JFPO: Congress Shafts Second Amendment ... Again

[vito]

Robert Hairless: I think you are right on all counts. My fear is that it may already be too late, but that won't stop me from doing whatever I can to fight the anti-gun crowd. Maybe the reason for some on this forum to try to falsely assure readers that all is well is that they are plants from the anti-gun crowd trying to stifle those of us who want to resist their efforts.

 

[Manedwolf]

To Robert Hairless:

None of what you've said is true. Everything you've said is wrong.

H.R. 96 was "put up" by four Congressmen not quite three weeks ago, on January 4, 2007. On its first day it had three co-sponsors, not one or two. It is at the start of the process. As the process continues, additional co-sponsors may attach their names to the bill, as usual.

Well, let's see:

H.R.256
Title: To prevent children's access to firearms.
Sponsor: Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] (introduced 1/5/2007) Cosponsors (None)

H.R.428
Title: To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns.
Sponsor: Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] (introduced 1/11/2007) Cosponsors (None)

H.R.297
Title: To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/5/2007) Cosponsors (1)

The fourth one had three cosponsors, yes. H.R.96 . The others ARE nutcase DOAs with one or no sponsors. How, precisely, does this make "everything wrong"? I mentioned four examples, you countered one of the four, and that makes everything wrong? Sounds like current-administration math, there.

As I SAID, don't let it get by, let your representatives know that it's not acceptable, but it's nowhere near a law yet, or even close to being voted as one!

 

[oae]

R's and D's, Gun Control peas from the same pod

"I support the Brady Bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay." - Ronald Reagan, March 28th 1991.

This is the same Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator
that the NRA gushed about then and now.
The Gipper back in 1991 was the former President
who was doing the lobbying for the Brady Bill. Many Ronald Reagan supporters to
this day believe he was just trying to help his friend Jim Brady who was
seriously wounded at the same time that President Reagan was shot by
assassin John Hinckley Jr. on March 30, 1981.

Regardless of what he wanted to do to help his friend, he did no favors for gun owners, the NRA or the Second Amendment.

President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Bill on November 30, 1993. It passed with support for the bill by former President Reagan who helped by pushing the fence sitting Congress to vote affirmative. President Clinton and wife Hillary were anti-gun back then, before then and now. The NRA never sang their praises about this most anti-gun couple as they were and still are as anti-gun as they come.

This type of political craft is called Bipartisanship. Many call it something else.

Getting sold out by politicians is nothing new for gun owners, we just keep taking it, but we tend to forget about those who maneuver us into the "bend over and grab your ankles" position.

oae:banghead:

 

[Robert Hairless]

ManedWolf:

I mentioned four examples, you countered one of the four, and that makes everything wrong? Sounds like current-administration math, there.

Here's what you actually said, what I quoted you as saying, and what evoked my comments:

All of these were put up by NY Democrats which are, of course, a lost cause...NY state is just insane. The first has no cosponsors, the second two have...one.

You didn't mention four examples in the message to which I responded: you mentioned three examples. When you mention "the first" and then mention "the second two," the total is three--not four. The arithmetic is "1 + 2 = 3."

Your attempt at recovery again focuses on three examples, but then you add the one you omitted from your original representation, which makes further nonsense of your claim that all of the bills were introduced by New York Democrats. It was nonsense even without your attempt at recovery: you yourself had already identified the sponsor of H.R. 256 as Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas. Texas is not in New York, even if someone in New Hampshire thinks it is.

Don't you even read what you yourself write?

You also neglect to mention--presumably because you didn't check--that the co-sponsor of H.R. 297 is John Dingell of Michigan. Michigan is not in New York either. Dingell is the senior member of the House of Representatives and, as is said in Wikipedia, "An avid sportsman and hunter, he strongly opposes gun control, and is a former board member of the National Rifle Association. For many years, Dingell has received an A+ rating from the NRA." He is not a nut case, despite your characterization of these people, and his co-sponsorship of that bill gives it powerful backing.

Your distortions shape your argument that there's nothing to worry about because these bills shouldn't be taken seriously. That's what you've been doing for some time. It's a harmful thing to do and it's long past the time when you should have quit doing it.

There's a lot to be worried about. We don't need Kool-Aid or soothing syrup designed to discourage people from taking fast, sensible, coordinated action before there's no possibility of resisting what really is happening. What you--and others--have been doing is dispensing the Kool-Aid in the guise of wise counsel. It isn't wise and never was. It helped get us all in this mess.

Keep backpedaling and you'll wind up sitting in your own lap, which would entertain the multitudes but surprise no one at all.

Note: It's time to let this one go. There's no point in quarreling. We all need to work together.