[NIGHTWATCH]

It may as well be CASTRO! &#@* NRA!!!!!!! :fire:
Dont get depressed, watch what you say to your doctor,dont yell at your wife, , dont dont dont! (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=3616)

[Moparmike]

How very odd. Every time I click the link, it comes up in a new window and asks me if I want to print it. Very very odd....


Ok, just skimmed article. Fuming mad too.:fire: :cuss: :banghead: Wonderful gun-loving people, those NRAs...:scrutiny: :barf:

[NIGHTWATCH]

Ok, I edited the link. Regular page now.

[Thumper]

Whether he's right about this or not, it's my personal opinion that Angel does more harm than good for the RKBA these days.

His sworn enemy is now the NRA, not Schumer et al. I'm beginning to question his motives.

A reliable source once said that Angel used to work for Greenpeace...can anyone verify that?

[NIGHTWATCH]

What pisses me off about this is that my younger brother will one day be denied a self-defense weapon because he suffered some depression after my second eldest brother died of cancer.
Also, my cousin who is an army drill sargeant and who is having marital problems with an abusive wife stands to be disarmed because of her abuses.

Just because families have problems or people get saddened by lifes tragedies

DOES NOT SUSPEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!! :fire:

[Thumper]

I agree, Nightwatch.

But do you suspect that a NRA board member's appearance on the podium might have something to do with Dachle's rethinking of S.659?

For those who don't know, Daschle recently jumped in on Sen. Craig's Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S.659).

Daschle's (NRA generated) vote pretty much guarantees that we can stop worrying about these lawsuit threats to the gun industry.

Back scratching...you may hate it, but it's been done that way since before either of us (or our grandparents) was born.

[NIGHTWATCH]

Brother, the "back scratching" has to stop, if it means losing my freedom. :(



Not Rational Anymore
by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
Sarah Thompson, M.D., and The Righter
(originally published at SierraTimes.com)

A lot of people claim that NRA stands for "Not Relevant Anymore".

I wish it were true. Unfortunately, the NRA is about as irrelevant as Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and Frank Lautenberg – and much more effective at promoting gun control. The NRA is relevant; but it’s Not Rational Anymore.

Thanks to the NRA, we have the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, Brady registration, and Project Exile. Now, in addition, we will likely have six more years of Orrin Hatch and four more of Mike Leavitt.

That’s right. The NRA spent a lot of money and went to a great deal of trouble to support and endorse Utah’s elite anti-gun duo. They helped Hatch get the Republican nomination for his re-election and helped keep Leavitt from losing his nomination.

Most of you are probably familiar with Senator Hatch, and his abominable S. 254, the Juvenile InJustice Bill. Now that the NRA has done everything possible to give Hatch cover for his gun-grabbing ways, I expect the bill will explode out of the conference committee and land right in the middle of Clinton’s desk. Hatch’s own version of the bill (not including amendments by other anti-gun senators) includes the following:

Mandatory trigger locks with each sale
Mandatory registration of all gun show and pawn shop transactions
Mandatory registration of all firearms repairs
Mandatory 5 year prison sentence for parents whose children responsibly use certain semiautomatic firearms without written permission.
Increasing BATF funding by $40 million
Mandatory lifetime ban on firearms ownership for anyone who commits certain crimes as a juvenile

Hatch’s excuse is that these are "pro-gun" provisions that will "protect" gun owners. Apparently he believes that if this bill is passed, the anti-gun forces will simply go away.

Other notable accomplishments of Utah’s senior senator include:

Overseeing the Waco cover-up and declaring that the government had done nothing wrong
Voting against a prohibition on US troops serving in combat under UN command
Voting to confirm notoriously anti-gun Surgeon General, David Satcher, an advocate of fraudulent anti-gun "junk" science.
Voting to confirm liberal, activist judges including Richard Paez, Marsha Berzon, and Margaret Morrow
Refusing to allow the Freedom from Union Violence Act to emerge from the Senate Judiciary committee, thus endorsing violence as legitimate political activity.
Supporting the Chemical Weapons Treaty
Supporting taxpayer funding for the National Endowment for the Arts


This no doubt explains why the NRA flew Wayne LaPierre out to Salt Lake City to defend Orrin Hatch against angry gun owners. It no doubt explains why Charlton Heston sent me a letter explaining that "Senator Hatch has been one of the most committed, principled and consistently effective advocates of your Second Amendment rights on Capitol Hill. He’s stood with the NRA and fought to protect your constitutional freedoms when others lacked the courage or the stamina to do so."


The last time I saw Sen. Hatch, he waggled his index finger at me and told me I was too stupid to understand how things are done in Washington and I should trust him to do the right thing. Maybe he’s right; I certainly don’t understand how registering my guns, rewarding the murderous BATF, and throwing me in prison for taking my son shooting with a 10-22 protects my rights.


Was Hatch at least better than his opponents? Absolutely not! Both (defeated) challengers Greg Hawkins and Frank Guliuzza are committed gun rights advocates who made their opposition to gun control a highlight of their campaigns. Hawkins failed to force a primary by only 53 votes out of 3500. By endorsing the only anti-gun candidate, and helping to eliminate the pro-gun candidates, the NRA made sure we’ll have a choice between an anti-gun Republican and an anti-gun Democrat in November.


While it’s not much of an excuse, it is true that Hatch was a supporter of gun rights twenty years ago when he was a freshman senator. This is more than can be said for Governor Mike Leavitt, who has never been an advocate of gun rights.


While Leavitt is best-known nationally for his support of an internet tax, here in Utah he’s leading the gun control charge. He has actively supported the following:


Banning concealed carry in schools and churches (regardless of the wishes of the school or church authorities)
Prohibiting firearms possession for anyone convicted of one of a long list of misdemeanors, including spanking a child
Increasing fees for carry permits, background checks, instructor permits, etc.
A lifetime ban on firearms possession for anyone committed to a mental institution, even if the commitment was wrongful or the person recovered fully
Allowing public schools to question children about their parents’ firearms ownership and use without parental notification or permission
Prohibiting firearms possession by juveniles adjudicated delinquent without a jury trial
Expanding prohibitions on handgun possession to include long gun possession
Calling a special session of the legislature specifically to enact gun control legislation


Yet, the NRA donated $10,000 to Leavitt’s re-election campaign, and then endorsed him, writing: "Your record of accomplishment reflects the priorities and beliefs of the NRA membership, and we believe you are uniquely suited to be the Republican nominee for Governor of Utah in 2000…We look forward to continuing our relationship with you in the years ahead to continue preserving and protecting Utah’s rich Second Amendment and hunting traditions."


Once again, all three of Leavitt’s opponents, including current challenger, Glen Davis, are committed gun rights advocates, who focused on gun rights in their campaigns, attacked Leavitt’s anti-gun record, and put their commitments in writing. Had the NRA chosen to support a pro-gun candidate, that person might now be Utah’s Republican gubernatorial candidate.


The bottom line is that in Utah’s two most critical contests, the NRA went out of its way to support and endorse the ONLY anti-gun candidate in each race! This is sickening beyond words.


What is going on here? I have no way of knowing for sure, although I hear those Potomac Swamp vapors are toxic to higher brain functions. But I have some ideas…


The NRA’s business is gun control. Without gun control, the NRA would be reduced to teaching firearms safety and use, hunter education, and sponsoring sporting events. These are important and necessary functions, and the NRA does a good job with these non-political tasks. But the big money, the media attention and the glamour are in gun control. No gun control means no million dollar contracts, no dinners with celebrities, no lavish expense accounts, and no TV appearances.


The NRA needs gun control. So the NRA perpetuates gun control. They support anti-gun politicians, and when those anti-gun politicians propose more gun control, the NRA sends out more letters screaming for help, and another few million dollars roll in. What a scam!


Of course in order for the scam to work for very long, the NRA also needs to appear to be doing something. They need to be able to claim that they helped to elect pro-gun politicians. This means that the NRA is necessarily more concerned with supporting a winner than with supporting pro-gun candidates. Thus the NRA supports whomever they think will win, rather than the most pro-gun candidate.


The Utah governor’s race is a perfect example. Mike Leavitt is solidly anti-gun, but the media insisted he was a "sure thing", with an 80% approval rating. So the NRA endorsed him, instead of any of the pro-gun candidates. They goofed. Gun owners hate "Slick Mikey", and booed him right off the stage. They forced Leavitt into a primary with pro-gun candidate Glen Davis. The NRA destroyed the best chance they had to elect a pro-gun governor of Utah, and may end up irreparably damaging the rights of Utah’s gun owners. Even the Utah Shooting Sports Council, the NRA’s usually docile ally, is furious at this betrayal.

These shameful shenanigans allow the NRA actually to support gun control by colluding with the media and the gun-grabbers. The anti-gun forces moan endlessly about the NRA and its "extremist" views, even though the NRA is neither "extreme" nor even very "pro-gun". The media then define the sides as NRA vs. Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), giving us a choice between NRA sponsored gun control and HCI sponsored gun control. This completely eliminates the possibility of NO gun control from the discussion, and thus from the minds of the public. If your choices are limited to NRA gun control and HCI gun control, you can bet you’ll end up with – you guessed it – gun control!


The problem here is not ordinary NRA members, many of whom are solid pro-gun, pro-liberty folks, many of whom I consider friends. These people don’t believe that Mike Leavitt is "uniquely suited to be the Republican nominee for Governor of Utah". They’re hard-working, responsible Americans who don’t deserve to have their hard-earned money spent on anti-gun politicians.


If you’re a Utah NRA member, you gave over $.50 to Leavitt this year! Meanwhile, all three of the pro-gun candidates combined spent less than the $10,000 the NRA gave this anti-gun zealot. What might have happened had the NRA decided to support one of the pro-gun challengers? (Consider that Glen Davis got 46% of the vote while spending only $3,000. It’s mind boggling!)

What happened in Utah must not be allowed to happen in other states. It’s time the NRA’s reprehensible support for gun control and anti-gun politicians is exposed to NRA members and to the public. It’s time people realize that the NRA is doing more harm than good. It’s time to send the NRA the same message we send to people like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy – NO MORE GUN CONTROL! Otherwise the NRA may end up endorsing Hillary Clinton this fall!


Please write to the following people to protest the NRA’s support for gun control:

Mr. Randy Kozuch
NRA/ILA Director of State and Local Affairs
National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030



Mr. James Baker
NRA/ILA Director
National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030



Mr. Charlton Heston
Office of the President
National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030



You can also call 1-800-392-8683.



Nearly three years ago, I wrote the following Letter to the NRA:



When you decide to stop selling our birthright,
When you decide to stop supporting permits,
When you proclaim that each and every one of us is innocent until proven guilty;
that we need not subject ourselves to "background checks", registration or bureaucracy,
When you refuse to tolerate evil,
When you are willing to call evil by its rightful name,
When you are willing to call genocide by its rightful name,
When you stop distracting yourselves and others with peripheral issues,
When you learn that a compromise with the devil is no compromise at all,
Then, and only then, will you have my support.
Until that time, may your chains rest lightly.





I’m still waiting for a response.



And for Not Rational Anymore to come to its senses.

[2dogs]

Angel does more harm than good for the RKBA these days.


His sworn enemy is now the NRA, not Schumer et al. I'm beginning to question his motives.


Isn't this known as "killing the messenger"? I'm not speaking for KABA, but I as a gunowner certainly find it helpful to know what's going on in the enemy camp, as well as in our own. If the NRA is doing something right- I certainly can count on them to let me know about it- It's also useful to know when they are screwing up.

I just got my NRA renewal in the mail- maybe I'll write back asking about some of what has come out lately regarding their efforts.

And maybe that membership renewal will go to JPFO or GOA or KABA as donation.:)

[Thumper]

Not killing the messenger, 2dogs. You know as well as I do that Angel has a well-earned reputation for misrepresenting "facts" and portraying events in a misleading light.

Read that article with a fine toothed comb...Micheal Moore would be proud of the spin in the wording.

Angel's got a point, but his vitriol towards the NRA detracts from it.

I'll give him this: he's doing a fine job of helping the Antis devide and conquer.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Isn't this thread pretty much about the exact same subject at this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43343

A thread that you also started? What was the point of the dupe?


All I can say is I'm glad that we have such a commanding lead over the antis that we can afford to fight among ourselves rather than unite and finish them off :rolleyes:

[Preacherman]

I'm afraid that this is yet another example of Angel's "slash-and-burn, scorched-earth, kill-'em-all-and-let-God-sort-'em-out" tactics in support of the RKBA. The article is twisted and warped in its presentation of the facts, and does huge damage to our unity as supporters of the 2A.

Just a few points to illustrate:

1. It is ALREADY Federal law that those under any of the disqualifications referred to in the article may not possess a firearm. This is not changed by the new legislation.

2. All that the new legislation seeks to do is to make sure that information available to Federal and State law enforcement authorities is as up-to-date and complete as possible. There have been cases - unfortunately, far too many of them - where people under a domestic-violence restraining order did not turn in or dispose of their guns, but instead used them to murder their spouse and/or kids. There have been far too many cases where drug addicts used their firearms irresponsibly or criminally - many of the perpetrators are now long-term guests of the Iron Bar Hotel (including the one where I work). I'm afraid that I support more informed law enforcement in this regard. If you hate me for saying that, I'm sorry, but I've had to deal with the consequences of lax enforcement - including washing the bloodstains of the victims off my clothes after the arrest of the perpetrator...

3. I personally believe that our society has the right to regulate its affairs. Our legal system has ruled time and again, ad nauseam, that the Bill of Rights IS subject to regulation, provided that that regulation does not amount to denial. For example, free speech is regulated by reference to "hate speech" or the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, to quote a famous example. The right to keep and bear arms is regulated by specifying what may be carried and where it may be carried. 2A absolutists reject this as an infringement - but EVERY SINGLE ONE of the BoR's provisions are also subject to regulation, and our legal system has upheld this without question. Absolutist theories to the contrary notwithstanding, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UNFETTERED, UNREGULATED RIGHT IN THE UNITED STATES - and that's a fact beyond dispute. If you don't believe it, check with the SCOTUS, and they'll happily confirm it.

4. I think that passage of this "information-gathering" bill will be crucial to the passage of the legislation protecting the firearms industry against nonsensical lawsuits. I rather suspect that a deal has been struck whereby the NRA will support the information-gathering legislation (which does not CHANGE Federal law, but merely gathers more information for the enforcement of EXISTING law), and in turn, the gun-grabbers will, if not support, at least not oppose the industry-protection legislation. We may not like such trades, but they're a fact of life in Washington, and there's no way we can change that without destroying the entire system there and putting something new in its place.

5. I fully accept that there are many "bogus" restraining orders taken out against one or other party in a divorce case. This has become a "rubber-stamp", knee-jerk kind of thing. The answer is not to deny restraining orders, but to ensure that those against whom such an order is requested OPPOSE THE ORDER BEFORE IT IS ISSUED!!! They have every right to do so, including requiring the person requesting the order to prove that it is an appropriate and necessary order. If they would stand up for their rights, there would be a whole lot less such orders floating around...

[cuchulainn]

Whether you agree or disagree with this law, the KABA article's misrepresentation of the facts is on par with Kellerman's 43-to-1 or a VPC report.

I had very high hopes for KABA a few years ago, but it's become the VPC of the RKBA :(

free speech is regulated by reference to "hate speech" or the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, to quote a famous example. I'm neither disagreeing nor agreeing with your post, but:

1) There are no laws against shouting fire, though you might be charged with contributing to any injuries or property damage that ensued -- but that's not punishing speech any more than arresting a shooter is gun control.

2) There is a difference between prior restraint (gun control, speech control) and punishing people for their actions -- shooting murder, slander, libel, causing a riot (by yelling "fire" or by shooting a gun).

[Tank]

Look's like the guy you're busy attacking is doing a fine job sorting out who is with us and who is against us.

[Tank]

Thumper:You know as well as I do that Angel has a well-earned reputation for misrepresenting "facts"Please prove that allegation. If this alleged "reputation" is so "well-earned," surely you've got some proof.

[Tank]

cuchulainn:the KABA article's misrepresentation of the facts is on par with Kellerman's 43-to-1 or a VPC report.Which facts are misrepresented? List them. And don't bother citing what "Preacherman" said; none of them qualify as misrepresented facts.

Kinda funny you people do what you say this other activist shouldn't do. Is this how things work at "TheHighRoad"?

[cuchulainn]

Look's like the guy you're busy attacking is doing a fine job sorting out who is with us and who is against us. Sorry, I don't see misrepresenting the facts as doing a good job.

Important note: I don't really like this law either, but I also don't like it when people on our side misrepresent the facts.

The law increases the availability of the records of only of those placed in institutions by court order. That's it. It does not provide for the state to get the types mental health records that KABA claims it does. KABA's saying so is one of the following: a deliberate lie, an unethical journalistic negligence or a delusion.

You may not like what this law does, but KABA got the facts wrong.

In fact, if the NRA is really the snake in the grass that KABA claims, KABA is only giving the NRA cover by posing as a delusional and/or deceitful foil.

.......
Now, as for the NRA guys posing in a picture with Schummer -- Yeah, I don't like that either -- but that is no excuse for this unfactual piece.

[Tank]

cuchulainnKABA got the facts wrong.Prove it. Otherwise, you're just like the other personal attackers on this thread -- so busy being what you say you dislike that you haven't the desire to substantiate your accusations. What a shock.

[cuchulainn]

Which facts are misrepresented? List them. And don't bother citing what "Preacherman" said; none of them qualify as misrepresented facts. KABA's claim
"Any person...who has been...committed to a mental institution” could mean someone who got in-house alcohol treatment and psychological counseling TWENTY YEARS AGO."

The facts
The law (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c108:./temp/~c108UVLCxk) is limited to records of someone "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution." {SEC. 101. (b)(2)(C)(ii).}

According to BATF (http://www.atf.gov/regulations/tdatf391.htm) (my emphasis), "adjudicated as a mental defective" and "committed to a mental institution" are defined as: Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case.
Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other legal authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
Mental institution. Includes mental health facilities, mental hospitals, sanitariums, psychiatric facilities, and other facilities that provide diagnoses by licensed professionals of mental retardation or mental illness, including a psychiatric ward in a general hospital.


Therefore: KABA got the facts wrong when it claimed that the law covers the records of people who got "psychological counseling." At the very least, it is being highly misleading in that "pychological counseling" typically is understood as voluntary visits to a shrink's office.

"In-house alcohol treatment" also is, at best, misleading because records of people who checked themselves into rehab (a voluntary action) are not covered.

[Tempest]

While you people are busy attacking someone behind his back, why don't you sit down and write down what facts were "misrepresented" or wrong in this article.

If this is not a clear example of political back-scratching, I don't know what is. The NRA is a political organization. Its goal is the NRA, not your freedoms. If you can prove otherwise without the usual vacuous:

"If it wasn't for the NRA, we wouldn't have any gun rights left in this country..."

"It's an 800lb. gorilla..."

Blah, blah, blah...

Then please do so.

But attacking the guy behind his back without stating facts to back up these warantless attacks is pretty pathetic - especially for a moderator on a site called "The High Road."

[Tempest]

"Any person...who has been...committed to a mental institution” could mean someone who got in-house alcohol treatment and psychological counseling TWENTY YEARS AGO." The operative word here is COULD. These rules can be changed quite easily. And with the feds having access to mental records, that's just a step in that direction. Or are you going to claim that government officials are so trustworthy, they won't incrementalize the abuse?

[cuchulainn]

The operative word here is COULD. These rules can be changed quite easily. Not really. It's pretty hard to make "adjudicated" and "committed" mean "voluntary."And with the feds having access to mental records, that's just a step in that direction. No, because the affected records are limited to those that meet the current definition. To get "mental records" in general, Congress would have to pass another law.

Look I don't like this law (and I certainly wouldn't like a law that sought "mental records" in general). But let's stick to the facts.Or are you going to claim that government officials are so trustworthy, they won't incrementalize the abuse? No, but like I said, that would require another law. Let's stick to the facts.

[Tank]

cuchulainn:KABA's claim
"Any person...who has been...committed to a mental institution” could mean someone who got in-house alcohol treatment and psychological counseling TWENTY YEARS AGO."

The facts
The law is limited to records of someone "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution." {SEC. 101. (b)(2)(C)(ii).}

The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

Therefore: KABA got the facts wrong when it claimed that the law covers the records of people who got "psychological counseling"No, actually, you are so busy looking for a reason to hate this guy you have made a mountain out of the word "got" -- as in "got in-house alcohol treatment and psychological counseling TWENTY YEARS AGO".

FYI, in case you have the ability to admit you're mistaken when you are, someone who "got" such treatment 20 years ago can and all across America DOES include people who were involuntarily committed.

For Clinton, it's "is". For you, it's "got". Congratulations on "misrepresenting facts" while accusing someone else of doing the same.

If THAT is what you people are attacking this writer over, you all ought to take a look at your OWN motives here. Ready, Fire, Aim never works for any of us.

[Tank]

cuchulainn:To get "mental records" in general, Congress would have to pass another law.Newsflash: with NRA's help, some states' medical records are ALREADY being readied to put into the FBI's database -- likely already IN there. Did you READ the article? Or did you just pick it apart to try to find a flaw you still haven't yet revealed? See Ken Rineer's quote. See what happened in one of the other states but was stopped without NRA's help. Get real.

[pax]

Prove it. Otherwise, you're just like the other personal attackers on this thread ...
Tank, saying "KABA got the facts wrong" isn't a personal attack.

A statement like that should be backed up, sure -- followed up with something like, "KABA said that the bill does _____, when in fact the bill does this other thing." Something like what Preacherman posted, for instance, or what Cuchullain just followed up with.

Preacherman and I don't agree on this one, btw. The Bill of Rights lists but does not give us rights. It is true that the Supreme Court may rule that those rights can be infringed by any bureaucrat at any time. Nevertheless, the rights exist apart from the Court and from the BOR. No amount of word-juggling will change that fact.

Further, that bit about shouting fire in a crowded theater has been used, incorrectly used, and refuted over and over again. What Preacherman wrote was the equivalent of saying, "You can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater -- therefore, it is perfectly reasonable and even Constitutional for there to be a law that no one may talk in public without a background check, waiting period, and talker's license. That's just a reasonable restriction on the BOR. It doesn't take away your right to free speech."

So did KABA get the facts wrong? I don't know. I do know that I don't particularly trust them as a news source simply because they are so doggone shrill. The truth doesn't usually need such a squeaky-shrieky noise to defend it.

I'd like to see some discussion of the merits of the article, that's for sure. And maybe some verification of the facts, too.

pax

The gain of lying is, not to be trusted of any, nor to be believed when we speak the truth. -- Sir Walter Raleigh

[cuchulainn]

Someone who "got" such treatment 20 years ago can and all across America DOES include people who were involuntarily committed.Yes it does -- and I acknowledged that by writing "At the very least, it is being highly misleading in that "pychological counseling" typically is understood as voluntary visits to a shrink's office."

KABA did not limit its claim to "involuntary." The burden is on the writer -- KABA -- to be clear. "Psychological treatment" is not automatically limited to "involuntary psychological treatment" -- and given the confusion in the RKBA circles about this -- of which KABA surely is well aware -- KABA had an ethical obligation to not further this confusion.

Now if KABA issues a clarification that "psychological treatment" meant only involuntary treatment, I'll be satisified (on this point at least).

[Tempest]

No, but like I said, that would require another law. Let's stick to the facts. Yes, why DON'T we stick to the facts. With the obscene number of gun laws that have already been passed, do you really believe it would be so difficult to alter the meaning of "mental defective" or add to it?

Someone who was placed in an institution by a family member for whatever reason ten or more years ago won't be able to defend themselves with a firearm.

A guy my husband used to work with wound up in a psychiatric ward in a general hospital for a few days due to major stress at home. Goodbye his police career.

How about someone who spent a few days in a giggle ward while in the military? I knew quite a few of those folks too. They were ordered there by their commanding officer, spent a few weeks, de-stressed and were released and returned to duty. Will those records be available to the feds as well? Goodbye their rights.

KABA didn't misrepresent anything. This is a bad law, and you admitted as much.

[cuchulainn]

Me: To get "mental records" in general, Congress would have to pass another law.

Tank:Newsflash: with NRA's help, some states' medical records are ALREADY being readied to put into the FBI's database -- likely already IN there. Those are not "mental records in general." Those are records of adjudications and committments, not voluntary treatment. The fact is that the majority of mental health records are not held by the state and it would require another law to get them.pax:A statement like that should be backed up, sure -- followed up with something like, "KABA said that the bill does _____, when in fact the bill does this other thing." Which I did, thank you very much.

[Tempest]

saying "KABA got the facts wrong" isn't a personal attack. Yeah, but attacking Shamaya behind is back is. It's also pathetic and low. You wanna stick to the facts of the article, go for it. But

I'm afraid that this is yet another example of Angel's "slash-and-burn, scorched-earth, kill-'em-all-and-let-God-sort-'em-out" tactics in support of the RKBA.

Whether he's right about this or not, it's my personal opinion that Angel does more harm than good for the RKBA these days. Those are outright personal attacks.

Whatever.

Who cares about the merits of the article? So much easier just to go on the offensive, right? You don't like him, so it's cool to just damn him regardless of the facts presented. REAL niiiice! :rolleyes:

[Tank]

cuchulainnKABA did not limit its claim to "involuntary." The burden is on the writer -- KABA -- to be clear.What was written is true. You said it isn't. You made a claim of deceitfulness, yet you failed to prove it. Case closed.

[cuchulainn]

Tempest Yes, why DON'T we stick to the facts. With the obscene number of gun laws that have already been passed, do you really believe it would be so difficult to alter the meaning of "mental defective" or add to it? I probably have as much mistrust as do you, but you're changing the subject from "Did KABA get the fact right" to "Can we trust the government." KABA didn't misrepresent anything. At best it negligently wrote an article that adds to the confusion about this law targeting a wide swath of mental health records, and even if that was an accident, it still has an obligation to correct the misleading nature of the article.

Writing "psychological treatment" is at best misleading, and I guarantee you that many readers walked away from this article thinking that all mental health records are affected, including, perhaps, the person who started this thread, Nightwatch, who wrote: my younger brother will one day be denied a self-defense weapon because he suffered some depression after my second eldest brother died of cancer.
Also, my cousin who is an army drill sargeant and who is having marital problems with an abusive wife stands to be disarmed because of her abuses. I suspect those were voluntary treatment of the kind not collected by this laws.This is a bad law, and you admitted as much. That doesn't excuse misrepresentation, or at best, negligent writing.

[cuchulainn]

You made a claim of deceitfulness, yet you failed to prove it. Case closed. No, actually, from the beginning I acknowledged that I did not know what the intent was by writing "a deliberate lie, an unethical journalistic negligence or a delusion."

After reading Nicki's defense of KABA, I now suspect that it was negligence rather than deceitfulness. Nikki's interaction with KABA makes her most likely to know the intent of the article.

I said KABA got the facts wrong, and I proved that.

That is was through negligence rather than deceit does not excuse it.What was written is true. No, because KABA did not limit its statements to involuntary adjudications and committments.

[Tank]

Tempest:Those are outright personal attacks.That depends what is is. Apparently, around here, personal attacks aren't considered personal -- even by "moderators" -- when the person being attacked is disliked, or, heaven forbid, "shrill". Just like another message board I just left -- one run by Lefties.

If that is the "high road", may we all take another.

[cuchulainn]

Those are outright personal attacks.

Whatever.

Who cares about the merits of the article? So much easier just to go on the offensive, right? OK, again, let's get our fact straight.

Pax said my statement "KABA got the facts wrong" was not a personal attack in response to Tank's responding, "Prove it. Otherwise, you're just like the other personal attackers on this thread ... "

Those other statments were not made by me and certainly do not prove that "KABA got the facts wrong" is a personal attack.

[cuchulainn]

So Nicki,

Given your "in" with Angel, why don't you tell him that his article is misleading people -- including apparently Nightwatch -- into thinking that the government is collecting records of voluntary psychological treatment.

With your defense, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not intend to be misleading.

(Or am I mistaken in thinking you are Nicki F of KABA?)

[Tank]

Tempest:KABA didn't misrepresent anything. This is a bad law, and you admitted as much.Indeed. And helping expand enforcement of a bad law is not the action of a friend.

But let's quibble over whether or not one single word was included or just implied, shall we?

[Tamara]

This one is long past done.

[Preacherman]

Folks, could we have a little sober reflection here, please? Tank (or is it Angel?), I have NOT made a personal attack on Angel - I have attacked his tactics. I quote from my earlier post:
I'm afraid that this is yet another example of Angel's "slash-and-burn, scorched-earth, kill-'em-all-and-let-God-sort-'em-out" tactics in support of the RKBA. The article is twisted and warped in its presentation of the facts, and does huge damage to our unity as supporters of the 2A.
I think the language is perfectly clear - I have called the tactics into question, not the person advocating them, and have also stated that the article - not the author - is "twisted and warped in its presentation of the facts". I stand by those assertions.

Here on The High Road, our credo is to discuss/disagree with/take issue with arguments rather than the arguer. I think that Cuchulainn and I have done precisely that. However, if there are individuals who wish to see this as a personal attack, I can only refer them to forums such as www.hardcoretalk.com, where they'll find out what a personal attack really is... :rolleyes: