Another sell out.

Status
Not open for further replies.

submin

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2003
Messages
155
Location
WV
Please note the NRAs' position. Way to go, boys.


From the NY Times
Bipartisan Agreement Is Reached on Gun Bill in Congress
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

ASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — In an unlikely alliance of politicians often at odds on gun issues, leading Republicans and Democrats in Congress announced a deal today on legislation that would provide more than $1.1 billion to help prevent felons, illegal immigrants and others from buying guns.

The legislation appears headed for passage in both houses of Congress, a rare achievement in the hot-button area of gun legislation. Backers said the measure, if passed, would represent the most significant gun safety initiative to be approved by Congress in seven years.

The measure is supported by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers who at first blush appear to be "strange bedfellows," acknowledged Representative John D. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who has been an ardent foe of past gun control bills.

But in a rare area of agreement, gun rights backers like Mr. Dingell and gun control advocates believe that the F.B.I.'s system for conducting background checks on some seven million would-be gun buyers each year is badly broken.

Gun groups complain that despite recent improvements in the process of checks, it still takes too long for many purchases to be approved. And gun control groups assert that thousands of felons, spouse abusers, illegal immigrants, people with a history of mental illness and others banned by federal law from buying guns continue to slip through the cracks.

The proposal announced today seeks to repair the system by providing state agencies and courts with $375 million a year for the next three years to upgrade their databases on criminals and other types of banned people. It would also penalize states that fail to meet certain performance markers by cutting their federal grant money.

The aim, said Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, was to create "an effective, accurate, speedy background check" and to keep guns from people who are prohibited from owning them.

Mr. Craig, a board member of the National Rifle Association, and Mr. Dingell, a past board member, have sparred with gun control advocates like Senator Charles E. Schumer and Representative Carolyn McCarthy, both Democrats of New York. Mr. Craig and Mr. Schumer, for instance, remain on opposite sides of the current debate over bills protecting gun makers from legal liability and reauthorizing a ban on certain types of assault weapons.

But all four lawmakers appeared at a news conference today to support the background-check legislation. And by securing the backing of Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the influential Utah Republican, backers predicted swift passage by both houses of Congress.

Mr. Hatch helped to stall similar legislation in the Senate last year after it had passed the House, but he has now pledged his support after stiffer penalties were included as a "stick" against states that fail to upgrade their databases.

Even the N.R.A., which has worked to derail many past gun control measures, said today that it supported the plan.

"We think this is a step in the right direction," said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the N.R.A., "and with Larry Craig and John Dingell as co-sponsors, we're confident that this legislation will help bring about the promise of an instant gun check for Americans."

Some mental health advocates have objected to the proposal because they said it could further stigmatize the mentally ill and violate their privacy rights by putting more medical information into a national database. But backers said that they had been careful to include safeguards in the legislation that they believed would protect the privacy rights of the mentally ill while preventing them from buying guns.

Backers said the measure, if approved, would represent the first substantial piece of federal gun legislation since at least 1996, when Congress expanded the list of banned gun buyers to include domestic abusers.

"The significant thing about this legislation," said Jim Kessler, policy director for Americans for Gun Safety, which worked with lawmakers in developing the bill, "is that it explodes the myth that nothing can be achieved on guns in Congress."

In a study last year, Mr. Kessler's group found that flawed record keeping had allowed nearly 10,000 people who fell into a banned category to pass background checks and buy guns in a 30-month period. The group gave failing grades to 22 states "for having grossly inadequate criminal, domestic violence and mental disability records."


It would also penalize states that fail to meet certain performance markers by cutting their federal grant money.
If your state still respects your property rights and allows private sales, you have been stabbed in the back by your own.


In a study last year, Mr. Kessler's group found that flawed record keeping had allowed nearly 10,000 people who fell into a banned category to pass background checks and buy guns in a 30-month period. The group gave failing grades to 22 states . . .
Look whos' standards have been given Holy Stature.

Submin
 
If your state still respects your property rights and allows privite sales, you have been stabbed in the back by your own.
Man, what have you been smoking? There is no reference to private party sales in that article.

IMO, this is a great piece of legislation, unless you support the criminal use of firearms.
 
gun safety initiative

Nope. No biased reporting here sir! Nope, none at all!



gun rights backers like Mr. Dingell and gun control advocates believe that the F.B.I.'s system for conducting background checks on some seven million would-be gun buyers each year is badly broken.


The problem is not that it's broken. The problem is that it exists.


But backers said that they had been careful to include safeguards in the legislation

Oh. Well, that's okay then. Government promises of safeguarding private data that is none of their business in the first place have always been kept.


And the RINOs sell us out again. :fire:



There's an interesting study for any who care about liberty. Check voting records in three areas. Money (taxes and spending), moral issues (abortion, marriage) and the 2A.


With remarkable consistency, those that waffle on the moral issues are the first to sell us out on the other two. There are a few exceptions, but they are EXCEPTIONS.
 
IMO, this is a great piece of legislation, unless you support the criminal use of firearms.
Hi Rock. Sorry, but I can't be concerned with the criminal use of guns. All I'm concerned with is my ability to defend myself against criminals and those who defend them. No legislation will ever stop criminals from obtaining weapons. Bustamantes' gang will smuggle them across the boarder and void every attempt to suppress crime.

As for the mentally ill, this is a new sound bite for the pinko left and their lackeys in the Republican party to thump us on the head with. Can you define mentally ill and not include, too some degree, every human on the planet? Hence its usefulness to those who seek to screw us.

As for what I’m smoking, it’s the fumes from inside the beltway.

Submin :)
 
legislation that would provide more than $1.1 billion to help prevent felons, illegal immigrants and others from buying guns.

.........And Cornyfornia will probably say NO to the whole thing because of the "illegal immigrants" bit, or if they pass it the illegal immigrants will riot.....:banghead:
 
Sorry, but I can't be concerned with the criminal use of guns.
The you have already conceded the RKBA fight to the antis.

No legislation will ever stop criminals from obtaining weapons.
Not designed to. Ideally it will make the task more difficult, thereby dissauding all except the most persistent. In addition, it provides for punishment when they do in fact get them. Muder, BTW, has never been stopped by laws prohibiting same but we still have them on the books.

Can you define mentally ill and not include, too some degree, every human on the planet?
Yes, and current statutes already do. And, I would add, they don't have some secret Illuminati-inspired clause that includes all gun-owners. ;)
 
Well, what solution have you guys got for preventing the mentaly ill from purchasing firearms?


Supporting the Second Amendment. Armed people are a great deterrent to criminals.

Executing murderers quickly would be another good step.


Somehow we didn't have all these "mentally ill" people before we started making it easy to walk into a school or place of employment and murder people in wholesale lots. Get rid of the insanity defense and the endless appeals on technicalities, and get rid of the many laws that violate the 2A, and I don't think we'd be seeing very many "poor helpless mentally ill people" committing mass murder.


If there really WERE a problem with mentally ill purchasing firearms, violating the Constitution and increasing the (illegitimate) power of the Federal gummit to watch us would NOT be a good solution.


It's great for those who want to turn America into a police state, though.
 
The world's most populous country, China, currently uses "insanity" diagnoses to jail and drug political dissidents and non-approved religious sects. Link: http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/863.html I believe the former USSR also used this tactic for gulag sentences.

I wish I had a nickel for every gun-control article that used the term "insanity", "crazy", "gun nut", or other mental adjective to describe gun ownership.

Here's a US surgeon general's report that states:
The current prevalence estimate is that about 20 percent of the U.S. population are affected by mental disorders during a given year.
link:http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/Library/MentalHealth/chapter2/sec2_1.html

Remember former surgeon general David Kessler? He was very close to declaring tobacco as a controlled narcotic.

**EDIT** Kessler was FDA Head, not SG...my bad. **END EDIT**

Now imagine an anti-gun administation, who appoints an activist surgeon general, say David Kessler times 5. I very easily see them using the "mental illness" angle to restrict gun ownership from what we currently think are normal people. One hallmark of the gun control activists has always been "ends justify the means"; "if it saves just one child", etc.

But backers said that they had been careful to include safeguards in the legislation that they believed would protect the privacy rights of the mentally ill while preventing them from buying guns.

In light of the above examples, its going to take a hell of a lot more than two unspecified lines in this article to convince me that the "mental illness" determination won't be misused to restrict quite large segments of US citizens from gun ownership. Anti-depression prescriptions, marital counseling reports, magazine subscriptions...all indications of mental problems, and backed up by statistical analysis, for the doubters.

Apparently rock jock has some inside information that assures him this won't be misused as described above. Invitation: please post, and allay my fears?

I won't even get into the failings of the "makes it more difficult" line of reasoning, at this point.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I omitted a recent domestic example where psychological background checks are being used, not as a common-sense safety measure (as rockjock posits), but exactly the opposite...a means to prohibit carrying weapons: the TSA armed pilot program.

In this example, the psychological exam is so rigorous, that pilots fear losing their flight certification, not just being disapproved for weapons.

And this comes from a supposedly pro-2A, republican administration.

I can just hear Schumer/Feinstein arguing: "We already have a terrific system in place to weed out the mentally unfit...let's just replicate the TSA system for anyone who wants to buy a gun. Of course the cost must be borne by the applicant..."

The more I think about it, the worse it seems. Someone please tell me I'm being unreasonable. I don't think I am.
 
The problem can be re-stated as one of definitions. Legislation restricting the mentally ill from obtaining firearms has to rely on the definition of mental illness. If it's defined along the lines of "a psychological or psychiatric condition requiring involuntary committal to a mental institution for treatment for a minimum of 30 days", I don't think many of us would argue the point. But what happens if a liberal, Left-wing administration re-writes the definition to something like "any person who has ever, in his or her entire life, taken any dose (no matter how small) of tranquilizers, anti-depressants or mood-altering medications for even one day"??? The legislation would remain identical - but by simply changing the definition, it would now apply to a much, much broader segment of the population. How many of us on THR have ever used tranquilizers? How many of us are on anti-depressants, even temporarily? I'd be willing to bet that the figure would be rather more than 10% of our membership, perhaps more than 20%.

Also, what about cures? If a person has been mentally ill at some time (in the true sense of mental illness), they should, I think, be restrained from buying or owning a firearm. However, many such cases have been completely cured, through therapy, surgery, or a combination of treatments. What if the cured person now wants to own a firearm? I'm sure we'd agree that if someone is cured, there should be no reason to deny them their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. However, the blissninnies are very likely to say that because we can't be 100% sure that they're cured, we should permanently restrict their rights in this area, just to be on the safe side.

Say your wife dies tragically, and you go into a severe clinically depressive state, and need hospitalization and treatment to recover. You do recover, and are now back at home. Would you accept a government official telling you that because of tragedy and trauma, your Constitutional rights are being denied to you? I know darn well I wouldn't accept this, and I think the same goes for most of us on THR.
 
I guess I'm going to have to reread the Second Amendment, because I don't remember anything in it pertaining to $1,100,000,000 expenditures to check those who keep and bear arms for bad behavior.
 
There is no reference to private party sales in that article.
Well, gee. I guess some are more trusting of those who don’t deserve trust, than I am. Maybe I should have explained my position better than I did in my original post. My home state of West Virginia has a thing called private property rights in which private citizens may buy, sell, trade and give private property without the blessings of the State or Federal Government. This has pissed off more than one Northeast busybody politician and has earned the state an F rating by the wacko group Americans(?) for Gun Safety. These people have promised change.

A recent game/vermin law was forced on the citizens of the state that the citizens were opposed to and the feds did it by withholding Federal funding for essential projects. By attaching performance standards to the 2nd amendment, any administration can force any state to pass whatever law the feds want, regardless of the wishes of the citizens.

I know that many of you live in states that don’t allow private sales but we don’t want it any other way. The way I see it, New York and other northern states deserve an F rating for not locking up its murders and executing those who aren’t receptive of rehab. After all, it is their murderers that are driving to my state to buy weapons. Try working on the other side of the equation and we might have better results without violating peoples rights. An F rating from Americans(?) for Gun Safety is a badge of honor to me.

Submin
 
Once again the Republicans (not RINOs, this is consistant with republican actions for a long time) along with the Gun Grabbing NRA come together with gun grabbing Democrats and anti-rkba organizations to take rights away.

How long can people hold out the fantasy that Republicans and the NRA support gun rights?

If they really supported the second ammendment, they would be introducing legislation to REPEAL the brady bill, not make it more draconian.

And our president-- fan of the Assault Weapons Ban and a gun banner himself (since he took office, by directing the ATF to enact new rules against "evil black rifles") is certainly going to sign this new ban on gun sales, and infringement on our rights.

Something tells me if you look into it, there's also an answer to the registration question-- in other words, NICS probably gets to keep records of background checks now, meaning we have gun registration.

Makes me want to puke.
 
Where in the Constitution does it say that a person loses ANY Constitutional right for being an ex-felon (emphasis on EX)? Prior to GCA-68, a law we all rue the passage of, ex-felons were allowed to possess firearms. Then the Congress said "Gee whiz! We've been interpreting this Constitution thingy all wrong for 200 years!"

So they got together and they placed a Constitutional Amendment before the Senate and it was ratified by the states -- right? Well, didn't they?

Or maybe they simply passed fiat legislation which served to amend the Constitution extraconstitutionally in difference to the Supreme Law of the Land.

So those of you who hail this legislation as a boon, rather than boondoggle, had better rethink your positions. If the government can take the rights of ex-felons by fiat, they can, and do, take the rights of ex-misdemeanants, and the day will come when they will take your rights as well under whatever excuse is expedient.

The best and surest way for me to lose my rights and freedoms is for me to gleefully celebrate the abrogation of the rights and freedoms of others.
 
Last edited:
Well stated Preacherman, Standing Wolf!

...drip, drip, drip, like droplets on granite, can't hurt, I mean its only droplets ...with a bit of time that granite now has really eroded...

Yeah, I feel the granite (2A, our rights in general) just keep getting eroded...drip, drip, drip...
 
The problem with you "they'll only eat me last"-folks is you are absolutely correct.

They will.

What is it about "shall not be infringed" you don't get?
 
If the government can take the rights of ex-felons by fiat, they can, and do, take the rights of ex-misdemeanants, and the day will come when they will take your rights as well under whatever excuse is expediant.

They already do. Under the Lautenberg Act, you are ineligible to purchase a firearm if you've ever been convicted of misdemeanor domestic disturbance. Punching the wall in frustration after a hard day of work, and the nosy neighbor calling the cops on you, can result in forfeiture of your Second Amendment rights for the rest of your life.

Even worse, Lautenberg is retroactive. According to ATF, "the prohibition applies to persons convicted of such misdemeanors at any time, even if the conviction occurred prior to the law's effective date, September 30, 1996." That means if you got into fisticuffs with your brother on the front lawn during a Thanksgiving party back in 1981, the cops were called, and you were charged with misdemeanor domestic disturbance, you no longer have the right to buy a gun.
 
the "illegal immigrants" bit,

Umm, I don't think we're allowed to call them that anymore. I think the approved PC term is "undocumented residents" or something like that.:rolleyes:

Its "for the children(tm)" somehow.......
 
i have 2 things...first,exactly what is deemed mentally incompetant?does this include "grief counseling"I Bet itll affect cops and military alike..not just us peasants.does it end there or does it go on to place new restrictions on yet other classes of indivuals such as hearing impaired or something else they can wip up in their puny little minds?get where its leading? secondly,lets say for humors sake,the antis get their ultimate wish.who then will have the guns?who will be at my home defending the family 24/7?seems to me that these morons just dont get it.Somebody needs to clue them in what country they live in and how we got where we are.seems to me that if they cant win with something like the AWB renewal,they are going to keep trying different things(slip alil passage here and there in an ammendment) until they are successful at eliminating most if not some more evil guns. sell us out,doesnt surprise me 1 bit.money talks with these people.anybody think its time to wake up and smell the smoke?thats the constitution burning.YOURS and MINE.vote and tell them exactly who is paying their salery.
 
Even worse, Lautenberg is retroactive. According to ATF, "the prohibition applies to persons convicted of such misdemeanors at any time, even if the conviction occurred prior to the law's effective date, September 30, 1996." That means if you got into fisticuffs with your brother on the front lawn during a Thanksgiving party back in 1981, the cops were called, and you were charged with misdemeanor domestic disturbance, you no longer have the right to buy a gun.

Yeah, ex post facto. This law has been upheld by the judiciary for, what, oh lets see... that's right, 7 years:rolleyes:

I would guess (maybe someone can enlighten me?) that the GCA '68 banned firearm ownership by those convicted of felonies prior to 1968? I'll readily concede that it is hard to garner support for ex-felons and ex-misdemeanants...

How does that one story go? 1st they came for the...then they came for the...

The definition game will be what helps the anti-freedom agenda, look at assualt weapons, Saturday night specials, ect, et al.:barf:

Lets face it folks, the camels nose went out the other side of the tent, and the NRA and our representitives have molded the great piles of it's feces into furniture to fool us. Rather then notice the odor we've chosen to spray lisol and turn up the tv :confused: Didn't we have some frogs cooking...

Yes, I do write my reps. Yes, I vote. Yes, I'm a member of a RKBA group. How can I keep fooling myself into believing that the emporer is fully clothed? All the reps that reply, tell me they support the 2ND, but then we have this lovely piece of legislation, that seems to have pretty good support from these same reps.

What a fanciful robe the emporer has worn today.:banghead:

Sorry for the rant, I'll get some more coffee...:uhoh:
 
The you have already conceded the RKBA fight to the antis.



Hmmm. The basic position of the antis is that government must regulate WHO gets to own guns, for the safety of us all, of course.



Looks to me like YOU are the one who has conceded the fight, rock. You may disagree with them about the WHO and you may disagree with MOST of the HOW, but you agree with the fundamental idea.




The best and surest way for me to lose my rights and freedoms is for me to gleefully celebrate the abrogation of the rights and freedoms of others.

Where's the STANDING OVATION smiley when you need one? Oh, well, this will have to do:


icon14.gif
icon14.gif
icon14.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top