weapons of any kind.

The action was taken during the morning "Suspension Calendar," normally reserved for "non-controversial" bills. Its use to slip through an expansion of gun control is highly irregular, with no similar action known in the past. The bill is HR 2640, "The NICS Improvement Act," posted here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/DHSinNICS.htm

No one knows how many of the 21 million records Congress seeks will truly identify Americans who lack the legal right to have a firearm. The effect on guns already owned by people in the 21 million records seems clear -- they would be subject to confiscation. At least, a transfer of ownership seems a likely requirement if the law is enacted and those people's names are poured into the list. There are no plans to notify these people.

An error rate of just one-tenth of one percent (very low for government work) would mean that 21,000 Americans will have their rights unjustly denied if the bill becomes law. These people will then be forced to line up and go through an arduous, time-consuming, complex and expensive process to prove their innocence. The government is not required to cooperate, though the law does provide a framework for getting rights restored, at NRA's insistence. (The bill says agencies "shall" act to keep records accurate, but nothing happens if they don't; no time frames for corrections are specified.)

News reports have shed no light on the accuracy or validity of the impending additions, or any preparations to handle a flood of appeals. An error rate of 1% would equal 2.1 million false "guilty" verdicts.

The existing list of criminals, illegal aliens and other "prohibited possessors" is 3,960,981 after 11 years of careful development (as of Dec. 31, 2005). Under the proposed law, at one fell swoop, it will grow to five times its current size. More than ten percent of American adults would be barred from exercising the fundamental civil right to arms. The NRA points out that Americans who have the right medical disabilities do belong on the list.

"It's scary, when both the main defender of this civil right and the enemies of that right combine and work to deny rights to so many people at once," said an insider who prefers to remain anonymous. "Are the records accurate? Can people unjustly accused swiftly restore their rights and reclaim their place in society? Shouldn't we check the validity before we summarily add so many people to the list, and not just add them and let the innocent suffer? Why are the NRA and anti-gun Democrats trying to move so fast?" Carefully checking 21 million people's records would of course slow down the process, and delay entering all the names.

Emails, blogs and chat rooms are filled with such questions, even as mainstream news reports praise "the first significant gun-control legislation in a decade," ignoring a dozen gun bills Congress has passed in the last ten years. Despite the jubilant mainstream headlines, the NRA memo says this is "NOT GUN CONTROL!" (emphasis theirs). After reading the bill, it certainly seems accurate to call it gun control, a term now used almost exclusively to refer to gun bans of one sort or another.

In a related but unreported development, experts note that the expanded NICS system, if combined with information from the Real ID Act, could provide a centralized federal monitoring facility for the entire population, under the guise of crime control. Privacy advocates have expressed concern over the possibility, though many officials see this as a good thing.

The Brady law, ostensibly to control handgun sales, initiated the entire project in 1993, at a cost of $250 million, plus subsequent allocations. The new bill adds $375 million per year for the next three years. In a 1998 surprise, the Brady Handgun law was automatically expanded to include all firearms, not just handguns.

The new law has many built-in protective requirements, and methods of appeal for those wrongly accused, but provides no punishment of government agents who fail to comply or to keep records accurately, placing the effectiveness of those safeguards in doubt. The Justice Dept. is supposed to give Congress a list of all the agencies that are not complying, once a year. In an odd requirement of unknown usefulness, various mental health institutions and providers are given power to certify former mental cases as now qualified to have guns.

In the past, federal and state officials have been known to stonewall, delay, deceive and claim impotence when confronted with requests to have rights restored to the innocent, or to the reformed. Congress has refused to fund such reviews, which are required by law, since 1992, effectively eliminating a person's chance for due process.

In a copyrighted story on 6/21/07, WorldNetDaily said:

"Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., announcing a provision to allow doctors to ban people from owning guns... The plan allows names to be entered into the NICS system based solely on a physician's diagnosis or prescription of a medication: adults who have taken Ritalin and soldiers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder would be classified as mentally ill and given the same opportunity to own firearms as convicted felons: None." Simple diagnosis or medical prescription does not appear to be in the bill as grounds for a ban. Ritalin and PTSD are not listed at the present time, though critics of the measure are concerned that such things could change.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/

Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt called the scheme, "conviction by diagnosis," which is true in cases where a person is officially deemed dangerous and other conditions are met. GOA is a national gun rights group opposing the measure. Pratt points out that many people will be taken by surprise when they try to buy a firearm and learn they have been unknowingly lumped into a category with murderers, rapists and illegal aliens. http://www.gunowners.org

---------------------------
Last edited by Old Ironsights on Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
User avatar
J Miller
Member Emeritus
Posts: 14880
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Not in IL no more ... :)

Post by J Miller »

sore shoulder wrote:Old Iron, I predict your going to be labeled an extremist and conspiracy nut. However thats usually what people who blindly cling to an ideal that is proven wrong will do, instead of admitting they were wrong.

Reminds me of religious fanatics.


If Old Ironsights will be labeled an extremist, I'll be standing with him. I haven't said much, but he and I are in total agreement. The NRA has sold all of us out. And most people just WILL NOT see it.

Joe
***Be sneaky, get closer, bust the cap on him when you can put the ball where it counts ;) .***
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality"

"Judge a law by the worst reading, and in the hands of the worst enemies of the Second Amendment"

Please tell me how HR2640 will not jeprodize my gun ownership?

Here is a "worst case" for you.

Drug Law has established, as precedent, that "proximity" is "possession" in regards to "prohibited items".

20 years ago my wife was "adjudicated" - which makes it technically a FELONY for her to be in the same house as my guns.

This bill proposes to put her name on a list that WILL be correlatable and correlated with CCW & other de-facto Registries.

Any correlation of that type will be primae-face evidence of a Felony and sufficient cause for a BATFE raid and confiscation of firearms.

"Judge a law by the worst reading, and in the hands of the worst enemies of the Second Amendment"

This law will put the homes of every law abiding gun owner, who also has an "adjudicated" family member in jeporady.

This bill does NOT guarantee a way to get a name off the NCIS List, but only to fund a "program" - making it a defacto "MAY ISSUE" plan that will be, at best, horribly expensive and about as likely as getting a CCW in NYC - only the Rich and Politically connected will ever get off.

"Judge a law by the worst reading, and in the hands of the worst enemies of the Second Amendment"

Even assuming that we are "allowed" to keep our guns despite having an "adjudicated" person at home, it will be almost impossible for there to not be a "safe storage" requirement, with periodic, unnanounced inventory checks to ensure that the "adjudicated person" doesn't have access. Total Gun Registration and suspention of 4th ammendment Rights for any family with an "adjudicated" member.

"Judge a law by the worst reading, and in the hands of the worst enemies of the Second Amendment"

This bill, as written, is unsupportable and any defense of it is inexcusable Pandering to the Antis.

"Judge a law by the worst reading, and in the hands of the worst enemies of the Second Amendment"

Why is the above truth important in the case of HR1022 and the terrorist bills, but the NRA is seemingly willing to ignore it for HR2460?

I am not a criminal. My wife is not a criminal. The MAJORITY of "adjudicated" persons are not and never will be criminals.

Why is the NRA treating us like criminals?

"Judge a law by the worst reading, and in the hands of the worst enemies of the Second Amendment"

Show me how I am wrong. Show me why my "worst reading" is inappropriate. Show me why the NRA won't be responsible for me, a Lawful Gunowner, losing my guns.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
User avatar
Tycer
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 7690
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:17 am
Location: Asheville, NC

Post by Tycer »

I'm another that believes flatly in the second amendment.

If you are not in jail, it is your right to keep and bear arms.

As it is my right to defend myself, my family, and my community when you misuse that right.

That is the way free men wrote it. That is the way it should work.

We are not really free anymore.

I love my country, I will not leave nor turn my back on her. I write letters, I vote, and I begin conversations to try to remind others to what constitutionalism is.

OI, I feel your pain and I thank you for your activism. Your wife, according to the founding fathers, is legally able to keep and bear arms.

She is an American.

Y'all can dispute the letter of the law forever and never change what the founding fathers wrote. Just because it's law, does not make it constitutional.

I have read and I believe I understand The Constitution of the United States of America.

I have not read much law, nor do I pretend to understand much of that which I have read.

I live within the letter of The Constitution, but I am probably an unknowing criminal on many fronts.

Whatever.

I'll keep writing letters, voting, and reminding folks of the wisdom of our founding fathers.
Kind regards,
Tycer
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.saf.org - https://peakprosperity.com/ - http://www.guntalk.com
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

You know, the really sad thing is I DO keep my guns locked up. Not becauseof my wife - hell, she has access to my $300 Henckle Knife Block - but because it's the "Safe" thing to do to keep guns out of the hands of theives.

But the Government doesn't defing what "proper storage" is to keep guns "not even accidentially accessible to a'prohibited person'".

And I sure as heck don't have room in it for all my ammunition... or reloading gear.

And I'm not about to lock up my CCW at night just because as soon as I put it in my bed holster it becomes "accessible" to my wife.

Here's the fun bit...

The NRA will get to "come to my rescue" by creating a way to keep me from having to get rid of my guns - and here is how it will work (this is the ONLY way it will work unless they get 68GCA repealed - not).

Families with 'prohibited persons" who wish to keep their firearms will have to submit a complete searialnumber registry of a firearms in the home, and show evidence of "proper storage"... just like a Gun Store.

The Government will then be able to make random "safety" inspections - just like they do to Gun Store Owners - to make sure that all serialized items are stored "safely".

But hey, we'll get to keep our guns. Right?
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
User avatar
Swampman
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: NW FL

Post by Swampman »

I don't think violent felons should ever have their rights restored period.

"Neurochemical Disorders are no more or less dangerous than Diabetes."

"They are treatable, and the people recieving that treatment don't deserve to be treated like the violent criminal scum you want to think they are."

In my personal experience, I'd say you are completely wrong.

I don't want them treated like criminal scum. I want them kept away from the general population forever just as they used to (and still should)be.
"I have reached up to the gun rack and taken down the .30/30 carbine by some process of natural selection, not condoned perhaps by many experts but easily explained by those who spend long periods in the wilderness areas."~Calvin Rutstrum~

"You come to the swamp, you better leave your skirt at the house"~Dave Canterbury~
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

Swampman wrote:I don't think violent felons should ever have their rights restored period.
Who's talking about violent felons? Violent Felons should be shot at the point of commiting violence. The only reason we have violent felons on the street is because the Sheeple won't or can't shoot them and the Government keeps letting them out to make room for Jaywalkers.
"Neurochemical Disorders are no more or less dangerous than Diabetes."

"They are treatable, and the people recieving that treatment don't deserve to be treated like the violent criminal scum you want to think they are."

In my personal experience, I'd say you are completely wrong.
Do tell. I have been having "personal experiences" with mental patients for 14 years now. When under treatment they are no more dangerous than Diabetics. Period.
I don't want them treated like criminal scum. I want them kept away from the general population forever just as they used to (and still should)be.
Sig Heil.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
User avatar
sore shoulder
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2611
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:51 pm
Location: 9000ft in the Rockies

Post by sore shoulder »

Old Ironsights wrote:[
I don't want them treated like criminal scum. I want them kept away from the general population forever just as they used to (and still should)be.
Sig Heil.
Copy that. I guess Liberty is only for those who are born perfect or deserve it. :roll:
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Post by Blaine »

sore shoulder wrote:
Old Ironsights wrote:[
I don't want them treated like criminal scum. I want them kept away from the general population forever just as they used to (and still should)be.
Sig Heil.
Copy that. I guess Liberty is only for those who are born perfect or deserve it. :roll:
Indeed...criminals are basiclly the same as you or I and if they had been treated a little better might not have ended up the way they are.
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
User avatar
Swampman
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: NW FL

Post by Swampman »

After reading these post most my (almost) total lack of faith in mankind's sanity is confirmed. I will make no further comment.
"I have reached up to the gun rack and taken down the .30/30 carbine by some process of natural selection, not condoned perhaps by many experts but easily explained by those who spend long periods in the wilderness areas."~Calvin Rutstrum~

"You come to the swamp, you better leave your skirt at the house"~Dave Canterbury~
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

Swampman wrote:After reading these post most my (almost) total lack of faith in mankind's sanity is confirmed. I will make no further comment.
Good riddance.

On second thought, maybe we should put Bigots into the NICS too.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
Mojo
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:27 pm
Location: Middle Georgia

Post by Mojo »

I fear that this bill will only serve to push those that are truly in need of help further away from actually getting it. It will only reinforce any paranoid tendencies, and rightfully so.
If you can see the big picture, you are not focusing on your front sight.
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Post by Blaine »

Swampman and Old Ironsights.........Stop! Come up with dialog instead of dirty names....ok? :P
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
User avatar
Swampman
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: NW FL

Post by Swampman »

As far as I can tell I only stated my well studied convictions.

If I called anyone dirty names (I reviewed all my post and didn't find that to be the case) I apoligize.

Name calling is for folks who are losing a debate.

No further comment.
Last edited by Swampman on Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I have reached up to the gun rack and taken down the .30/30 carbine by some process of natural selection, not condoned perhaps by many experts but easily explained by those who spend long periods in the wilderness areas."~Calvin Rutstrum~

"You come to the swamp, you better leave your skirt at the house"~Dave Canterbury~
JollyWhiteGiant
Levergunner
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:49 pm

Post by JollyWhiteGiant »

OI Enough already. There is no need for your attacks.

You folks claim you believe and uphold the constitution and everything it stands for. That it should apply to everyone reguardless of anything else. But when someone asks questions about something you are spouting off about or has an oppinion different from your own you attack them, call them names, shun them. You are hoping to deprive folks here on the board of their first ammendment rights, their right to ask questions, the right to have another oppinion.

I guess the bill of rights applying to everyone only applys to the second ammendment and nothing else, especially if an oppinion differs from your own. Thought this might be a good freindly board to be a part of, guess I was wrong.
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Post by Blaine »

Swampman wrote:As far as I can tell I only stated my well studied convictions.

If I called anyone dirty names (I reviewed all my post and didn't find that to be the case) I apoligize.

Name calling is for folks who are losing a debate.

No furter comment.
I'm sorry, certainly not dirty. This is headed south, though....I'd like to continue to learn and talk and not have Der Hobimeister close it down :P
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
JollyWhiteGiant
Levergunner
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:49 pm

Post by JollyWhiteGiant »

The thing headed south as soon as I dared question OI. We have gone well past rock bottom here man.
Leverdude
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:25 pm
Location: Norwalk CT

Post by Leverdude »

Well, there is a difference. Theyre not advocating LAWS depriving you or anyone of your rights. And, if you believe that the second is not absolute then why stop there? Is your right to say what you want somehow more sacred than someones right to keep & bear arms?

I think thats the real question. Theyre both in the same contract with the American people.
If its ok for someone to arbitrarily decide that someones second ammendment rights are gone then you ought to be fine with haveing the first curtailed.

It is generally a nice place. Sometimes people disagree though.
I want them kept away from the general population forever just as they used to (and still should)be.
OI is a longtime member & genuine patriot IMHO. Hes not perfect, but who is? Someone used their freedom of speach to basically say the above quote about his wife.
Theres many thousands of people under medication & involved with therapy that are not violent nor criminal. I believe his wife is one.
If it were my wife I think I might have used a stronger word than bigot.

Stick around. You walked in at an inopportune time is all.
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

BlaineG wrote:Swampman and Old Ironsights.........Stop! Come up with dialog instead of dirty names....ok? :P
I tried dialogue.

He started out by wanting to put my perfectly stable wife into a cattle car.

There is no comparison.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
JollyWhiteGiant
Levergunner
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:49 pm

Post by JollyWhiteGiant »

Well, there is a difference
You guys are talking out both sides of your mouth here! one side you say absolute the other you are saying there is a difference. What is it going to be? And there is no reason for his attacks.

And you have not had one form of diolog this entire thread OI. You started in on me and ranting as soon as I started to form an oppinion or asked a question about yours.
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

Swampman wrote:As far as I can tell I only stated my well studied convictions.
Then explain yourself. Explain that "study". There was a lot of "study" that went into the "reasoning" for exterminating the "mental defectives" of Germany too.
If I called anyone dirty names (I reviewed all my post and didn't find that to be the case) I apoligize.

Name calling is for folks who are losing a debate.

No further comment.
Bah. You don't have to name call when you tell someone that an innocent person should be locked away because you are a scared git who understands jack-all about neurochemical disorders and the people who are being treated for it/them.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

JollyWhiteGiant wrote:OI Enough already. There is no need for your attacks.

You folks claim you believe and uphold the constitution and everything it stands for. That it should apply to everyone reguardless of anything else. But when someone asks questions about something you are spouting off about or has an oppinion different from your own you attack them, call them names, shun them. You are hoping to deprive folks here on the board of their first ammendment rights, their right to ask questions, the right to have another oppinion.

I guess the bill of rights applying to everyone only applys to the second ammendment and nothing else, especially if an oppinion differs from your own. Thought this might be a good freindly board to be a part of, guess I was wrong.
It's friendly enough until people stars suggesting that other people with treatable medical conditions are somehow subhuman and don't deserve to be allowed in public, much less Inalienable Rights.

Stop talking like a genocidal dictator andI'll stop calling you on it.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
User avatar
sore shoulder
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2611
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:51 pm
Location: 9000ft in the Rockies

Post by sore shoulder »

BlaineG wrote:Swampman and Old Ironsights.........Stop! Come up with dialog instead of dirty names....ok? :P
Since when is that any fun? Remember when just for fun you an your buddy would have a fist fight?
User avatar
Swampman
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: NW FL

Post by Swampman »

http://www.psychlaws.org/BriefingPapers/BP8.htm

I rest my case. Public safety shouldn't depend on wheater someone is medicated, because they can go off their meds at any time. There are no controls whatsoever to ensure they are medicated daily. The state gets them medicated, and turns them loose. They quit taking the meds and kill 20-30 innocent people.
"I have reached up to the gun rack and taken down the .30/30 carbine by some process of natural selection, not condoned perhaps by many experts but easily explained by those who spend long periods in the wilderness areas."~Calvin Rutstrum~

"You come to the swamp, you better leave your skirt at the house"~Dave Canterbury~
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

JollyWhiteGiant wrote:
Well, there is a difference
You guys are talking out both sides of your mouth here! one side you say absolute the other you are saying there is a difference. What is it going to be? And there is no reason for his attacks.

And you have not had one form of diolog this entire thread OI. You started in on me and ranting as soon as I started to form an oppinion or asked a question about yours.
Oh, lets see...

Ah, silly me, you asked how it applied to family members and I told you. (reply 1 and 3)

Then on 6 you told me that I should give up my guns, and on 8 I called you on it.

On 10 you decided that you were my daddy and could tell me to shut up.

On 16 I explained, again, in detail, how this new bill effects innocent people.

But there are none so blind as those wo will not see...
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

Swampman wrote:http://www.psychlaws.org/BriefingPapers/BP8.htm

I rest my case. Public safety shouldn't depend on wheater someone is medicated, because they can go off their meds at any time. There are no controls whatsoever to ensure they are medicated daily. The state gets them medicated, and turns them loose. They quit taking the meds and kill 20-30 innocent people.
Aw, gee. More Obfuscation. Seems like you ignored POINT NUMBER ONE ENTIRELY:
Severely mentally ill individuals who ARE taking their medication are NOT more dangerous than the general population.
The three-site MacArthur Foundation Study of violence and mental illness reported that discharged psychiatric patients without substance abuse had approximately the same incidence of violent behavior as other individuals living in the same neighborhoods. These patients were being followed closely for a year and most were taking their medications. The reported results were weakened by the fact that the patients with the most violent past histories were excluded from the study and the fact that the Pittsburgh neighborhoods used as controls were "disproportionately impoverished and had higher violent crime rates through the city as a whole."
Steadman HJ, Mulvey EP, Monahan J, et. al. Violence by people discharged from acute psychiatric impatient facilities and by others in the same neighborhoods. Archives of General Psychiatry 55:393–401, 1998.
Guess who I am talking about? The MAJORITY of Patients who tke their medications as directed.

Guess what happens when you go off insulin? You can go Psychotic then too.

Treated is Treated. If you are under Treatment you are NO DIFFERENT than anyone else with a chronic illness.

But hey, go on Hating. These people are no more responsible for their medical condition than my now quite dead Polish relatives could for being born to Jewish Families.

A little Zyclon B anyone?
Last edited by Old Ironsights on Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
User avatar
Swampman
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: NW FL

Post by Swampman »

Read the whole article.

When you go off insulin you go into convulsions or a coma. Not much danger there.
"I have reached up to the gun rack and taken down the .30/30 carbine by some process of natural selection, not condoned perhaps by many experts but easily explained by those who spend long periods in the wilderness areas."~Calvin Rutstrum~

"You come to the swamp, you better leave your skirt at the house"~Dave Canterbury~
DDude
Levergunner 1.0
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:45 am

Post by DDude »

Could someone point me in the direction of information that shows that any law that waters down the 2A makes us safer from criminals and government?
User avatar
Old Ironsights
Posting leader...
Posts: 15084
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Waiting for the Collapse
Contact:

Post by Old Ironsights »

Swampman wrote:Read the whole article.

When you go off insulin you go into convulsions or a coma. Not much danger there.
I read it.

Oh ghod, I'm so ashamed. You are right, these people have no reason to live among us. :roll:

You have no idea wht you sound like do you?
C2N14... because life is not energetic enough.
מנא, מנא, תקל, ופרסין Daniel 5:25-28... Got 7.62?
Not Depressed enough yet? Go read National Geographic, July 1976
Gott und Gewehr mit uns!
The Lewis
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:38 pm
Location: Vermont, the way gun laws should be

Post by The Lewis »

OI, I will stand with you to, I agree 110%.

ANY person not currently imprisoned has a RKBA. Ex-felons are just that, a person who committed a crime and paid their dues for it, they should be free as soon as they are set free. But bigotry is rooted in fear and that is one thing that most people seem to have trouble facing. If you want to protect yourself from the things you fear than learn how to defend yourself with or without a gun, then you will be safer. The world is made safer by segregating undesirables from the general population and what if someone labeled you, swampman, as an undesirable?

It's a fool who leans upon his own misunderstanding and a fool who is lead into slavery with the carrot of security.

Educate don't legislate...
Molon Labe
The Lewis
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:38 pm
Location: Vermont, the way gun laws should be

Post by The Lewis »

Uh, that sentence should read 'the world is NOT made safer by segregating undesirables....'
Molon Labe
User avatar
Swampman
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: NW FL

Post by Swampman »

I understand why you feel the way you do. I know a medicated mentally ill avid gun hobbist. He's bipolar & schizophrenic. He hears voices and frequently considers suicide. He's sweating this bill and mad at the NRA too.
"I have reached up to the gun rack and taken down the .30/30 carbine by some process of natural selection, not condoned perhaps by many experts but easily explained by those who spend long periods in the wilderness areas."~Calvin Rutstrum~

"You come to the swamp, you better leave your skirt at the house"~Dave Canterbury~
Locked