Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Can't imagine why all that support the 2nd A...

Discussion in 'Activism' started by Builder, Dec 18, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Builder

    Builder Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    87
    Would not want to do this?

    Tuesday, December 18, 2007

    Next year is going to be a critical year for gun owners.

    The Democratic leadership is going to keep pushing the Veterans
    Disarmament Act and trying to disarm hundreds of thousands of
    additional gun owners.

    Gun haters like Ted Kennedy are going to continue pushing their
    anti-gun candidate to be the next director of the BATFE, and if they
    succeed, we'll see more and more gun stores go out of business.
    And of course the 2008 elections could prove to be a watershed moment
    for gun rights.

    You can be sure that these are just a few of the battles that Gun
    Owners of America will be fighting next year -- working together with
    activists like you.

    And that's why we need to be ready. We need to make sure that GOA
    can mobilize as many gun owners as possible when Congress and the
    state legislatures get back to work next year.

    Last week, we asked you to join GOA or to renew your membership.
    Today, we need to ask you to do one more thing -- and you can easily
    do this with just a couple clicks of your mouse.

    WITHIN THE NEXT 24 HOURS, YOU ARE GOING TO BE RECEIVING A SECOND
    E-MAIL FROM GOA which you can send to your pro-gun families and
    friends.

    PLEASE CIRCULATE THAT E-MAIL to as many gun owners as you can and
    encourage them to join GOA -- or at least sign up for these free
    e-mail alerts -- so that we can continue the fight to defend our
    Second Amendment rights.

    Gun Owners of America has emerged as the leader on Capitol Hill in
    fighting to defend your gun rights. It was GOA that teamed up with
    Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to stall the Veterans
    Disarmament Act in the Senate.

    As stated in The Hill newspaper: "The National Rifle Association
    (NRA) supports the bill, which its board member and House Energy and
    Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) helped to craft,
    but the Gun Owners of America (GOA) has backed Coburn and mobilized
    its grassroots against the measure."

    We plan to keep mobilizing against the bill in 2008. Please help us
    get more gun owners ready to muster in the fight for our liberties!
     
  2. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,983
    My guess is that the gun owners who won't support it are those gun owners who read the bill itself and compare it with what Gun Owners of America says about it.

    It takes a few minutes, you have to know how to read English, and you have to know how to think about what you read.

    Or you can let GOA think for you and let yourself be used to repeat stupidities such as "Veterans
    Disarmament Act."
     
  3. Ultrachimp

    Ultrachimp Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    101
    Sauce/copypasta nao plz?
     
  4. Jdude

    Jdude Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    380
    I read the bill. It appears to me to be the opposite of what GOA said. I'll not support them.
    Spam is irritating. I visit forums on the internet to blather stupid everywhere. I don't need to do it in email.
     
  5. scout26

    scout26 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,621
    Location:
    Illinois - The Deadbeat State
  6. scout26

    scout26 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,621
    Location:
    Illinois - The Deadbeat State
    Here's the full text since it appears that no one bothers to read it.

     
  7. scout26

    scout26 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,621
    Location:
    Illinois - The Deadbeat State
     
  8. Samuraigg

    Samuraigg Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central Illinois
    Can we read more of the dang bill and less of GOA's hysteria.
     
  9. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,983
    At least some people who support the Second Amendment would not want to join Gun Owners of America in fighting that bill next year because they don't want to look like absolute jackasses too.

    That bill passed both houses of the Congress yesterday and is awaiting the President's signature.

    So the bill passed both houses the day after GOA bragged about working with Sen. Tom Coburn to stall its passage and vowed to fight for its defeat next year.

    Here are the last two sentences of the NRA's announcement of the bill's passage:

    My predication: Gun Owners of America will now try to take credit for the revisions that the NRA negotiated with Sen. Tom Coburn.

    Yes: either that's the same Sen. Coburn that GOA said it was working with the day before or Oklahoma has more than one Sen. Tom Coburn and is packing the Congress with them.
     
  10. MaddSkillz

    MaddSkillz Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    Messages:
    68
    I find it a bit ironic that 2nd Amendment advocates all the sudden think they can legislate violence away.

    And because someone says another person is a danger to others even if a person has never done anything threatening to another individual, that person must really be a threat and denied the right to defend himself or herself.

    On top of that, once a person has been given the label of "mentally ill" they have to sue the government to prove their innocence. Innocent until proven guilty anyone???

    Yeah, that's American.

    Another great example of liberty for security.

    It appears that sometimes the enemies to the 2nd Amendment and the inherent right to the pursuit of life are gun owners themselves.
     
  11. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,809
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Are you perhaps referring to GOA?
     
  12. scout26

    scout26 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,621
    Location:
    Illinois - The Deadbeat State
    RTDB.

    No one is "given" the label of "mentally ill", they have to be adjudicated first. Which means a hearing, you know opporunity to present evidence, witnesses, etc and be represented by an attorney. Opportunity to appeal, etc.... So, Yeah. That's American

    From HR2640:
    Sorry, but the it's not a simple as the mental health fairy going around and tapping people with a magic wand and saying "No guns for you."

    Right now if you've been put on the list (whether adjudicated or not) you have no way to get off. With this you now have a way to have your rights restored. And if you been adjudicated mentally ill and get better/cured, you can get your rights back, you couldn't before.
     
  13. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    Tell you what I did, I cut my GOA membership card in half and sent it back to them along with a letter citing this specific mess as to why they will never see another dime from me.

    Is that the kind of Activism you had in mind?
     
  14. Autolycus

    Autolycus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    In the land of make believe.
    Why is everyone so ok with a democratic Congress passing this change unanimously and nobody is questioning this.

    I disagree with the passage and agree with GOA. Their ranting is silly sounding but I think that we as gunowners should be weary about this.
     
  15. Noxx

    Noxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,374
    Location:
    SoCal
    I agree and have said so repeatedly since GOA began their scaremongering regarding the bill in question.

    Read what GOA says, read the text of the bill, you must realize that while GOA may in fact have your interests at heart, they are LYING to you to garner your support. Personally, I won't have that.
     
  16. ccarnel

    ccarnel Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    Riggghhhtt. Getting off that list is probably going to be as easy as getting a CHL in San Francisco or Washington D.C.

    While I'm sure that the GOA's message may be a little alarmist this is not benign legislation. Due Process just means that someone can take their merry time to say "no".

    I've worked in VA hospitals and seen how easy it is for a vetran to receive a mental health diagnosis that would easily prevent him from being able to own a firearm.

    I firmly believe that many in the mental health field play it a little fast and loose when diagnosing individuals with certain conditions i.e. PTSD, Depression, ADHD, etc.. etc.. You can bet the farm that when a psychiatrist gets on the stand during one of these hearings that few if ANY of these vetrans will ever get their rights back.
     
  17. scout26

    scout26 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,621
    Location:
    Illinois - The Deadbeat State
  18. The Tourist

    The Tourist member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    I agree with you, but that's not why I fear things like this.

    Gun-grabbers are famous for floating out legislation that appears "reasonable." The next thing you know, their real intention has been nose-of-the-camel political games and the true intent of their bills starts ratcheting up tighter.

    "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

    As stated, the present debate could involve vets only, or vets only by adjudication. If the lefties get their wish, the next segment of society might cover non-combatants, or the elderly. And the elderly might cover a younger demographic then you might think.

    For example, The Federalist Papers define 'militia' as people up to the age of 45 years old.

    The next group to be scutinized as unfit by adjudication might be people who are 46 years old.
     
  19. ccarnel

    ccarnel Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    You can cut the sarcasm. I've not even read the GOA's response to this bill. My post came from reading the bill and responding. You made some assumptions about my post and were dead WRONG :banghead:

    There will obviously be a hearing and testimony in the adjudication process. MY POINT is that this process to have someone declared mentally ill is a JOKE to begin with. The process to reverse that decision will likely be equally rediculous *my point in case you missed it*

    HINT HINT... I've gone to many of these hearings in my training in medicine so I would know. Most of the time the physician stands before the judge and tells him why this person is incompetent to make decisions for themselves/ or is a danger to himself or society. Now who do you think the judge sides with 99.9999999999999% of the time? You've been watching too much TV if you think anyone is going to reason the judge out of siding with the doc.

    How many gun owners/psychiatrists do you actuallyt know... most that I know are rabidly anti-gun... do you actually think that in a later testimony when the psychiatrist is called back to the stand to have this person's rights restored that he's going to risk his license to say that the prior "medical or psychological" condition no longer exists and this person is safe to have a firearm??? Most of these guys/gals (psychiatrists) don't think the average citizen is safe enough to have a firearm. This field (psychiatry) usually (not always) attracts the more anti-gun physicians.

    Do you actually think that with this provision that anyone will acutally get their rights back? What "facts" other than the testimony of the psychiatrist and their medical records are going to be presented before a judge to get their rights back.

    My only comment in my first post was to refute your idea that we are actually getting something beneficial from this legislation in that an individual might fight back for his 2A rights once adjudicated. Again my point is that the adjudication process is a joke to begin with... what makes you think that a hearing to reverse it will be any different.

    This addition to the bill (to add a useless hearing) is lipservice so that a politician can say "look... see we have a provision to reverse these decisions and they can get their rights back..."
     
  20. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,232
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "MY POINT is that this process to have someone declared mentally ill is a JOKE to begin with."

    Did you ever stay to the end of one of those hearings? The majority of individuals are allowed to agree to a VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT and therefore ARE NOT ADJUDICATED.

    Your use of the phrase "declared mentally ill" shows that you are missing the important points in the process and the discussion. A doctor makes the diagnosis of mentally ill. This can be your family doc, the mental health clinic doc, the emergency room doc or hired doc working for an insurance company, Social Security or workman's comp. The JUDGE makes the legal decision; one of which can be INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT. The other two are Go Home and Voluntary Commitment.

    You really need to understand the process before criticizing it.

    John
     
  21. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,983
    That's a pretty closeminded attitude, John. Why should anyone have to know something before commenting about it? If your rule were to become universal there would be few opinions. All opinions are important.

    When someone on the Internet says "My only comment in my first post was to refute your idea that we are actually getting something beneficial from this legislation in that an individual might fight back for his 2A rights once adjudicated," do you expect me to believe my own eyes instead of that?
     
  22. ccarnel

    ccarnel Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    Sorry if I didn't spell out the process to a "T" Are you picking apart my verbage to make it appear that I don't understand the process when infact I do? Are you are trying to minimize my point by saying that it is rare that someone is involuntarily committed and if they are that perhaps they deserve it??? Or is this just argument for argument's sake?

    I never said that the physician makes the legal decision, those are YOUR OWN words. As I said, though perhaps not as precisely as you put it, the doc makes his case and the Judge decides.

    I don't see how your post is relavant to the point i'm making. The process is still a joke. If you don't play along... you get committed... just like I said. Because of our wonderful litigous society breathing even a word of the thought of suicide or otherwise can land you in one of these hearings for fear (on the doctors part) that if you commit suicide or another crime down the road that he/she "didn't see the warning signs" and is now subject to a mal-practice suit. To keep this in perspective everyone needs to understand that this is purely a judgement call on the part of the Doc and the Judge. There is no magic tool that tells the doc... yep that guy is definately a danger to himself or others. That call *again* is heavily influenced by the fear of a future lawsuit as I said before.

    Lets say that you are feeling particularly down and your primary care physician asks you some questions because you appear depressed. You say something to the effect that "life just doesn't seem worth living." The doc doesn't want to put himself at risk and decides you need to go to the *funny house* for a week because you could be a danger to yourself. You refuse and he decides to commit you. You are taken to a hearing because the doc thinks you are incompetent to make this decision but you refuse to voluntarily commit yourself because you think its not warranted. The judge decides that you need to be involuntarily commited.


    If you don't go along i.e. "voluntarily commit yourself" you will be "involuntarily committed." I've never seen anyone "sent home" as you like to say and i've sat in on at least 10-12 of these hearings. A good number of those people were "involuntarily commited."

    *Again the point here* in case you miss it is that the likelyhood of anyone getting their rights reinstated will be slim, so it isn't valid to use that as some kind of proof that this is a "pro-gun" bill. That part of the bill is an empty gesture and nothing more.
     
  23. ccarnel

    ccarnel Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    I guess I don't exactly know what that sentence means :confused:

    It seems everyone here is trying to read more into my statement than what is actually there. My only point is that this process to reinstate one's rights after being previously adjudicated will likely be a joke especially where there is a poor attitude towards gun ownership in the first place. Having your rights reinstated will only be a judgement call... subject to lots of bias and doubtfully will go in your favor.

    I never agreed or disagreed with the GOA position but It seems the hostility I'm receiving is because people are assuming that I am taking sides with the GOA?
     
  24. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,232
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "I've never seen anyone "sent home" as you like to say and i've sat in on at least 10-12 of these hearings."

    Hmmm, I've only been working with folks with disabilities for, let's see, carry the 4, uh, 33 years. We have obviously seen different things.

    As to your charge that I read meaning into your words, I plead not guilty. Words have meaning. I can only read what you write. If you want to be clear, then be clear.

    "Are you picking apart my verbage to make it appear that I don't understand the process when infact I do?"

    Based on 10 to 12 hearings? That's not much evidence.

    John
     
  25. CBS220

    CBS220 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    868
    Progunners can and should take pride in being honest and scientifically supportable in out claims and ideas- GOA, however, blatantly misrepresented (read: lied) about this bill.

    I will also not renew my membership with them. Lying is a tactic antis use, not good, decent Americans who support our freedoms.

    Do you really want to be a part of a group who does the same thing as the antis? Think of what they claimed the Tiahrt amendment did, as compared to what it really did. GOA has done at least as much in misrepresenting this bill!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page