Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill

[denny]

Michael Thomson Replied and Said:


Yes, let's all work to protect the rights of criminals and mental incompetents to own guns.

Michael,

I have a question to ask- do you work for the NRA or NRA/ILA as a paid employee?

My reason for asking is I came here to read more about HR2640 and after reading many, your posts caught my eye and every time I read one of your posts, I noticed that the replies and arguments sounded real familiar, so I looked at, and read all of your posts and responses.

This morning I called the NRA/ILA and I wound up being connected to a Deborah who asked for my number so a Scott could return my call and speak with me directly. Scott did so and your answers and arguments are EXACTLY and nearly verbatim the same as his replies. What is even curiouser is that your join date is 04/27/07 but your very first post here is on 04/26/07 and you ended that post with the EXACT & VERBATIM statement that Scott gave me this morning.

You see Michael, I stated to Deborah & Scott both that I think the NRA sold us out by doing a very quiet back-door deal that even went so far as to have the House of Representatives pass this by voice vote and that the only member to vote no was Rep. Ron Paul and Scott instantly jumped on me by saying Dr. Paul COULD have asked for a ROLL-CALL Vote.

I told him that I do tend to pay very close attention to upcoming 2nd Amendment issues and proposed bills, but the first time I had heard anything about HR2640 was Sunday morning when a friend sent me the MSNBC article about it. Yes, I do work and cannot always keep up (and in fact I rarely even post here) and Scott said the NRA/ILA had first posted about it on April 27th, 2007 and I told him I would check and I did today, but the date is for 06/13/07 (the NRA stopped the WayBack machine from archiving the site on 04/26/06 so I cannot check there) so I am working on the premise that Scott is correct and the first mention on the NRA/ILA's site is in fact 04/27/07.

Scott and I talked for over an hour before the call ended and we argued and debated at length about this and other things I think the NRA & NRA/ILA is wrong about and not fighting hard enough for and everything he said, is again, nearly every argument and rebuttal that you have made.

Now, I do not have a problem with a paid employee of the NRA or NRA/ILA being a member here, in fact I think that would be a good thing, but what I do have a problem with is if a paid employee of the NRA or NRA/ILA signing up here and NOT stipulating his bonfides.

Again, I ask you Michael, do you work for the NRA or NRA/ILA as a paid employee.

Denny

 

[Chad]

The level of distrust and misunderstanding here is very disheartening.

That is sadly true.
H.R.297&2640 have badly divided some groups.
Too many think winning arguments on a forum is actually worth something.
The spiteful tone of some posts are far below what could be called "High Road".

 

[JohnBT]

"nearly every argument and rebuttal that you have made"

So when I use the same facts, logic and arguments are you going to accuse me a being an NRA employee too? The facts are the facts, so they're going to sound pretty much the same no matter who states them.

And anyway, so what if there's an NRA employee or three posting here. Or GOA for that matter.

John

 

[rugerman07]

It's GUN CONTROL, it's a violation of the SECOND AMENDMENT

 

[denny]

JohnBT said and asked:

So when I use the same facts, logic and arguments are you going to accuse me a being an NRA employee too? The facts are the facts, so they're going to sound pretty much the same no matter who states them.

And anyway, so what if there's an NRA employee or three posting here. Or GOA for that matter.

John

John,

No I am not going to accuse you nor did I accuse Michael, I asked him.

And as for a member of the NRA being a member here, I stated right up front I think it would be a good thing, so long as it is done in an open and honest fashion. If however, a member here is a paid employee of the NRA or NRA/ILA and does not say so, and then argues for legislation or a stance the NRA or NRA/ILA proposes and wants, it is subterfuge.

I stand by my open question to Michael.

Denny

 

[stellarpod]

Denny:

FYI - The following is text taken directly from the email I received from NRA-ILA on 4/28/07:

NRA STATEMENT ON LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS ON CAPITOL HILL

Recent reports in the Washington Post, Newsweek and other media outlets are fanning Internet rumors regarding the NRA's position concerning legislation currently being discussed in Congress in the aftermath of the horrific crimes that occurred at Virginia Tech.

The NRA has a long history of supporting measures to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally incompetent, and we will continue to do so. We will also continue our efforts to make sure that the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) is accurate, fair, and instant by seeking changes to permanently ensure that no fee is associated with the check, that system outages are minimized, and that our men and women in uniform who have served our country honorably are not unjustly denied their constitutional rights. As always, the NRA is committed to ensuring that any proposal does not infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

It is impossible to predict right now what any final bill will look like; therefore, we will withhold judgment until we see a final product. However, the NRA will continue to work with Members of Congress throughout the process to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers while ensuring that those adjudicated by the courts as mentally incompetent are included in the system.

Including necessary records on prohibited persons into the NICS is a position we have long supported. However, history has shown that no law will stop a madman intent on doing evil.

The NRA believes that our schools are not adequately protected. Therefore, we believe a national conversation on school security is necessary, and we look forward to those discussions and finding meaningful solutions to keep America's children safe.

For more information, visit www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=217&issue=018

I just wanted to validate what Scott (from the NRA) told you, as they did announce their efforts on that date. There seemed to be some skepticism in your tone.

stellarpod

 

[csmkersh]

I don't know if Michael is a paid employee of the NRA or not. I do know that every post he's made is straight from their play book. Mike Haas, OTOH, has been in Kayne Robinson's pocket for years. Haas was the cameraman for the infamous video where Kayne said the NRA would be running things from the Oval Office. Ain't that a laugh.

The NRA's interest in gun control isn't to protect our rights, but to use conflict to generate donations from the members. If you push for an response, they'll admit they think the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968 and the FOPA of 1986 are sterling pieces of crime fighting legislation. The FOPA, with the NRA's approval, had the Hughes Amendment which banned to possession or a fully automatic firearm made after September 1, 1986. The NRA took the position that not having to sign for .22 ammunition more than made up for it.

Now the NRA worked with the Ds in the dark of night to pass HB 2640 by voice vote so those involved in the skullduggery had deniability. Only Nay vote was Rep Ron Paul while most of the Rs missed the shindig altogether since the NRA thought it would be better not to alert them.

Do I oppose the bill? Damned right. I oppose any federal gun control bill. Any legislation that infringes on a citizen's rights to keep and bear arms is a violation of the Second Amendment.

"Gun control" laws only inhibit law abiding people, not criminals and the NRA know this.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Are some of you dudes in the same home room ?

Just askin'.

 

[JohnBT]

"Any legislation that infringes on a citizen's rights to keep and bear arms is a violation of the Second Amendment."

I'm curious, do you believe the 2nd Amendment originally applied to women, indentured servants and slaves? The point being that the 2nd Amendment never applied to everyone - not then, not now. Be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

All in favor of 4-year-old citizens buying guns without adult supervision please raise a hand.

John

 

[denny]

stellarpod told me:

I just wanted to validate that what Scott (from the NRA) told you, as they did announce their efforts on that date. There seemed to be some skepticism in your tone.

stellarpod

Thank you.

Silver Bullet queried:

Are some of you dudes in the same home room ?

Just askin'.

Nope.

JohnBT stated:
I'm curious, do you believe the 2nd Amendment originally applied to women, indentured servants and slaves? The point being that the 2nd Amendment never applied to everyone - not then, not now. Be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

All in favor of 4-year-old citizens buying guns without adult supervision please raise a hand.

John

JohnBT,

Why such a specious argument?

Denny

 

[csmkersh]

*

• 
  

  Any legislation that infringes on a citizen's rights to keep and bear arms is a violation of the Second Amendment."

  
  

  I'm curious, do you believe the 2nd Amendment originally applied to women, indentured servants and slaves? The point being that the 2nd Amendment never applied to everyone - not then, not now. Be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

  
  John, you are under the standard anti-gunner misconception that the Second Amendment conveys rights to citizens. It DOESN'T. The Second amendment places a restriction on the feral* government. A restriction Congress understood when they cobbled together the NFA of 1934 and called it a "tax bill" rather than gun control.
  
  Sam
  
  *Not a mis-spelling; a statement of opinion.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I'm curious, do you believe the 2nd Amendment originally applied to women, indentured servants and slaves? The point being that the 2nd Amendment never applied to everyone - not then, not now. Be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

All in favor of 4-year-old citizens buying guns without adult supervision please raise a hand.

John

It isn't about "Who" in the Second Amendment has the right protected, it's about what the government may not do to the right. The Second Amendment simply describes which specific right it is that the government may not infringe: The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. There is no distinction as to which or to any specific segment of the people the right belongs to. It belongs to each and every one who is one of the people. The Union isn't one of the People. A state isn't one of the people. The right belongs to the people and the government is not supposed to touch it. Ever.

As for the Four-year old kid, (s)he is under the full time guardianship of parents(or the state if orphaned), and violent criminals and those mentally incapable of keeping and bearing arms belong in custody and denied access to their arms until they can be trusted. The rest of us should not be burdened any further than that.

Woody

 

[FeebMaster]

All in favor of 4-year-old citizens buying guns without adult supervision please raise a hand.

*raises hand*

 

[jselvy]

*raises hand and extends middle finger*

 

[stellarpod]

jselvy writes

*raises hand and extends middle finger*

That's about the level of class I expected. Be proud. You're doing our cause a heck of a lot of good.

I suspect that it's probably time that this HIGH ROAD thread gets terminated.

stellarpod

 

[jselvy]

What cause?
The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless they are not our kind of people on our handy dandy pre-approved list?
Do NOT ascribe your cause to me if it is not all of "The People" and a return to constitutional government. I will continue to deride those who have no grasp of the words "

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Jefferson

 

[Chad]

I suspect that it's probably time that this HIGH ROAD thread gets terminated.

I think that should have happened a few pages ago.

As I said a few posts back...

Too many think winning arguments on a forum is actually worth something.
The spiteful tone of some posts are far below what could be called "High Road".

 

[Art Eatman]

Middle fingers and Low Roads and thread closings...

Art