• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association

D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267620,00.html



WASHINGTON— House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association to bolster existing laws blocking mentally ill people from buying guns.
Lacking support to enact strong new gun measures even after the Virginia Tech shootings, Democrats are instead resurrecting legislation, which has drawn broad bipartisan support and NRA backing, that would improve the national background check system.
The measure, a version of which has passed the House in two previous Congresses but died in the Senate, could come to a House vote as early as next month. It would require states to supply more-thorough records, including for any mental illness-related court action against a would-be gun purchaser.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a strong NRA ally who has been a leading opponent of most gun control legislation, is negotiating with the group on the background-check bill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has tapped Dingell and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. — a leading gun control supporter whose husband was fatally shot by a deranged gunman on the Long Island Railroad — to broker a swift compromise measure that could win passage in the House and Senate.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267620,00.html
 
4

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
imported post

Nancy Pelosi says "Jump", and NRA says "How High?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1820513/posts

What happens when the NRA jumps higher and higher for Nancy? Well, you might just see a situation in the U.S. where you have to get a permission slip from a psychiatrist to own a gun. Don't believe it?Learn how similar techniques were used to transform England in a matter of decades. This is a long article, but it's quite educational.

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm

Here's a message someone posted at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wa-ccw/message/42293regarding Wayne LaPierre's public support for individuals with CCWs in jail for carrying on school grounds.

I attended the 1999 NRA convention in Denver where LaPierre gave that speech. I remember that to his statement of support for "gun-free schools" he received a response of silence and weak applause.

I think the membership back then clearly realized the folly of such an approach. I would hope that the NRA would now show some backbone and renounce such stupidity.

For some reason, I'd guess mostly political, they can't admit that if concealed firearms carried by responsible, law-abiding people is a good thing, then it's a good thing almost anywhere and everywhere.
Click to expand...
 
4

44Brent

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
772
Location
Olympia, WA
imported post

Gun owners could resign from the NRA, but I think there is a better solution. The solution is to do unto Wayne LaPierre as we did to Jim Zumbo.
 
C

cas

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
3
Location
, ,
imported post

This is a better orginization right now http://www.gunowners.org/

Though I warn you that any orginization that is lead by 1 person is very easy to corrupt one man rather than having to corrupt multiple men.
 
V

vrwmiller

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
1,043
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

2nd Amendment gun lobbies are necessary. Whether we agree with them or not. Let's face it...if Congress finally said "Ok, we have all decided that all gun control laws and legislation are unconstitutional, therefore everything will be repealed". What will happen to the NRA and GOA then?

There's nothing for them to fight any longer. So, the pessimistic side of me believes that the gun lobby will do things to prevent certain things from happening, if that organization sees that certain changes are not good for that lobby's future.

On the other hand, the gun carrying law-abiding citzens need a group, or groups, that are willing to lobby for the rights of those people.

As I look at the organizations, I don't doubt that there could potentially be some backhanded deals going on. However, the politics of gun control will always remain the same, I believe. Therefore, anti-gunner's and gun lobbies will always exist, as long as we are a free nation and country.
 
T

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

Someone needs to work with the Dems and try to keep a lid on them.
Our Republican leaders arn't doing it.
 
Kelly J

Kelly J

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
493
Location
Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
imported post

I am in total support of any and all Gun Rights in the United States, and if the NRA is doing good I will support them as well even without a membership, and that goes for GOA, CRTKABA, WMSA, and any other, group, including the largest Group, Public Opinion, so long as it is pro gun.

I appreciate and understand what you are saying, but I thought long and hard about my decision, so it was not a snap judgment on my part, to cancel my membership, I can already hear the counter, we need he numbers to get things done, fine what about all the GUN owners that sit back on their lazy butts and let the few do all the work and reap the benefits, with out a single red cent donated to support the cause, or the others that talk a good fight, but you never see them in the trenches.

I made my decision and will stick by it, and would respect your respect of that decision, even though you may not agree with it!

I am not angry nor wish to be on the attack here but please respect my decision as I respect your opinion.

I have done as you suggested and it has come to no end that I can live with, I don't agree with the compromises of the last few years, it seems that the NRA has turned into a political Group ready to reach this or that compromise in the Guise of gaining ground when in my personal opinion they have not only lost ground they have lost their teeth.
 
Kelly J

Kelly J

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
493
Location
Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
imported post

hlh wrote:
Kelly J wrote:
I have done as you suggested and it has come to no end that I can live with, I don't agree with the compromises of the last few years, it seems that the NRA has turned into a political Group ready to reach this or that compromise in the Guise of gaining ground when in my personal opinion they have not only lost ground they have lost their teeth.
Click to expand...
I can agree with this statement, and this can also be applied to the Republican party, but I'm not ready to give up on either yet. Nothing is perfect, and neither am I. :D
Click to expand...
Then we respectfully agree to disagree!
 
G

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
imported post

I was engaged in a discussion last night on this forum about what it is to be "commited" or "adjudicated mentally deranged". Federal law defines "adjudicated mentally deranged" as "being a danger to ONESELF or others". At that time, I agreed with the idea that the state of Virginia should get on board with the Feds and ban the purchase of firearms by those who have been "adjudicated mentally deranged".

I have thought a lot about it, and I have changed my mind.

The question on the form 4473 asks if you have "ever" been adjudicated mentally deranged. EVER.

Think about it. Say a teenage girl is raped. She becomes so severely depressed that she is suicidal (a danger to herself). She is involuntarily commited to a mental health facility, because her parents contacted the local Community Services Board and they got a court order sending her into treatment. She undergoes counseling, is given medication, and is released after 30 days. She continues counseling for several years after that. She lives in fear of being raped again. Her attacker was never caught. Should she be denied the right to self defense?

Veteran returns from Iraq or Afghanistan. He has been to hell and back. As a gunner on a Bradley, he fired up a heavy machine gun position on a rooftop. The house belowthis roof contained an innocent child, who was killed when the roof collapsed. He becomes so despondent that he attempts suicide, and is committed for a short time. Should he be forever denied the right of self defense?

I can only go along with anyone being denied their rights, for any reason, if there is some provision for restoration of those rights at a later date. Should a suicidal vet be allowed to keep a gun in his hospital room? Of course not. At some point, when his PTSD has been treated and his depression is under control, why shouldn't he be given back his rights under the constitution that he defended?

We can't let Pelosi, Schumer, or any of their crowd railroad this through Congress without a long and hard look at what it means to deprive someone of his rights. Let's not react emotionally, but think about all the ramifications, just like we did when we chose to go armed the first time.
 
kimbercarrier

kimbercarrier

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
721
Location
hampton, Virginia, USA
imported post

I'm afraid of were this could head. First it would be those the court finds mentally ill and then maybe those who voluntarally admit themselves or seek counsuling.

I know it may seem paronoid but if we start in this direction I don't think we would be able to turn around the court of public opinion to repea lany such restrictions.

I see it as the camels nose under the circus tent.
 
G

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
imported post

Nothing paranoid about it. If this goes any farther, we will be toast in the court of public opinion. How can youargue with someone who says " What do you want? Do you want crazy people to have guns?" Entirely too many peoplespend too much time FEELING and not enough time THINKING. They think it can never happen to them. They feel their fear, and don't stop to understand why. Every time the anti'sget another reason to place prior restraint on the right to own a firearm, we lose. They will atempt to place more and more restrictions on us in the name of "reasonable gun control" until our rights are legislated away. Eventually, we will just have to stand up and refuse to take it anymore.

It is better to die on your feet, than to live on your knees.
 
Kelly J

Kelly J

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
493
Location
Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
imported post

glocknroll wrote:
I was engaged in a discussion last night on this forum about what it is to be "commited" or "adjudicated mentally deranged". Federal law defines "adjudicated mentally deranged" as "being a danger to ONESELF or others". At that time, I agreed with the idea that the state of Virginia should get on board with the Feds and ban the purchase of firearms by those who have been "adjudicated mentally deranged".

I have thought a lot about it, and I have changed my mind.

The question on the form 4473 asks if you have "ever" been adjudicated mentally deranged. EVER.

Think about it. Say a teenage girl is raped. She becomes so severely depressed that she is suicidal (a danger to herself). She is involuntarily commited to a mental health facility, because her parents contacted the local Community Services Board and they got a court order sending her into treatment. She undergoes counseling, is given medication, and is released after 30 days. She continues counseling for several years after that. She lives in fear of being raped again. Her attacker was never caught. Should she be denied the right to self defense?

Veteran returns from Iraq or Afghanistan. He has been to hell and back. As a gunner on a Bradley, he fired up a heavy machine gun position on a rooftop. The house belowthis roof contained an innocent child, who was killed when the roof collapsed. He becomes so despondent that he attempts suicide, and is committed for a short time. Should he be forever denied the right of self defense?

I can only go along with anyone being denied their rights, for any reason, if there is some provision for restoration of those rights at a later date. Should a suicidal vet be allowed to keep a gun in his hospital room? Of course not. At some point, when his PTSD has been treated and his depression is under control, why shouldn't he be given back his rights under the constitution that he defended?

We can't let Pelosi, Schumer, or any of their crowd railroad this through Congress without a long and hard look at what it means to deprive someone of his rights. Let's not react emotionally, but think about all the ramifications, just like we did when we chose to go armed the first time.
Click to expand...
Very good point and I do agree that if there is no lnger a threat to oneself or others then there is no reason to deny that person his Constitutional Rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top