Many NRA Members "Confused" by Proposed Gun Bill - by Alan Korwin

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.

Click to expand...

Not true. NRA's position did not change an inch because of the VT shooting. Those who see something new in NRA's CONSISTENT POSITION are confused themselves.

And while NRA hasn't compromised a bit, anti-gun politicians like Schumer and McCarthy have moved all the way to NRA's position in the wake of the VT shooting. Why? Because NRA defeated both Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 - most Democrats have no taste for gun control right now, having decided they enjoy winning (in 2006, they did not attack gun-rights and won both houses of Congress). Contrast this with their bloodlust for gun control immediately after Columbine - it's night and day. The Democrats need NRA's solution because they have to do something.

NRA has always held that those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others (i.e. mentally defective) should not be allowed to buy guns. That does not include people who have been subjected to temporary holds, voluntary treatment due to eccentric "Brittney Spears"-type behavior or service-related afflictions. In the wake of the VT shooting, GOA and JPFO are now shamelessly trying to fundraise by misrepresenting NRA's long-held position (and federal law) as a threat to any gun-owner undergoing any kind of mental health treatment, even servicemen diagnosed with Traumatic Stress Syndrome! This is typical GOA/JPFO "the sky is falling" poppycock and truly unfortunate to see Korwin buy it.

And at the end of the piece, Korwin himself admits there have been a LOT of lies about this issue:

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.

Click to expand...

There you go - "things could change". WELL OF COURSE - things can ALWAYS change! What kind of logic is THAT??? This is simple "Sky Is Falling" hype! Don't buy it.

Mike Haas

The indiscriminate use of large-size type is psychologically suspect. Hasn't anyone told you this? Most "experts" agree.

Click to expand...

From my cold, clammy, slightly greasy (just had a bacon cheeseburger) hands!

Freedom loving folks:

Forget trying to convince JBT John and Duty Sergeant Bob that their gods, the big, massive guvMint and NRA, are evil. God is not evil, and they are not willing to change gods, because they're too invested. So therefore, their gods MUST be right.

We see it all the time with abused children. The child reasons, "It must be that I did something wrong, because Mommy and Daddy can't be evil, 'cuz they're the big grownups and all... and if these, my pseudo-gods, are evil, what of the world? EEEEEE! No, it MUST be me!" Obviously, I've translated.

It's scary to discover your god is a demon. So terrifying, in fact, that the likes of JBT and Bob must fly into near-violent denial, protecting their little model of the world.

I saw Korwin's name and thought, "Ah, here's someone that I'll listen to if he tells me the NRA is right." Instead, he told us the NRA is screwing up. Again. ...and he confirms my own take on this renegade legislation.

Ah, but look at all the junk that comes out from the NRA/guvMint-is-god types: oh, it must be that he wants to sell books. Oh, he's confused. Oh, ... no end to the "but ah, ah, ah..." factor.

This place is FILLED with toadies!! YYYYYYIKES!!!!

The problem with this is the unintended consequences I see as plausible due to it. Now the proponents will say "Well, we can fix those unintended consequences later."

Except they never get fixed if they serve a political agenda.

Deleted

Forget trying to convince JBT John and Duty Sergeant Bob that their gods, the big, massive guvMint and NRA, are evil. God is not evil, and they are not willing to change gods, because they're too invested. So therefore, their gods MUST be right.

Click to expand...

Hey, you forgot Mike Haas!

I see you've done absolutely nothing to prove us wrong. I asked a simple question:

I still have yet to see where anything is changed with this law in regards to who is prohibited from owning guns other than reporting procedures and appeal.
It is still dependent on the language in section 922 subsection (g)(4) of title 18, which has not changed.

Can someone actually provide a citation other than "GOA says" or "this guy says" anyone who is depressed will be prohibited from owning firearms?

Click to expand...

No one so far has been able to answer it. Maybe it wasn't simple enough, or is it just too much fun answering with silly sophomoric comebacks to warrant a logical reply?

"Forget trying to convince JBT John and Duty Sergeant Bob that their gods, the big, massive guvMint and NRA, are evil. God is not evil, and they are not willing to change gods, because they're too invested. So therefore, their gods MUST be right."

If that JBT John is directed at me, here's my response:

You freaking moron, stick it in your ear.

Ban me, I don't care, I don't know how much more of this nonsense I can take from these jerks.

John

John was a bit more direct than I was but, I am in full agreement with him.

I'll admit that I have not fully researched this measure (yet) but the way it was passed in the house makes me very suspicious of what this bill is capable of. If it is such an innocuous proposal and nothing but good can come from it why was it essentially "snuk" through the House with a voice vote? I would very much like my Congressman's vote on such a potentially controversial issue to be on record.

Yah, guys...

JBT John, you're not really going to tell us JohnBT isn't a play on JBT, are you? And from what I've seen (obviously limited-ish), it fits. Your "Everything the government does is fine" rhetoric in every post I've seen from you (a dozen, maybe two) leaves me suspicious.

"I don't know how much more of this I can take," says you. Fragile, aren't we?

In my ear, ooh! Moron, oooh! Jerk, oooh! I'm wounded, bleeding. And it's an impressive argument.

Believe me?

Sergeant Bob, I'll tell you what. Since it's your side of this argument that is trying to pass a new law, why don't you prove to US how innocuous it is, without, as you say, telling us that so-and-so told you so.

Do you have the time any more than I do, to develop a scholarly presentation, just to have someone turn around and say, "Nunh-uuunh"?

GOA's work is pretty good on this, and if you can't follow that, then I'm sorry, maybe you're just too addicted to NRA's twistoflex logic.

Oh! sophomoric! Oh! I'm wounded, bleeding. And yours is such an impressive argument.

Believe me?

Oh, yeah, let me throw in Mike Haas ("My Cause?"). I haven't noted such bellicosity from him, so perhaps he's just lucky, or perhaps I rate him a little higher on the evolutionary chain. And while I think he's in a better stratum, too, ArmedBeer (Mr. " you're less intelligent than a clydesdale"--a Budweiser reference?) comes to mind as well.

As I said, the place is full of NRA/big-guvMint toadies. It rials me, frankly. It rials me extraordinarily. Usually, on these sites, I keep my manners. Almost always. But I see these four (and others) strutting around like they were the gods of logic. Oops. Not. And three of 'em being abusive outright to those who oppose them.

So, my apologies to anyone offended by my grating riposte to these fellas. But sometimes ya just gotta lay it out as you see it. And notice, while I called them toadies, that's a name with a meaning based in my other comments (and JBT is based in John's own sick sense of humor), not just an ad hominem, as have been their name-calling...

"Clydesdale," "jerk," "sophomoric," "moron," "in your ear." Yah, these are useful... Sheesh.

You still haven't answered my question.

It changes 250 million dollars of funding. That's good enough for me to oppose it. Spend spend spend...the check is coming buddy.

Sergeant Bob

Yes, Bob, and I won't be answering your question in the format you deign to demand.

You want to get scholarly, lead the way. You want to push up new legislation, YOU MAKE THE CASE. Don't tell us to prove why it's wrong; that's nonsense. It looks like crap and many of the brighter minds in the gun community think it's crap. You think it's great. Prove it, with something other than, "The NRA and My Cause and Armed Beer and JBT told me so."

Come on now, the positioning is right: it's up to YOU to prove YOUR case, since YOU are the one pushing CHANGE.

So, primum non nocere: prove that it will do no harm.

This must be done in light of the extra spending, which must be construed as harm until you prove...

...that we get more for the money than is spent, that there is in fact a benefit, and that there willl not be a handy, ready gotcha from Congress that turns this into a worse beast than it already is.

That case is not proveable. It WILL do harm; it WILL cost, and it will do NO GOOD.

You wanna play change agent: it's up to YOU to make YOUR case. I'm for no change, or change in a radically different direction--elimination of NICS altogether. A case I CAN make, by the way, and have done many times. As a change agent. But that's not on the table right now.

So, let's see your chops, Bob. Can you play by the rules of argumentative logic, and make your case for change, or do you just want to exercise me, by making me make an unnecessary case, since I'm not calling for a change here, and am in fact calling for the status quo?